Laserfiche WebLink
on top of the hard limestone layer utilizing the back yard easements. <br />This alternative appears to be viable and will be investigated in this <br />' study and report. <br />Alternatives <br />Two alternatives for providing sewer service to the Rockridge <br />' <br />of Indian River county are evaluated in this Engineering Study <br />area <br />involves the construction of a conventional <br />and Report. One alternative <br />' <br />gravity collection system with manholes and conventional pumping stations. <br />This alternative is shown on "Exhibit A," which is included as part <br />' <br />of this report. The second alternative is to provide sewage collection <br />and mani- <br />and conveyance services utilizing a system of grinder pumps <br />folded, small PVC force mains. The second alternative is shown on <br />"Exhibit B," which is included as part of this report. <br />Both Exhibits A and B utilize an aerial photograph at a scale <br />' <br />of 1" = 200' placed on one of our standard 24" x 36" plan sheets. The <br />photographed area shows the portion of Indian River County east of <br />' <br />U.S. Highway M1 and south of 17th Street. The project service area <br />Also <br />boundary of this study and report is shown on both exhibits. <br />is the existing 6" diameter PVC force main which is located along <br />shown <br />the west side of 6th Avenue and the south side of 16th Street; the <br />existing 18" concrete force main located along the south side of 18th <br />tStreet; <br />the existing pumping station and force main serving the Fairlane <br />Harbor subdivision to the east of the Rockridge service area and to <br />' <br />the south of the Vero Beach wastewater treatment plant; and the location <br />of the Vero Beach wastewater treatment plant. The service area is <br />bounded on the west by 6th Avenue, on the north by 18th Street, on <br />' <br />the east by 3rd Avenue and on the south by 13th Street. As previously <br />indicated, the service area includes approximately 375 single family <br />' <br />dwelling units. <br />The layout for both alternatives shown on Exhibits A and B are <br />' <br />designed to avoid crossing 17th Street since any crossings of this <br />thoroughfare would result in substantial construction expenses. <br />main <br />Also, crossings of the existing small canal, which divides 16th Street, <br />an undesirable <br />minimized since these crossings would also represent <br />are <br />1 <br />-5- <br />