Laserfiche WebLink
CASE <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />Case #1 <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />REPORT FROM PUBLIC WORKS <br /> By: Public Works Staff <br /> <br />The Public Works ~ommittee met on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 and discussed the following four cases: <br /> PotaSsium Street Drainage Concerns <br /> <br />The wetland which[r is located on the eastern border of the Village of Sunfish Lake development also <br />extends info the ba~yards of two lots on Potassium Street within the Chestnut Ridge 3rd subdivision. The <br />residents of these t~o lots expressed concern over the drainage charges caused by the new subdivision, <br />since their observation has been that the area surrounding the wetland has been wetter than usual this <br />summer in spite of t~e day period beginning in early July. <br /> <br /> /- . <br />Staff reviewed the d}'mnage submittals and hydraulic modeling which showed: <br /> <br /> (1) The drainage area to this wetland was reduced from 12.43 acres to 4.01 acres. <br /> (2) The r~noff from a 100 year storm event to this wetland was reduced from 0.676 acre feet to <br /> 0.29~ acre feet following full development of Village of Sunfish Lake <br /> (3) A ne~ outlet was set at 863.0, which is 3.1 feet lower than the correct outlet. <br /> (4) A precipitation event which consist of back to back 100~year storm would result in a peak <br /> wate~ elevation of 863.6. This elevation slightly exceeds the drainage and utility easements <br /> on or~e of these two lots. <br /> (5) A prd~cipitation event from a 100-year event would result in a peak water elevation of 861.2. <br /> The ~evation is wholly contained within the drainage and utility eaSements on both lots. <br /> <br />Staff had proposed [that a limited amount of backyard filling may make these residents backyard more <br />useable. There was hot consensus between the residents on this issue. <br /> <br />It was the consensus~ of the Committee and the residents to discuss this issue again in June or July of 2004 <br />and review the wate~ table levels. <br /> <br />Action: <br /> <br />Ratify the recomme~ <br /> <br />Case #2: Cons <br />Background: <br /> <br />dation of the Public Works Committee. <br />der Ordering 2003 Priority Street Lights <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankc ~vski stated that since the early 1990's, the City has pursued a pro,am for installing <br />streetlights at inters~tions along higher speed arterial roadways. Staff presented a list of 12 locations and <br />proposed that lights be installed at these locations with the 2003 budget allotment of $25,000. <br /> <br />Motion was made ito recommend to the City Council authorizing the installation of 2003 priority <br />streetlights. <br /> <br /> -177- <br /> <br /> <br />