The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEGD-021-10Clarington Leading tfie Way E Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND AD Date: Monday July 5, 2010 Report #: EGD-021-10 File #: Subject: KENDAL DRAINAGE REVIEW Unfinished Business REPORT NGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT MINISTRATION COMMITTEE GPA--Si//- is Resolution #: ~'-3a8-/0 C'-3s -/o By-law #: Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: THAT Report EGD-021-10 be received; 2. THAT Engineering Services recommend the implementation of the preferred Option #3 contained in report EGD-021-10, Construction of a ditch on the south side of Regional Road 9, directing flow easterly to the watercourse immediately east of Regional Road 18; 3. THAT Engineering Services complete the detailed design for Option #3 and conduct a Public Information Centre for this project and obtain input from area residents and stakeholders; 4. THAT construction of the recommended option be completed in 2010 construction season; THAT funding for the works be reallocated from the Bowmanville Creek Erosion Protection budget item, account no. 110-32-340-83234-7401; and 6. THAT remaining funds from the Bowmanville Creek Erosion Protection account be carried over to the 2011 Budget and additional funding to complete the work be considered as part of the 2011 Budget. CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 F 905-623-9282 REPORT NO.: EGD-021-10 PAGE 2 Respectfully by, i~~.-- SL fitted by: A.S. Cannella Director of Engineering Services F.~ J~~ ~ Reviewed by: Franklin Wu Chief Administrative Officer ASC/bb/jb/dv June 28, 2010 REPORT NO.: EGD-021-10 1.0 BACKGROUND PAGE 3 1.1 The Hamlet of Kendal is home to approximately 65 residential properties ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 hectares in size, a local public school, recreational facilities, and a general store. stormwater management is currently provided by a system of swales, open ditches and culverts that draw overland flow east to Regional Road 18 and south to outlet at the Smiths Creek tributary of the Ganaraska River. Due to a relatively flat topography, recurrent flooding has occurred at various locations within the hamlet during spring run-off and high-intensity rainfall events. 1.2 In 1990, TSH (currently AECOM) was directed by the Municipality to develop a proposal to improve drainage within the hamlet. A plan was prepared to construct a comprehensive storm sewer system in three phases at a cost of $1.0 million (1990 dollars); however, further work was deferred due to financial constraints and the need to pursue projects with higher priority. 1.3 In 1994, the unresolved drainage issues were brought to the attention of Council by local residents and TSH was advised to revisit the original project design and investigate the feasibility of discharging all or part of Kendal's storm drainage to the north-south drainage course which is located on the west side of Regional Road 18. A preliminary survey was conducted on Regional Road 18 and concerns were raised that the depth of ditching required to support proper drainage of the hamlet would be cost prohibitive. 1.4 To further investigate the feasibility of both the original three-phased stormwater drainage plan and the Regional Road 18 stormwater drainage concept, the Report on Soil Conditions for Hamlet of Kendal Storm Sewer & Road Reconstruction (June 6, 1994) was commissioned and prepared by Site Investigation Services Limited. Report findings concluded that a high groundwater table would render proposed design alternatives cost prohibitive and cited concerns over the probable disturbance of the groundwater table and the potential adverse effects on domestic wells that would result from installation of REPORT NO.: EGD-021-10 PAGE 4 the storm sewers. At this time, a petition signed by 38 residents in opposition of the proposed sewer construction was also received by Municipal staff and a mutually agreeable decision was made between residents and the Municipality not to proceed with construction of a storm sewer system. 1.5 At the November 9, 2009 Council meeting the Engineering Services department was requested to research drainage issues along Regional Road 9 from Kendal Church Street to Regional Road 18 as they relate to the overall drainage of Kendal. Due to both current and historical concerns, the Municipality requested AECOM to renew efforts and find an amenable solution that would address the hamlet of Kendal's most pressing drainage needs. 1.6 In the spring of 2010, complaints were received by the Municipality from the owner of 43 Kendal Church Street regarding poor drainage from the property through the informal swale system that exists on the block bounded by Kendal Church Street, Monck Street, and Regional Roads 9 & 18 (see Attachment 1- Existing Conditions drawing). As part of their ongoing work associated with the preparation of their report AECOM investigated these complaints and photographed the situation to document the concerns. 1.7 Subsequent study of the project's pre-history and current conditions revealed three alternative solutions: 1. Do nothing 2. Comprehensive Shallow-Pipe/Ditching System 3. Ditching Improvements Ditching Improvements was evaluated as the preferred solution due to previous concerns regarding high groundwater table conditions and the hamlet's flat topography which would render a Comprehensive Shallow-Pipe/Ditching System largely unfeasible. REPORT NO.: EGD-021-10 PAGE 5 1.8 Four ditching options were then developed under the preferred solution, based on mitigation of drainage concerns, impact on the environment, impact on property owners and financial cost. These four options are graphically represented in Attachments 2 through 5 as follows: • Option 1: Formalize Existing Back Yard Swale-Preliminary estimated cost: $180,000 o Advantages -follows existing drainage patterns o Disadvantages - reliance on individual property owners to keep swale maintained and unaltered - uncertainty of subsurface existing conditions and environmental impacts (i.e. septic beds) - perceived or actual damage to private septic systems caused by swale construction - legal easements should be procured to ensure future access -does not address road runoff from Regional Road 9 • Option 2: Improve Ditch: Kendal Church Street and Monck Street- Preliminary estimated cost: $150,000 o Advantages -within existing Right of Way o Disadvantages - Right of Way is narrow thus requiring the shallow sewers -sewer slopes would be less than desired but are constrained due to existing condition of inlet and outlet - does not address road runoff from Regional Road 9 • Option 3: Construct New Ditch: Regional Road 9 (South Side) directing flow easterly-Preliminary estimated cost: $110,000 o Advantages REPORT NO.: EGD-021-10 PAGE 6 -within existing Right of Way -directs flow from Kendal Church Street culvert away from rear yard drainage swale - captures road runoff and directs it away from private property -provides potential well draining outlet for sump pumps o Disadvantages - impact to existing entrances off of Regional Road 9 -minor grading required on private property to provide flatter ditch side slopes to allow for easier maintenance - relocation of utilities required • Option 4: Improve Ditch: Regional Road 9 (North Side) flows easterly - Preliminary estimated cost: $90,000 o Advantages - within existing Right of Way -directs flow from Kendal Church Street culvert away from rear yard drainage swale - minimal impact to existing residents o Disadvantages -does not capture road runoff and direct it away from private property -does not provide potential outlet for sump pumps - relocation of utilities required 1.9 Study findings were subsequently documented in the Kendal Stormwater Drainage Review (AECOM, June 2010) with a recommendation to proceed forward under Options 3 which is briefly evaluated below: • Option 3 proposes new ditch construction on the south side of Regional Road 9 with a significant improvement of overall drainage for adjacent properties while having a marginally higher cost due to affected private drive entrances and utility relocation cost. • In addition to conveying flows from the cross culvert just south of Regional REPORT NO.: EGD-021-10 PAGE 7 Road 9 on Kendal Church Street it also captures road run off and directs flows away from the properties towards an outlet to the east. • This option also provides property owners with an alternative location for discharging their sump pumps where the flows will be directed away from their property. 2.0 PROPOSED APPROACH 2.1 Further effort is required to proceed to construction and provide timely relief for residents who have been struggling with this long-standing issue. Public consultation will offer a step forward by providing interested residents with an opportunity to understand the complexities involved, review the preferred option as noted and provide, their input. To this end, detailed design of the preferred option should proceed for presentation at a Public Information Centre. (PIC) with construction following shortly thereafter taking into consideration the input of the residents and stakeholders. 3.0 FUNDING 3.1 Opportunity exists to move forward in the current budget year through reallocation of funding for the Bowmanville Creek Erosion Protection works. Estimates for the Bowmanville Creek project were initially made on the basis of a conceptual design and, upon the completion of detailed design, were found to be significantly higher than the budgeted amount of $200,000. As such, Engineering Services was planning to defer works for the project to the 2011 budget year, provided that additional funding could be committed during 2011 budget deliberations, and has reviewed financing possibilities for the Kendal drainage works by utilizing the Bowmanville erosion protection funding from account number 110-32-340-83234-7401. 3.2 The Municipality could also benefit from delay of the Bowmanville Creek Erosion Protection project due to the recently passed Development Charge By-law REPORT NO.: EGD-021-10 PAGE 8 update and staff will review potential to fund a portion of the work with Development Charge reserves as the work has a growth related component to it. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Given the above, Engineering Services concurs that Bowmanville Creek funding should be utilized for the Kendal drainage works and that additional funding should be sought for the Bowmanville erosion protection project as part of the 2011 budget. It is further recommended that: 1. Detailed design of Option 3 as described above and defined in the Kenda! Stormwater Drainage Review proceed to completion; 2. A Public Information. Centre be conducted for Kendal residents and stakeholders to review the preferred option; and 3. Construction of the preferred option be tendered and constructed in the 2010 construction season. Attachments: Attachment 1 -Existing Conditions Attachment 2 -Design Option 1 Attachment 3 -Design Option 2 Attachment 4 -Design Option 3 Attachment 5 -Design Option 4 ~ i~ l~i#e~ C a w W i yy.. s M " ~ V ~ ~ , ~ a ~ eg~, : o g: ~ i~qt ~ ~e ~sfl ~~ ~ Nz a x ~ . X ~ i 'ss=~ y a f~ 4 < ~~394 ~ ;;e;i ii tee ~~ ~ a ~ a Us ~ o ~ x _ ££ w 7 s ~ ~ 3 'j s 33 ~a i ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ snob NosawaNl ^ ~ / ~ \ ~", ~. ~ I ~~ , ~_ ~ ~ ~ ra ~~, ~ ~ ~_ ~94UZJN 1YN01'J3b~10K0b13Tb{NUliA3N w 'J , _ ~~q ~ ~~U'f e e m~ 4 \\ ~w ~~u _041 ~ '~~ ,~ 1 <~ ' -~ a~ eo _ ( _ 1 1 \) ~~' ~ a~8 ~~ o.. ~/ ~W ~ w.„.,m .~ ~ ... 133b18 A3MJ10 ..p( ~` I ~. \ ~ i 21 ~ ~ , W IW m Iii ~o J 1':q bw y ~ a 6 b Y l ~1~ A - ~f , z Y~ ( - ~m I a #f a ~ ~J ~ i r a~ w ~~ ee o ~\~,,~~ p ~ • ~ ~~ w ~ p w , ~~ I I l ~° ~~~ s~ I w r ~ j e ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ `~a ( o a ~~ '~O ~; 133b18 aN3N ~ / \ / NJL'ONJ 1b '~ ~ x ~~i~i ~w ~,,. I ~'~i r` iF _~.- ~' _ ~ ~ ~,s ~ ~ r ~ ~-- ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~i~ ~. -~ 9noaauNm l ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ I ~~lf ~~ ~ ~ , ff''ll I I A~1 ~ "a ~I~ ~V ~ ~~~ 1~/ ~ ~~. ~ ~ ~ Attachment 1 ~§ A ~ rw n e ~ 9 ?[:~~~ ~' ae~ WaBaaE ~' t- a $w M $ 8 3 ~tF j~R~7 ~s~ ~ w ` ~ ~ E * ggOpg~F [,a~. A zo a R ~~~ w ~~ 5C9€ f€dp 6~ - S~d gg wY € ® (~ ~_.. Sel.€! 3 U 1 g - '~ '~ -atloa Noeawowa- ~ ~ + \~ i 6~~ ` i g1TVpa6l'VNOI'J3lInpMOaR3l+l1/~NO~I'NS3N ~ ___ ~,..I, _ ~ r ~ r ~7i o~' ~~~~ } t i am O ' ids =c\ io e i 111ff/// ,~ n„ i --a oa ,~ r - ,~ ~ _~ =w o= ' _ ,~ ~_ ._ - ~I i ~ p~ ; A. ~ ( ~ _ 133b13 A3bOlp~ n a~ ~ z ~ r i O , ~. /~ s t ~~~~ Y ~ .,1 ~ f °sF r i ._. ~:@ _XS °133tl13AON ~~ r, _ i w :G (' i ;~3 ~ 9E ~~ / Y'~ " ~ :~ 9G ~ Sn YV i,~ ~ ' ~ ~ w ._: f rc +G " g-w ~, ~ l ~ ~ .~ , ,_._ H ~~ u j 1~ o r~~ . ~ a` '-•, 133b13 H~bpH N OltlpN3 ~~ ~~~~\~-j"spy ) „t - ~ ~ ~ r { a " ~ i \r\ `v. ~ N (,,. ~~ \ .,~,t~ E Jf `// i ~- ~~ \ \~ :1 ptlpa3LHM ~~ ~~ i ~, ~~' Attachment o k ~ ~ _ a ~p~~~ ttfi E~~ pV ~~~ 3 0~ 4Wu` s ~iEe R g ~''~ a c y o g g$~~ t{2131 ~ a°=` • a <~ oiQ~ K ~§ o f ~, % C~I ~ ~ .anoa NOSawoNl -t j---~ ~ f ~~ 1 - ~ i ,. ~~ ~$ ~~ - - ~ I~tloa6l3NOT03$)IOYOai3"IlIAN6EN3 ._._ _ _. .f..~,._ _. ~._. _. w r w 1 on _ - ~ ~= I a~ ° ' P &~ ~ E „1~ 1 ~ ~~ ~~ ~ _ ~a P o ~ , ~ '¢m y o -.. W~ ' 1~ 4 F ~~ a ~~1 ~ W a ~ ep8 ~ r'# ~ ,1 1 ''133b1SA n ',J r 3HOIO v ~ G2 ~n _ \ I 4~ 2w ~ ~ w ~ __ Soy ) ~~" ,~,~ ~1 ~~ J w i _.. p& y p ~ ~ ~. ~ ~~~*J f) ' 3 w i o ~ n 133a1S AON /~' !~ _ ; 11 w 1 x 1 .' ` 1 ~~~ 1 or •u r I wz ~ 'AC I E~ \~ w V w g. z n e """ T'w----- """'nww _ w ~ ~ ~~ f~ ~ ~ s V i'. ~' ~ 3 ~ ~.. ®, ~ x.-_.iYq ~ ~~ ,;off f 133b1S N.~LLI1H0 ~ ~. zi ~~YON3N ~~ '~ n z y ~ M ~ ~ ~ g; x Li_ u z I ~i: i• _.. .~ '-~ Attachment 3 _ ~ _ N p e y I ' ~~ 1 roa 31~HM I ~~ ~, 5 '1 °~~ ryyt SFa I,'.f : ~ ~ 2 K r3 a w - g 'a ~ ya: ~ ~ ~ qq; ~ i ~ 4~ ~x sEa 3 LL k ~ ~~ ae 3sFGi s ~/ BS ., rcrc i~ -' e ~ ~asH ~~~~ t i[~. el' y1J ltd t[ / ~ V/ g~g _ ~ ~ gig ~ 34° ~ 5` Oo ° 2 Q - F~~ 00. £ s ~ i @z $ Y ~ s S €~v ~Ii~E~ ~ ~a W 0 ~ - a ~~~~g .sE: ~ _ e ~ ~ ' j ~ :c ° Ev ~~ 4 r ~ 2e O W= ~Og ~ ~ ~ i.. J u ( s N V 4 i~ nu ON e O ~ 5 ~ CU ~ ] // ~i 9~S ~ os n I u `~~ ~~ ~ p co ` i 4 ~ i~g 8° i _ 11 ~ ~ W c : I ~ 133a15A3MJ10~ n ~ M1\ WOn.. 8~~ ~ ...V y JG ~~I ;a 1 1 S po ~& ?w ' z ` ,``~\^ `r\\ _.. 3~& > .. _. ~~133}j15 AOM l- 14 V ~ ~ ~ `~ Saes r A"' Jr/" r „'" / o^ ~ € ~ =n \ z ~ 3G 1 L i w ~ W ~ N F I f a0 ~ O ~t 0 > ~~ ~~ ~fi~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ J w ~~ 133b~ n 'ten ~O~T/UN3M ~~ ~ _~~l'l'~l~ \ o' uC~ ~ iw f N a i w fl ~ .~ a ~ ~ _ ~ :~ , ~ _~ ~ ~ 1 r\~ r ,---~ ~ J ~~1~ \~. fir= Attachment 4 __ ~~ 3.t~i~ ~. ; w3 ~ `s N o N ~ ~ ~ax a{' sA rcw oe. ' a o p ~ U ae_ 3 O _ ~ p 8 "L3 dPtt~ '- ~ ~ v~iQ d ~ p~ i 8 5 n ` F €~r'fr ~g~a' ~ rah w a~ ~i. 7 £ ~ I~ g~~B in r € Y~ I I ~ i i I °~ o o "_: dos c , °~~ S€ i a ~ ~ ,~ .. yy s ~ ' ~ f e ~. } w z w i,°,~ , E~ a ~ o 0 40 ~ _ ;4 2 N 3 r ~ a ~ ,.ar. ' WW vm .. 1 W N XO~ E~& ~ ~ ~ II 1 F: ' Q OX'.' ~_~.. __ _.. W ~n ~E ~p /+ ~C' ~~ ~ G x ~ ~~~ 8ag / £ i N' iG $w ~l ~ i ly/ ~ ~ V n i F m t O. a~ ~ s ~ {yl 2 ~ ~ x~.u. ~~~ F ( 8w 6~ ~ ~, C w ° :w I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ y w w 1 i a f ~ ~ p~ ~ V U w ¢ I• ~ ._.~ 133N18H ZfOH9 rypM3N.,.. ~~ ~ w o ~~ > Ia= I ~ o0 N u ~~I ' F w x y `w I au y ~ Y w nN L~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ w r z ~ " F~ ~ I ~ ~~ '~~/ ,di ~ .$ ~ __ ,, ~ i AttacM1ment 5