Summary of Thursday Oct 28 meeting
Jeff Firestone
Several of us gathered at Rachel’s Café to look over maps and plans,
and talk of what would be next. At the meeting were Dave and Linda
Stewart, Jack, Isabel, Mary, Jan and Jeff.
On the whole, the meeting was very positive. We see the willingness
to put in this system this spring a step forward after Jack and others
have requested for so long. If things go well, we can get more
information and modify the plan to something similar to their proposal
and well suited to this particular area.
One major point of discussion was the damage or loss of trees and
other landscaping in the area. While some plants will benefit from
the swales and the reduced erosion, several large trees in the
Stewart’s yard and elsewhere may or will be damaged. We discussed
ways of working around that problem, particularly in doing so without
using curbs or other changes that would alter the look of the area.
One proposal is described below.
Parking is again a major liability of any stormwater plan that uses
above-ground areas. The ‘dry conveyance swales’ that we’re talking
about take right-of-way land that now is sometimes mud and sometimes
parking. While it looks likely that there would be a net loss of
parking spaces, some areas and solutions would be affected more than
others.
Utilities proposed parking on one side of the street only, and using
the other for the whole or the larger portion of the stormwater
system. While this would cost parking spaces, there would be more
than enough for the residents and other times except during major
Bryan Park events. For Dixie and some parts of Dunn and Allen, even
allowing both-side parking as currently there is not enough room for
two-way traffic and two parking lanes. Cars have to either dodge each
other and pedestrians or can only park staggered from one side of the
street to the other. By providing one good (dry) parking lane and one
or two good swales, the parking would decrease by less than it might
seem, and the traffic flow, risk of accidents, and pedestrian safety
would increase. (Assuming pedestrians do not walk / trip into the
swale; a separate consideration).
When Utilities provides us with dimensions for the swales, we can see
if the street would provide enough safe parking, but the limitation
appears only to affect events. Residents should be given some way of
ensuring that their driveways are not blocked (e.g. no parking signs).
You may have noticed the reference to swales on one side of the road
only or primarily. Utilities suggested symmetric swales on both sides
of the road – a logical and efficient solution if one ignores
parking. Mary suggested and others expanded on the idea of building
the swales mostly on one side of the street. We discussed the
possibility of having a major swale on the South-east side of Dixie,
down the East side of Dunn, then crossing at Allen to the West side of
Dunn until the creek. Allen, the North sides of Dixie, and the south-
west side, and the opposite side of Dunn would either not need
swales. They appear to have much less water draining from the
surrounding areas, and so could have improved parking. By combining
two swales into one, where possible, the stormwater side would be
larger, but it wouldn’t have to compromise with parking, so perhaps
both parking and drainage would both be improved.
To see if this would work, we need to get capacity and size
information from Utilities and check with the neighbors to see if
their houses have water problems and how big their right-of-way is,
but we think the lay of the land makes this a very viable solution.
Isabel, our city council representative, has taken an active role in
these discussions (thank you, Isabel!). She will be asking for more
information from Utilities. The primary questions (please suggest
more if we have left some out) are:
* How much water must be dealt with normally, and during a small
flood (e.g. a 5 year flood; not even the best stormwater system could
handle the June 2008 superflood).
* What size swale (and driveway pipes) is needed to deal with this
water?
* What is their expected maintenance schedule (annual and long-term),
and what part belongs to the homeowner and what part to Utilities?
How will they be held to the agreement to maintain the swales in the
long-term?
* That the designs proposed have been worked out in sufficient detail
that we know the engineering will work in this particular spot and
with these conditions, size parameters and against the year-to-year
variation in precipitation. Utilities referred to this as a ‘pilot
program’. Some members of our group wanted to be sure that concept
meant it was testing out a good system for expanding through Bryan
Park rather than “we’ll test out this design and see if we can make it
work”. Since they haven’t been forthcoming with data and answers to
our questions, we cannot assess the suitability of their plans or our
modifications.
* What affordable material would be suitable for the legal parking
areas next to or opposite the swales, so that they can be improved,
quality parking, or is the existing grass suitable?
* What would it take to use the momentum and goodwill generated by
this project to improve stormwater and the resulting crumbling
pavement elsewhere in our neighborhood. Other areas seem to have more
investment, raising questions among some neighbors.
Please let me or all of us know if I can clarify the proposals or
these summaries, or if you have further questions of us or of
Utilities. BPNA’s involvement is to make sure that not only does it
happen, but it happens in a way that makes the neighbors happy.
Stewart, David E
Thank you so much for all the obvious care you have put into this discussion.
Linda and I feel very strongly about our trees in our front yard, specifically the Blue Spruce and the Birch trees.
Those trees are a major part of the reason we purchased our home about 19 years ago.
We will fight as hard as we possibly can to keep those trees safe and healthy.
We also care very deeply about the appearance of our street, not only on 'our' side of the street.
While we have concern for the flooding that Jack has raised concerns about for years, we wonder why the entire two blocks have to be modified to compensate for a poorly planned/designed home. We do not mean to be insensitive in any way, however, Mary pointed out that at great cost to herself she modified areas around her home so that flooding did not occur. Perhaps the $50,000 or so the City is planning to spend could simply be put to helping Jack's house and not affect the entire two block area.
If there are other homes that are experiencing flooding due to this, we would like to know who they are, and whether establishing a "swale" on 'our' side of South Dunn would help those homes.
When Isabel mentioned homes on the 1000 block of South Dunn that experienced flooding, we realized (after the meeting) that the yellow house is SOUTH of the trench, not North of the trench. Therefore, this channeling of water into the trench will NOT help the Yellow house.
Again, we had a great time meeting all who attended.
Let me be very clear: If it comes down to approving this modification and there is any chance that it will affect the health and long-term viability of the trees that not only provide our home with a nice appearance, but is also a monetary asset to the Value of our home, we are 100% against the modification. And we are completely against being a 'test site' for whether these modifications will be effective.
Linda and I took great care and responsibility in the choice of purchasing our home, as well as maintaining and improving the 'creek' (along with Jeff Hutchins, who did the vast majority of the actual work) so that we could feel secure that we had planned our best to avoid flooding.
Sincerely,
Dave Stewart
________________________________________
From: bpna-stormwate...@googlegroups.com [bpna-stormwate...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Jeff Firestone [nott...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 11:11 AM
To: BPNA Stormwater Working Group
Subject: Summary of Thursday Oct 28 meeting
--
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.
Henriot, Joanne
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." One of the three laws of Murphy. Is that Pat Murphy who coined those?
Because of the force of gravity, water runs down hill. It requires a pump to move it up a hill. Two basic principles of hydraulics.
As I understand it from direct conversation with some, but not all of the adjacent property owners in the 900 block of Dunn/Henderson, only Peter's house at the SE corner of Dixie and Dunn and Jack's house next door to it on Dunn Street are the only properties in that entire 900 block who experience a problem with storm water overflow.
And, in the next block to the south, the 1000 block of Dunn/Henderson, down hill and downstream, properties like Dave and Linda's, are not experiencing problems.
Curious is it not? Where did the storm water go away on its path down the hill? So why make problems when there are none and expend scarce city funding to address something that isn't an issue downstream?
I offer to canvas all the houses that face Dunn and Henderson in both blocks and report the information to both this storm water working group and the city so that we have a more complete picture of where the problems are and then assess how to treat them.
Joanne Henriot
Sincerely,
Dave Stewart
of the road - a logical and efficient solution if one ignores