03-12-18-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

additional sedimentation in the wetland" for lot 1 and added flow to the street. He further notes that depending on the Lot 1 house design, water hitting that roof would flow unimpeded down into the extreme slope[11] wetland or onto the driveway (which we just noted, does not direct water to the basins). He notes the basins, particularly the southern one, are simply not located in the right places and appear to be crammed into the available location rather than an effective location (this statement further supported by the RCWD comments). I contacted RCWD directly about the appeal process or if they took the 2012 steepening of the grade into account but have not hear back. Secondly, and equally (more?) concerning: stormwater basins require maintenance. The city has stated multiple times they are not responsible for maintenance; the plan says the city is not responsible for maintenance; the RCWD simply says "there must BE a plan" but does not indicate what it is. What wording is being included to ensure they are maintained and inspected properly and what penalty is there for not doing so? The original proposed plan involves cutting the grass, removing sediment, removing debris, and inspecting (now that it's a proposed filtration basin there should be additional maintenance steps than on the original plan). There are other items like doing inspections themselves, logging said inspections with RCWD, and reporting maintenance tasks to the RCWD. As Mr. Bachler read at the Feb 7 meeting, some of the requirements are "submitting report annually listing inspections, dates, conditions, actions taken, etc.". These read like municipality tasks, not individual homeowner tasks (who would be responsible for their own inspections rather than a 3rd party). Further, this is protecting a city resource affecting dozens of homes -- yet the city wouldn't be party to the maintenance at all? Who will be ensuring their they are maintained, safe, don't stagnate and turn into mosquito nests, and remain effective? There are no comments in the plans about ensuring the swales, catchment basin, and under-driveway piping is maintained by this homeowner or subsequent homeowners. Who foots the bill when they fail? This is particularly concerning given the closeness to the wetlands, the lack of space to do a true infiltration basin (which has a longer lifecycle), and inadequate soil for the lower-maintenance infiltration style basins. A cost study done for the MN PCA and US EPA by Barr Engineering shows the average cost (in 2010 dollars) of basins that covers a commensurate amount of land in St. Paul is around 30k-50k. That seems like an amount higher than we could expect a single homeowner to cover quickly in the event of a failure. These are not cheaply created, not cheaply repaired, and the PCA/USEPA and Weiss study on costs effectively says that one can expect to pay 5-12%[10] of the construction costs per year when amortized to keep these effective. It's further worth noting that the cost survey index seems to show these basins are almost exclusively owned and run by cities/counties or large organizations like universities. Contrary to the incorrect statement by the applicant's engineer during the Feb 7 Planning commission meeting when he said "there is no infiltration, there is no filtration, those items are the high maintenance situations [and aren't applicable here]", the RCWD is specifically requiring filtration basins (RCWD Permit Number 17-121, Findings section #2). With the owner moving and the applicant not being from the city and having a poor history of follow through in the area, as well as unknown future owners taking on the task (both physically and financially) of protecting our shared wetlands, I'm concerned this won't be well done in the out years and the city will be stuck with a bill and/or the wetland will be damaged. Property Sizes: