My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PRECA 02-06-1980
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
Parks And Recreation
>
Minutes Park & Recreation Commission Meetings P&R 01200
>
AGENDAS
>
1980
>
PRECA 02-06-1980
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2007 3:55:38 AM
Creation date
3/16/2007 7:35:57 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
u <br />3. Build a large storm sewer pipe to carry away all <br />runoff with no ponding in the park. <br />This was discussed with the l~Jatershed District <br />Engineer. He said that they have never permitted <br />that type of plan since their new standards went <br />into effect and it is extremely unlikely that <br />they will in this case. <br />4. New storm sewer pipes from the park to Silver Lake <br />Road and small pond in the northeast corner of the . <br />park. <br />,- <br />I believe that this alternative can be designed to <br />meet the Watershed District's criteria and would <br />have minimal impact on the park. The cost of .this <br />alternative would be about $30,000.00. <br />5. Construct a pond on the vacant parcel to the south <br />of the shopping center. <br />` This alternative is impractical because the storm <br />..sewer which serves this property is too high. Also <br />it is owned by another private party and would be <br />extremely expensive to buy. <br />6. Route the storm drainage to 29th Avenue. <br />This would be similar in all respects to alternative <br />number 3; also the sewer in 29th Avenue would not <br />have been designed for this extra water. <br />Summary. <br />Alternatives number two, three, five and six are impractical. <br />Alternatives number one and four are practical. Of these two, <br />alternative number one is more reasonable since the cost could be <br />much, less. ~„~. <br />A major concern of the City has been that use of the park for <br />ponding will be~`detrimental to the ,park. I do not believe that <br />this concern is justified. Other parks are used for temporary <br />ponding with no detrimental effects. Also, urban, planners consider <br />such dual use of the land to be a wise commitment of public resources. <br />Sincerely, <br />~- <br />James P. DeBenedet, P.E. <br />cc Les Proper <br />JPD/lkt <br />-2- <br />~: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.