Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />CHAPTER VI - RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> <br />REACH-D <br />I. <br />2. <br /> <br />(Caley Avenue to Denver Highline Canal) <br />IOO-year detention facility <br />Denver Highline Canal spill structure <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />A. General <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The purpose of the Major Drainageway Planning study for the Upper Slaughter- <br /> <br /> <br />house Gulch Basin was to delineate the drainage problems, evaluate several alterna- <br /> <br /> <br />tives for reducing flood damages, determine the best alternative plan using economic, <br /> <br /> <br />legal, and environmental criteria, and prepare preliminary design drawings for the <br /> <br />selected alternative plan. The drawings are subsequently used to regulate the <br /> <br />floodplain plan for future development, and identify needed improvements. The <br /> <br /> <br />results and conclusions of the study are: <br /> <br />REACH-E (Denver Highline Canal to Arapahoe Road) <br />I. 5-year storm sewer <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />As part of the selected alternative plan, the following recommendations are <br />also made: <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />J. The delineated IOO-year floodplain should be adopted and regulated. <br /> <br />2, Subsequent to implementation of the alternatives, the residual floodplain, <br /> <br /> <br />as shown on the drawings, should also be regulated. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />B. Selected Alternative <br /> <br />3. The purchase of flood insurance for those properties within the IOO-year <br />floodplain should be encouraged. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The recommendations of improvements in the Phase-A study were reviewed by the <br /> <br /> <br />City of Littleton, Arapahoe County, and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control Dis- <br /> <br />trict (UD&FCD). The recommendations were accepted by all entities for Phase-B <br /> <br /> <br />preliminary design with some additions and modifications, <br /> <br />4. Adequate maintenance access (a minimum flat surface width of IO-feet) should <br />be provided to all facilities. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />5. Adequate erosion control measures should be included for all channel improve- <br />ments and structures. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The selected alternative plan (see Figure V-I) is basically a combination of <br /> <br />storm water detention and major conduit. The selected alternative is described in <br /> <br /> <br />detail in Section V-A of this report and the major components are summarized below. <br /> <br />6. New development within the watershed should provide on-site erosion control <br /> <br />during construction to limit the amount of siltation in the drainageway <br /> <br /> <br />during frequent runoff events. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />REACH-A <br />I. <br /> <br />(Powers Park to Littleton City Limits) <br />5-year storm sewer <br /> <br />7. <br /> <br />Purchase or dedication of drainage easements which will be necessary for <br />implementing the drainageway improvements. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />REACH-B (Littleton City Limits to Grant Street) <br />I. 5-year channel <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />C. Improvement Costs <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />REACH-C (Grant Street to Caley Avenue) <br /> <br /> <br />I. 5-year storm sewer <br /> <br />2. Local collector from Pennsylvania Street to Clarkson Street <br /> <br />3. Local collector along Grant Street from Caley Street to Pennsylvania Street <br /> <br />A detailed cost estimate of the improvements for the selected alternative plan <br /> <br /> <br />was prepared for the master plan drawings. The costs were divided into the following <br /> <br /> <br />categories: <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />-41- <br /> <br />-42- <br /> <br />I <br />