HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-12-14 BRRA Email to OPH Re Mayor Messageim any p er .
From: Postler, Dennis M [dpostler a@bonestroo.com]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 8:44 AM
To: Kimberly Kamper (E- mail); Mark Vierling (E -mail)
Cc: Kris Danielson (E -mail)
Subject: Sigstads Carpet
ti
Voice Mail Message
1 2 -13 -01 -do. --
Kim and Mark:
This is just an FYI regarding a phone message the Mayor left me yesterday (I had it transcribed
so I wouldn't miss anything - copy attached). I am not planning on preparing a memo on this
outlining all the technical information unless directed to do so by you, Kim, or by the Council. It is
my understanding that the MSCVVD informed the Mayor they did not respond within the allotted
60 days and in their opinion then, this site has been approved. Thanks.
<<Voice Mail Message 12- 13-- 01.doc»
Dennis M. Postler
Sonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates
2335 Vilest Highway 36, St. Paul, MN 55113
Direct: (651) 604 -4815
Office: (651) 636 -4600, x4815
Fax: (651) 636 -1311
Cellular: (612) 865 -9187
E -mail: dpostler Qbonestroo.com
Voice Mail Message
To: Dennis Postler
From: David Beaudet
Date: 12 -13 -01
Time: 9:44 a.m.
Good morning Dennis,
This is David Beaudet calling. My concern with the Sigstad's drainage, since we are having an
interesting time playing phone tag, is that as you are aware the site drains in two directions - a
portion of that lot drains to the north to the 60th Street Frontage Road directly, and a portion of
that lot drains to the southeast. The drainage to the southeast is across private property. So
therefore, according to the watershed rules, the land area that is in that area that goes to the
southeast, that area which is roughly 1/3 to 1 /Z of the lot that drains that way, whatever the water
rate that is prior to the development, post development, that is the runoff rate that can go that
way, and the , water that's on the rest of the site has to go to another direction, unless of course the
pond is big enough in size enough so that the runoff rate pre- development and end development
are the same.
But, we are using, just so we understand, the area currently going that way, that's the runoff rates
for the whole lot if we're going to go to the southeast across somebody else's property with more
than the water rate. That's the rule of the watershed District. I've spoken to Mr. Doneux, he
looked at the original calculations that were submitted to them.. The calculations have all the
water going that way. There's no breakdown of water rate going north or south, all the water rate
goes to the south. Those calculations are incorrect, and the Middle St. Croix will probably do a
review and probably have their staff send a letter saying that this development is (isn't ?) in
compliance.
You have an opportunity under the PUD to make sure the city is not put into liability on this
issue, unless as I've said, the runoff rate for the lot off to the southeast is no greater than that
smaller portion of the lot's runoff rate is today. Hopefully we understand that, although let's just
do the corollary, if the lot all drained into the ditch along the frontage road it could all do that
because that's a drainage and utility easement, it's a public drainage way which would meet the
requirements. The fact that all the water can't discharge at a higher rate to the southeast is
because that's all private property and there's no drainage rate, and therefore in violation of a lot
of water law, but of course the Middle St. Croix rules.
If there's a question of a legal issue I would urge you to call and discuss this with Mr. Vierling. I
would just like from you, and I will let Kim know that I would like a memo, indicating what the
calculations actually show, i.e., either it is or is not in compliance with the middle St. Croix rules
to which we're operating under and other applicable water state local water laws.
Thank you .
KA 551 55GEN\Wordlc off espon den ce\Voice Mail Message 12-13- 01.doe