Laserfiche WebLink
Res. 7885, Considering Stormwater Infiltration Program Appeals in Area E <br />Page 3 <br />2626 Clearview Avenue (Jodi Daines) – SIP#67 <br />The property owner is appealing for the following reasons: <br />1. safety and maintenance concerns (B1 +B2); <br />2. damage to underground sprinkler system (A9); <br />3. tree concerns; and <br />4. worried about water in basement. <br />• Property owner claims safety and maintenance concerns with disabled and ailing <br />“significant other” that lives at the property and mows the lawn. This person is not listed <br />as a property owner on the Ramsey County property records. A list of his ailments and <br />diagnosis was included with the appeal form but is not attached for privacy concerns. All <br />basins are designed and constructed to be very manageable from a maintenance <br />standpoint with 4:1 (horizontal:vertical) side slopes and only 6 inches deep from the curb <br />cut (12 inches from top back of curb). The yard is flat and the proposed basin should not <br />be any more difficult to mow than the property’s rear yard. <br />• Appeal parameter A9 does not apply to private irrigation sprinkler systems. The portion <br />of the sprinkler system in the city boulevard will need to be removed at the property <br />owner’s expense whether or not the basin is constructed. Property owner attached an <br />estimate for $2,936.85 to the appeal form that appeared to be for a new irrigation system. <br />Regardless, the “cost prohibitive” reference in A9 relates to the City’s cost to construct. <br />• The length of the basin will be shortened to remain essentially outside the tree dripline, <br />whereby significantly reducing the risk of any negative impact on the adjacent trees. <br />• There is no evidence that infiltration into the ground from the basin storage will cause a <br />change in groundwater elevation. [See additional information under SIP#34] <br />• Based on the groundwater elevation data available, there is 3 feet of separation between <br />the bottom of the basin and the ground water elevation as required. <br />• The proposed feature length is 36 feet. The total boulevard length between the driveway <br />and east property line is 50 feet. <br />City staff and the S/U Committee recommend denying this appeal. <br />2653 Clearview Avenue (James Flynn) – SIP#73 <br />The property owner is appealing for the following reasons: <br />1. worried about water in basement (ground water); and <br />2. minimum distance (unclear). <br />• The property owner lives at the corner of Clearview Avenue and Sunnyside Road. The basin <br />is proposed along Sunnyside, but the property owner thought the basin would be constructed <br />along Clearview. In the appeal form, the property owner wrote that he had no objection to an <br />infiltration basin located along Sunnyside Road. <br />• There is no evidence that infiltration into the ground from the basin storage will cause a <br />change in groundwater elevation. [See additional information under SIP#34] <br />• Based on the groundwater elevation data available, there is 3 feet of separation between the <br />bottom of the basin and the ground water elevation as required. <br />• The proposed feature length is 80 feet. The total boulevard length between the driveway <br />and north property line is 130 feet. <br />City staff and the S/U Committee recommend denying this appeal. Stantec personnel met <br />with Mr. Flynn who is OK with the basin as planned.