HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-04-17 Lot drainage ReportWinslow
1595}i 's Point Road
`;� Wayzata, MN 55391
Apri: 17, 1989
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Wayzata City Hall
Wayzata, MN 55391
Re: Permit App. No: 87-'.57 R. Kovacevich
Your letter of April 14, 1989
Board of Managers:
Upon reviewing our file and documents we find that the east end of the
culvert is only 0.1' lower (929.3') than it was agreed to be (929.4') with
Gustafson/Kovacevich. Because of this and the fact that the entire pond
construction, landscaping and large tree planting (at a cost in excess of
$60,000) is completed and would be damaged and jeopardized by raising
the culvert one foot, we oppose any change. Mr. Kovacevich should be
required to follow the procedures in your letters of October 28, 1988 and
November 28, 1988.
The following information documents our position:
1. The culvert elevation before it was raised was:
West 928.6'
East 928.0'
(See copy of drawing by Gustafson Design from submission to
Orono dated 12/9/87 and marked #1216, confirmed by Coffin
& Gronberg, surveyors, attached as Exhibit A.)
2. Our agreement with Gustafson/Kovacevich made on 8/24/87 and
approved by the City of Orono was that the West end of the culvert
bottom would be 930.0' (not 930.3'), and that the existing -0.6' slope
of the culvert would be maintained. Thus, the East end of the culvert
would be 929.4'. The reason that the west end of the culvert was to
be no higher than 930.0' was to prevent damage to the twelve
willows located around the pond at 931'. The agreed elevation of
930.0 made allowance for the higher water that would result from
rainfall
and snowmelt.
Mr. Kovacevich
further
agreed at
that
time to
grade and
maintain the
drainage Swale
from the
culvert
to the
lake.
A) See copy of notes of Mr. Winslow's conversation with Mr.
Gustafson dated 8/24/87, attached as Exhibit B.
B) See copy of Orono memo from Jeanne Mabusth dated
October 13. 1987 referring to approval by both the Public
Works Department and the M.C.W.D. to raise the culvert
elevation to 930.0, attached as Exhibit C.
C) See copy of notes of Mr. Winslow's conversation of
11/23/87 with Mr. Gustafson confirming elevation of 930.0',
attached as Exhibit D.
The following table provides a use-:ul comparison of actual and proposed
culvert elevations.
With the confirmation from Mr. Gustafson on 11/23/87 (See Exhibit D) that
the West end of the culvert was 930.0', we proceeded with dredging, rip -
rapping and landscpping the pond. At no time did Kovacevich or his agents
state that the gas line inhibited placement of the culvert, either then or at
the 10/28/88 hearing before the M.C.W.D. Board. This was raised for the
first time in Jim Jensen's April 7, 1989 letter. All of the boulders, fill,
landscaping, tree, shrubs and flower plantings were executed using the
new culvert as a point of reference, in accordance with plans approved by
Orono (See photos attached as Exhibit E).
To change this now would require the expense of ripping out as well as
replacing completed work, would take many months, and would jeopardize
the existing large willows. It would be completely impractical to change it
now, and we would oppose doing so even if the expense thereof were to be
borne wholly by Messrs. Kovacevich and Gustafson. If the culvert is raised
per Mr. Kovacevich's proposal water will cover the boulder retaining wall,
cause erosion and may result in collapse of the road. (See photographs of
2
4/7/89
Original
8/24/87
10/20/88
Kovacevich
Elevation
Agreement
Actual
Proposal
Wes! end 928.6'
930.0'
929.3'
930.3'
East. end 928.0'
929.4'
929.3'
???
With the confirmation from Mr. Gustafson on 11/23/87 (See Exhibit D) that
the West end of the culvert was 930.0', we proceeded with dredging, rip -
rapping and landscpping the pond. At no time did Kovacevich or his agents
state that the gas line inhibited placement of the culvert, either then or at
the 10/28/88 hearing before the M.C.W.D. Board. This was raised for the
first time in Jim Jensen's April 7, 1989 letter. All of the boulders, fill,
landscaping, tree, shrubs and flower plantings were executed using the
new culvert as a point of reference, in accordance with plans approved by
Orono (See photos attached as Exhibit E).
To change this now would require the expense of ripping out as well as
replacing completed work, would take many months, and would jeopardize
the existing large willows. It would be completely impractical to change it
now, and we would oppose doing so even if the expense thereof were to be
borne wholly by Messrs. Kovacevich and Gustafson. If the culvert is raised
per Mr. Kovacevich's proposal water will cover the boulder retaining wall,
cause erosion and may result in collapse of the road. (See photographs of
2
pond taken
4/16/89,
with water
level at
9297, five inches above West
bottom lip
of culvert,
attached as
Exhibit
F.)
The East end cf the culvert is only 0.1' lower than it was agreed to be,
making it now 1.3 feet higher than it was when Kovacevich bought his
property. This in itself has reduced flow from the pond and restricted the
ability of the pond to act as a watershed overflow from the lake in times of
high water. The reason Kovacevich has a problem is that he built an 8'
berm alongside the drainage Swale, against the ruling of the M.C.W.D. (See
Exhibit G). Mr. Kovacevich should now be required to complete and
maintain the drainage Swale eastward to the lake as the M.C.W.D. Board,
following extensive consideration, directed him to do at the October 20,
1988 hearing and in subsequent correspondence.
Very truly yours.
Clark J. Winslow
Attachments
cc: Ms. Jeanne Mabusth
Mr. John Gerhardson
3
cc
It -
®o
E
ISOrNs iOTM� QewO