Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> To: Michael Mornson <br /> From: Denny Palmer • <br /> Subject: Drainage District 6 <br /> Date: February 26, 1996 <br /> Proiect: 23/27-467 DEP 102 Page 2 <br /> 3. There is no capacity available in city of Minneapolis storm sewers to permit diversion of <br /> enough storm flow to alleviate flooding in St. Anthony. <br /> 4. The practical alternatives for addressing the flooding problems in District 6 are limited. <br /> a. Provide more outlet capacity, which would require augmenting storm sewer <br /> capacity (building an additional pipe) all the way to the I-35 tunnel at the junction of <br /> I-35`V and County Road 88. The estimated cost for such a solution was in the <br /> neighborhood of$16 million. <br /> b. Provide more storage volume in District 6 to hold the water until capacity was <br /> available in existing downstream storm sewers. The estimated cost for this option was <br /> in the neighborhood of$6 million and would have involved the conversion of valued <br /> park land for stormwater purposes. <br /> (Note: Combinations of increased capacity and storage volume were not considered • <br /> because review disclosed that any alternative involving a combination of these <br /> techniques included the most expensive aspects of both, and were therefore less feasible <br /> than alternative "b".) <br /> c. Do nothing and floodproof those structures which are most likely subject to flooding. <br /> The estimated cost for this work was in the neighborhood of$1 million which was <br /> expected to be provided from private rather than public sources. <br /> As a result of the 1992 study, the council elected to pursue "no action/floodproofing" (alternative c) <br /> option because they believed they had neither the resources nor the public support for either of the <br /> structural alternatives (alternatives a and b). <br /> Figure 2 in the pocket of the 1992 report depicts existing flooding conditions. Please refer to this <br /> map to identify problem areas which are addressed by the stormwater storage option illustrated in <br /> Figure 3, also in the pocket of the 1992 report. Figure 3 was prepared to document what we <br /> • <br /> 2327467\35075-1/KMH <br />