Agenda - Council - 10/12/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE CONSIDER ZITCO SITE PLAN DRAINAGE ALTERNATIVES - PART A By: Steve Jankowski, City Engineer Background: At the September 28, 1999 Council meeting, two cases (a request for conditional use permit and request for site plan) were tabled pending the outcome of determining how the site would be drained. It was noted that drainage improvements are essential to the success of this development. The purpose of this case is to address the manner in which drainage is to be installed and financed. Once this issue is successfully resolved, the conditional use permit for self-storage units and site plan approval can be addressed as Part B and C of this case. One obvious engineering solution to the issue of drainage would be to construct a storm sewer beneath the railroad and discharge the collected run-off from this site into a regional storm water pond that the City had constructed to accommodate the drainage of Business Park 95. The site plan offered for the Zitco development is consistent with this general drainage scheme. The Staff Review Letter dated September 3, 1999, recommended that discussion needs to take place regarding the financing for this storm sewer. Two options are offered for this financing. First, Zitco could obtain permission from th~ City to discharge their run-off into this regional pond and design and install a private storm sewer from their property to the regional pond. This option would have the advantage of placing the schedule directly in the control of Zitco. A second option would be to order a public improvement project as provided by City Code for the construction and installation of a public storm sewer to service both Zitco and adjacent parcels. The advantage of this alternative is that it would provide a more comprehensive and planned approach to providing a drainage solution to existing problems and future development. Such a project would be initiated by directing a feasibility study to be prepared addressing both the nature and extent of the improvements along with the financing. The disadvantage of this optio~n is that the process could not anticipate construction until spring 2000 at the earliest. A thi~:rl option would be to revise the scope of the proposed development by eliminating the self-storage units and utilizing the area for a detention pond. This option has the following advantages: (1) It allows the opportunity for fall construction, which is important to the property owner. (2) The pond could easily become a part of a future regional drainage system and would reduce the pipe size, cost, and perhaps even the necessity of boring under the railroad tracks. The disadvantages would be that it doesn't allow for as intensive development of the property as desired by the owner, and it wouldn't eliminate existing drainage problems or the need for a comprehensive storm sewer system for the area. Recommendation: Staff recommends the alternative of initiating a public improvement project to address the drainage for the area, since it would have the greatest public benefit. However, any of the above are viable options. }33