Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~. Improved public health environment. <br /> <br />16. Road Closure" <br />The only existing street crossing which is not to be <br />replaced in the master plan is Mariposa Street. The <br />proposed closure has been discussed with the Denver <br />Traffic Department and Parks Department. <br /> <br />F. Lower cost open space. <br /> <br />G. Improved quality of classified streams. <br /> <br />H. Sources of fill material for use in flood plain areas <br />along the Platte River. <br /> <br />I. Development of otherwise undevelopable land. <br /> <br />Crossings are not provided for existing dead-end roads. <br />Where feasible, suggested locations for cul-de-sacs or <br />rerouting of dead-end streets and alleys are indicated <br />on the plan for the benefit of traffic engineers. The <br />cost for rerouting or cul-de-sacing existing dead-end <br />streets or alleys is not included in the cost estimate. <br /> <br />J. Opportunities for lower building construction costs. <br /> <br />14. Existing Utilities <br /> <br />Available information on existing sanitary sewers, storm <br />sewers, water lines, gas lines, and telephone conduits is <br />represented on the master plan sheets. Inaccuracies in the <br />available information are inevitable. The prolife~ation <br />of water and sanitation districts serving the Lakewood area <br />which do not have staffs for updating as-built drawings <br />adds to this problem. In numerous cases, it is evident <br />that sanitary sewe~s must exist in streets where they arc <br />not noted on Dist~ict as-built drawings. In these cases, <br />assumed sewer locations and elevations are indicated on the <br />maps. <br /> <br />MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS <br /> <br />Sanita~y sewers and large water transmission mains have been <br />considered as major design constraints. The majority of <br />smaller utilities are considered as moveable items. The <br />cost of expected utility relocations are inCluded in cost <br />estimates. <br /> <br />A primary concern to any urban drainage project is the continued <br />maintenance operations associated with its construction. Main- <br />tenance operations are necessary for any drainage facility. <br />Normally, maintenance costs increase as construction costs <br />decrease. This may not be true in all cases but seems to be <br />the general rule. The City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin has an <br />extensive system of grass lined channels which have been well <br />maintained for many years. Their maintenanoe operation <br />generally consists of mowing of grass and weeds on a regula: <br />basis, reseeding of eroded areas as needed, removal of debr~s <br />on an annual basis and removal of silt as necessary (every <br />two to five years). <br />Their maintenance experience indicates that approximately 1,200 <br />man-hours per mile per year/are required on the open channel <br />system. Equipment utilized by this force includes one dump <br />truck, two six foot mowers, three 24 inch self propelled mowers <br />an1 18 dozen hand grass whips for USE by summer s~udent help. <br /> <br />Field surveys to verify utility locations and elevations <br />must be completed prior to final design of any portion <br />of the project. <br /> <br />These figures were obtained from Mr. Ted B. Prawadzik, Chief <br />Sewer Design Engineer, Bureau of Engineers, City of Milwaukee. <br />A basic item of the design criteria for all sections of channel <br />in this study is the continUance of a maintenance access route <br />alonc the channel bottoms. Wherever fe<lsible, this access <br />route will take the form of a maintenance road wide enough on <br />which to operate motorized equipment. In areas of narrow right- <br />~ -.... th- m"'~~~~~~~-~ -~~~-- _~..k~ -"-, ~-l" b^ - '0"- ~~~t <br />()~-..,,~, .., "..."~~",,,,~~ ,,~~~~~ ...v,,~~ .,,"~ v..}: V" ~ _~ ~v_ <br />wide path for foot traffic. In areas where the foot path cannot <br />be constructed, a paved invert will generally be utilized <br />minimizing the amount of maintenance necessary. <br /> <br />IS. Local Storm Drainage <br />Although the master planning of the gulches docs not deal <br />directly with the problems of local storm drainage, con- <br />sideration shall be given to local drainage requirements <br />and constraints wherever possible. The proposed design <br />d"finit~ly d,-..,,, l10t ",olv!> illl th" f'Tohlpm., of local dr"inagp <br />in the basins. Inflow from local area side basins were . <br />identified in approximate location and may vary when bas~ns <br />are finally sewered. <br /> <br />-'10- <br /> <br />-91- <br />