LP-108 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" HJ!'.... 4f. ...~ . , j" ,~' D~WtYNE C. OLSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS INCORPORATED .J. October 31, 1980 Board of Managers Rice Creek Watershed District Suite 177 Arden Plaza 3585 Lexington Avenue North Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 Re: Permit #80-91, Gordon Rendering Company Gentlemen: We herein submit for your consideration and review the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan for the Gordon Rendering Company site located in the City of New Brighton. We have also included drainage calculations, cost estimates, and recommendations for consideration of alternate drainage schemes. The developed site contains three drainage areas labeled 1,2 and 3 on the Drainage Plan. We have analyzed four separate plans (Plan A through Plan D) that are combinations of ideas and suggestions that were developed through discussionswiVh the owner, and your Engineers. The owners and ourselves feel Plans A,B, and C would be unacceptable, while Plan D would be acceptable. Plan A was developed to achieve runoff rate control and quality control for the north half of Drainage Area 3. The proposed addi- tion to the existing building would be drained to the west into a holding pond dug into the hillside and discharged through a weir and outlet pipe, 0.3 acres could be treated abd controlled under this_,plan. A cost breakdown is attached which estimates the con- struction for Plan A to be $4,145 excluding land costs. This is equivalent to a unit cost of $13,816 per acre for runoff and quality control. It is our opinion this would not be cost effective con- sideringthe time and resources necessary to implement this plan. Plan B would include a weir and berm to provide ponding and quality control for Drainage Area #3. Several problems are evident that make this plan infeasible. The weir on C.B. #3 would be placed within that portion of the roadway used for both traffic circulating around the building and the trucks backing into the bay at the southwest corner of the building. A berm along the southern edge of the pavement would cause two distinct problems. First, the floor elevation,'of the building is only one foot above the catchbasin inlet and would be flooded before any appreciable storage of water could take place within the roadway. Second, a berm would interfere with the loading and unloading of railway cars necessary for the operati6n of the plant. Also, it is questionable if anything could be done in this area since the railroad right-of-way extends so close to the 1611 Highway #10 N.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55432 (612) 780-1540