pf_03513 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Minnesota July 29, 2002 Mr. Seth Eggessa 1992 Cleveland Ave. Roseville, MN 55113 RE: 1992 Cleveland Drainage Dear Mr. Eggessa, This correspondence is a final request for the completion of work on your property (at 1992 Cleveland) which is still required under Building Permit # A 99-1350. I am referring to the increased drainage which has occurred from your property onto the adjacent property to the north (2000 Cleveland) which was specifically prohibited on the approved plans of this permit. The original building permit (A 99-1350) was for a 1400 square foot addition to your home. A registered survey of your lot indicated the site sloped, and surface storm water drained, from east to west onto ClevelLmd Avenue. As part of the permit approval process the Engineering Department added a comment to the approved plans (of which you received a copy when the permit was issued in 1999) that drainage must not flow north. Plans did not indicate an elevation change was to occur on the site. Following completion of the framing, and regrading around the addition, it was brought to the city's attention that this unapproved regrading was causing spring runoff and storm water runoff to flow off the property to the north, which again, was specifically prohibited on this pemlit. Following conversations with Building Inspector Janles Henneck gutters were installed, in a haphazard fashion, to deliver roof run off to the rear of the structure. This installation did not, however, stop increased storm/spring runoff from flowing north because it did not account for the regrading which had occurred. Subsequently, the gutter extension were rerouted to deliver roofrunotTto the west. However, this still did not address the regrading runoff and actually worsened the situation by now delivering roof runoff onto the driveway of the property to the north (2000 Cleveland). In June 01'2001 the City again requested you correct the permit violation. Another request was made in November. In December 01'2001 you responded that you would not be able to act on our request until the summer of 2002. The city followed up by requesting correction be completed by July of 2002 or the city would pursue legal means to correct the violation (copy attached). In June of 2002 you indicted to me in a conversation that you had no intention of correcting the drainage violation.