Laserfiche WebLink
July 29, 2002 <br />Mr. Seth Eggessa <br />1992 Cleveland Ave. <br />Roseville, MN 55113 <br />RF: 1992 ( '7leveland Drainage <br />Dear Mr. Eggessa, <br />This correspondence is a final request for the completion of work on Your property (at 1 992 <br />Cleveland) which � <br />s stl l l required udder Iu� 1 d i �� perrrY it -13 I am ref errin to the <br />increased drainage which has occurred from your property onto the adjacent property to the north <br />(2000 Cleveland) which was specifically prohibited on the approved plans of this p ermit. <br />The original building permit (A99-1350) was for a 1 400 square foot addition to your home. <br />registered survey of your lot indicated the site sloped, and surface storm water drained. from east to <br />west onto Cleveland Avenue. As part of the permit approval process the Engineering Department <br />added � � F <br />e a comment to the approved plans (of which you received a copy when the permit was issued <br />in 1 999) that drainage roust net flow north. plans did not indicate an elevation change was to occur <br />on the site. <br />Following completion of the framing, and regrading around the addition, it was brought to the city's <br />attention that this unapproved regrading was causing spring runoff and storm water runoff to flow <br />off the property to the north, which again, was specifically prohibited on this pennit. Followin <br />g <br />conversations with Building Inspector .lames Henneck gutters were installed* in a haphazard <br />fashion, to deliver roof run off to the rear of the structure. This installation did not} however, stop <br />increased storm/ spring runoff from flowing north because it did not account for the regrading which <br />g g <br />had occurred. Subsequently, the gutter extension were rerouted to deliver roof runoff to the merest. <br />However this still did not address the regrading runoff and actually worsened the situation by now <br />delivering roof runoff onto the driveway of the property to the north (2000 Cleveland). <br />In June of 2001 the City again requested you correct the permit violation. Another request was <br />made in November. In December of 2001 you responded that you would not be able to act on our <br />request until the surmrner of 2002. The city followed up by requesting correction be completed h <br />p y <br />July of 2002 or the city would pursue legal means to correct the violation (copy attached)- In June <br />of 2002 you indicted to me _ a conversation that you had no intention of correcting the dFaina e <br />violation- <br />