Right of way
Mary Miller
Jeff Firestone
|
Hello Neighbors,
First, I apologize for not sending this out sooner. Mary had asked me to summarize the meeting for the BPNA stormwater e-mail list. In dealing with my work deadlines, and gathering more information, I didn’t get it done. At least some of us can read this before the next meeting (neighborhood, tonight; stormwater Thursday).
On October 7th, The City of Bloomington Utilities met with those of us from BPNA who were available. Utilities was represented by Phil Peden, the engineer, and Patrick Murphy, the director. They are the two who talked to the neighborhood association several months ago, although this presentation was much better at communicating what they meant and including our input than the earlier one.
They presented several options for context, and then described in detail their preferred option. They asked repeatedly for our input and seem very open to incorporating changes that are affordable.
SUMMARY: * For the area from Dixie and Dunn along Dunn to the creek, they are ready and willing to begin construction if the neighborhood agrees to the design. They suggested work in the early spring so the grass can establish quickly and cover the dug areas.
* They are proposing a ‘vegetated dry swale’: an channel at the surface that carries water. It should capture a lot of the water that has been flowing over the streets and tearing up yards, and foundations. The stormwater would flow like a creek into the actual creek at Dunn near Grimes. Details are in the section “DESIGN DESCRIPTION” at the end.
* The swale would be put in pipes to go under the cross-streets, as well as driveways and front-yard sidewalks. Utilities said they would arrange to put the pipes under neighbors’ driveways with a goal of no cost to homeowners from this project.
* This is similar to systems already used elsewhere, and even along this block. Remnants of a swale system can be seen on Dunn near Allen, for example. The same grassy channel and pipes under driveways are still there, they would just be deepened somewhat and extended up to Dixie.
* The proposed area is Dunn starting about 1 house north of Dixie, running to the creek, and about ½ block along Dixie and possibly Allen, in either direction, but my notes do not indicate this with certainty. They view this as not only an overdue improvement to the neighborhood, but a model for further work. If this system lives up to expectation and the neighbors like it, they hope to use versions of it where suitable elsewhere in our area. Unfortunately, they were not willing to talk about the future plans for improvements elsewhere at this point.
Negatives of this plan include: * Parking – far and away the biggest concern most of us shared. This area is used for Bryan Park overflow parking during events. The swale will take some area currently used for parking and make it less easy to park. Parking will be easy in the paved area and about 18” on either side. Beyond that, there will be varying degrees of slope into which people might step. This would be an improvement over the mud-puddles in some areas, but decrease parking in others. Suggestions included: improving parking on one side of the street to make up for removing it from the other; Accepting reduced parking for a functioning stormwater system; changing the roadside material to improve and better delineate parking areas. Other ideas are welcome. * Appearance. This may or not be a negative, depending on one’s view. The differences will be fairly minor but are still changes – a small depression along the street, covered in grass, with gravel along the pavement edge. They believe that it can be mowed with the rest of the lawn, or weed-whipped level to the surrounding area without much difficulty. They discussed other options we can choose from such as planting it in wildflowers or other landscaping. They wish our input on the appearance the neighbors desire. There was discussion that more developed solutions (e.g. curbs and such) are tidier – they give a more developed, ‘organized’ look which could be an asset or liability in this neighborhood. * Mary pointed out that the property line, the city right of way and peoples’ impression of where their yard starts may not match. The city may actually own more or less area than generally recognized and a portion of the sloping to ease drainage may (not will, may) extend beyond the right-of-way. * Some trees and bushes will be removed, or harmed. They are open to discussion on what to work around and how.
Positive aspects of this plan include: * They have the money to do it immediately. We would have effective stormwater management by late spring. * They agree to do any major maintenance the swale needs. Homeowner would mow (or weed-whip, or plant flowers…) but the city would take care of the pipes and any re-excavation or repair needed. * They intend to have it cost the homeowners nothing. * Initial costs are a small fraction of what they would be for a sewer-pipe system, but also the ongoing maintenance costs and the replacement/repair costs are lower, both of which affect us as ratepayers (city taxes do not pay for stormwater management, utilities rates do). * Least amount of change to the neighborhood appearance (no extra pavement, sidewalks, curbs, etc). Utilities would take care of planting the grass or vegetation. * Improves the stormwater quality in the creek and subsequent areas. * ‘Self-cleaning’ – leaves and debris cannot easily clog a swale as they can storm sewer inlet grates, so overflow in fall much less likely. * Any working stormwater system stabilizes the pavement edge, which will make the roads last longer. * Peden noted that it is easier for yards to drain into this system than a sewer, so water from gutters and yards can leave the yard more easily than with a curb. * ‘Vegetated dry swales’ are considered “Best Management Practices” for urban and suburban storm water management. Both from an environmental and engineering point of view, this general type of system is recommended by national experts as a cost-competitive, effective and environmentally sound solution. (See, for example, green streets design websites Utilities provided us, as well as other references Jan, Jeff and others have found). Note that “Best” in this context means one of a group of practices that are considered appropriate and efficient. It doesn’t mean that it is the single best possible option, but that professionals who study this stuff think it is a suitable, quality option. In our case, my opinion is that it reassures us that Utilities is providing a reasonable and effective option, not trying to use the cheapest option that we’ll put up with. * This is one of the most environmentally sound options. It improves the quality of the runoff (as mentioned above), but also allows more to water to recharge the groundwater than a piped sewer. It does so without increasing the amount of pavement or using much concrete (which generates a lot of pollution in its production). Jan has pointed out that there are other designs considered even ‘greener’ that reduce total runoff more, but they generally require more land, cost and maintenance. We should discuss what aspects we can borrow from those designs for use here.
DESIGN DESCRIPTION: * The system starts at the road edge. Even with the pavement height, gravel will extend for 18”. This provides parking and minimizes erosion. * Next, the swale begins, as a trench with a gentle slope across (3:1). This means it is three times wider than deep, to minimize erosion and make it easy to mow. * The width of the swale would vary, being narrower (and shallower) higher up the hill than near the creek. They mentioned the width, but I do not have it in my notes. * The swale would be seeded with grass suitable for the soils. This improves the appearance as well as performance and stability of the swale. We discussed other options for vegetation, such as flowers, and can use your opinion. * The swale would discharge into the creek; they are still determining if it would discharge through a pipe or aboveground. * Any crossing under a street would be through a pipe, as seen elsewhere in our area. * Passage under driveways or sidewalks would go through pipes provided by the city. * A properly designed dry swale does not breed mosquitoes because the water leaves the swale long before a breeding cycle can finish.
QUESTIONS: Is this plan acceptable – Is this plan good enough to install this spring? Would modifications fix any problems or should we look for something else? If the alternative cost is higher, is it worth waiting for money? What are our parking goals and problems, and how does that weigh against having a working stormwater system? Improvements to the plan – changing gravel to paving stone (etc) to improve parking and delineate where not to park? What to dig up and what to avoid? Other suggestions? |
Stewart, David E
Thank you, Jeff.
Dave Stewart
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPNA Stormwater Working Group" group.
To post to this group, send email to bpna-stormwate...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpna-stormwater-work...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpna-stormwater-working-group?hl=en.
Isabel Piedmont-Smith
Isabel Piedmont-Smith
1108 S. Rogers St.
Bloomington, IN 47403
ipie...@hotmail.com
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:49:41 -0700
From: nott...@yahoo.com
Subject: Summary of BPNA / Utilities meeting