HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-07-10 Misc Data from Meeting on July 10, 201420/q
/ntsc*
I>ALmee
�' Stantec
June 26, 2014
File: 193800151
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
2335 Highway 36 West
St. Paul MM 55113
Tel: (651) 636 -4600
Fax: (651) 636 -1311
Attention: Eric Johnson
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd. N
P.O. BOX 2007
Oak Park Heights, MN 55082
Reference: Palmer Station - Plan Review
Dear Eric,
We have reviewed the site Development plans for Palmer Station as submitted by
Creative Home Construction Investments on May 14, 2014. Following are our comments
and /or recommendations.
Storm Water Construction Permit Comments (provide previously on June 6, 2014):
As the development creates 1.24 acres of new impervious area, construction activities
will be subject to the requirements of the MPCA NPDES Construction Permit.
Per the Construction Permit, "Where a project's ultimate development replaces
vegetation and /or other pervious surfaces with one (1) or more acres of
cumulative impervious surface, the Permitee(s) must design the project so that the
water quality volume of one (1) inch of runoff from the new impervious surfaces
created by the project is retained on site."
o Based on 1.24 acres of impervious area, 4501 cf of volume must be
retained. This required volume is achieved in the larger infiltration basin
(6 100 cf capacity).
However, as shown in the City of Oak Park Heights Wellhead Protection Plan, Part
2, the project area is located in the City's High Vulnerability DWSMA (see attached
DWSMA Figure). Section III.D.I .j.vii. of the Construction Permit states "Infiltration is
prohibited when the infiltration system will be constructed in areas with a Drinking
Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) as defined in Minn. R. 4720.5100, subp.
13., unless allowed by a local unit of government with a current MS4 permit.
Design with community In mind
ms's
June 26, 20114
Mr. Eric Johnson
Page 2 of 4
o As the development area also falls within the Emergency Response Area
(approximately 1 -year recharge time), the City will not allow for infiltration
on the project. (See attached ERA Figure)
• As infiltration will not be allowed, the City recommends that the plans be revised to
treat the required water quality volume of one inch over the impervious (4501 cf)
through filtration. Any filtration system should be designed based on the most
recent update of the MN Stormwater Manual.
Sheet C1.2 - Demolition Plan
1. Clearly label and identify all trees being removed as well as all site clearing areas.
2. For the installation of the sanitary sewer, full width removal of the street will be
required at the intersection of Oak Park Boulevard and Oakgreen Avenue North.
3. Remove and replace curb and gutter along Oak Park Boulevard per City standard
detail STR -31.
Sheet C3.1 - Grading Plan
1. Provide detail on the emergency overflow for Wetland 1. Is the overflow planned
to be to the north into the proposed infiltration basin?
2. Due to existing storm water drainage concerns to the south between the
properties of 5523 Oakgreen Place North and 5519 Oakgreen Place North, please
provide details on how the storm water overflows will be controlled.
a. The current proposed design of the emergency overflow from the
redevelopment site continues to the south, and the City is requiring the
installation of a storm sewer pipe between the properties to address a 100 -
year storm event (see attachment for the general installation location of this
pipe).
b. All easements for the properties to the south of the redevelopment need to
be identified on the plans.
c. As discussed in the stormwater construction permit comments above, the
infiltration basins must be redesigned to filter the storm water. Therefore, the
infiltration basin identified to the north of Wetland 1 will require redesign and
may require a drain tile pipe and outlet.
3. The mill and overlay patch shown on Oak Park Boulevard needs to be shown for
the full width (end radii) of the proposed Oak Cove street.
Design with community in mind se
June 26, 2014
Mr. Eric Johnson
Page 3 of 4
Sheet C3.5 - Grading Details
1. Provide a geotechnical report with soil boring data. The proposed street typical
section will be reviewed after receiving this information.
Sheet C4.1- Utility Plan
1. It is typical City standard to install drain tile uphill of the catch basin low point
locations. following storm water filtration revisions this detail and the remaining
storm sewer can be reviewed.
2. Sanitary sewer MH -2 needs to be located in the center of the roadway alignment,
while maintaining 10' separation between the new water main and sewer.
3. Water main shall be installed at a minimum cover of 8.5'.
4. Pipe materials:
a. Water Main: CL 52 DIP with polywrap
b. Storm Sower, RCP
5. The connection to the water main on Oak Park Boulevard via wet tap is not
allowed. The new water main shall be connected with a sleeve and tee, and gate
valve to be located at the end radius of Oak Cove.
6. Standard hydrant and casting specifications will be provided and plan notes will
need to be revised.
Sheet C5.1 - Preliminary Plat
1. Consider providing easement for future trail connection to the south of the
development.
General Comments
1. Additional standard details will be provided from the City.
2. Consider providing a sanitary sewer service to 5565 Oakgreen Avenue North. It has
been the intention of the City to provide service to this property upon the
redevelopment of the proposed Palmer Station site, as a grinder pump is currently
utilized to lift sewage to a higher elevation on 56'" Street North.
Design with community in mind
i I
June 26, 2014
Mr. Eric Johnson
Page 4 of 4
If you have any questions or require further information please call me at (651)604 -4808.
Regards,
STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
r
Christopher W. Long, P.E.
Attachments: STR -31; Sketch of Storm Sewer Connection to Oakgreen Place North
C. Andy Kegley, Julie Hultman - Oak Park Heights; Scott Richards - City Planner; Mark
Vieding - City Attorney; Kathy Widin - City Arborist; Brad Reifsteck, Rob Monk, Lucas Miller
- Stantec.
Design with community in mind
RD
ki
i
EXISTING YARD REMOVE & REPLACE EXISTING
SOD WITH 4" TOPSOIL
CONTRACTION JOINT EXISTING CONTRACTION
(TYP.) JOINT (TYP.)
W W W W W W Y Y Y
tl
C H
� C
GUTTER LINE 0' -2' 1 2' 4' MIMIMUM 2' 0' -2'
EXISTING CONCRETE
CURB & GUTTER
EXISTING NON -WEAR
BITUMINOUS SURFACE
(_L EXISTING ROADWAY
EXISTING D428
CURB & GUTTER
CE SAWCUT
1 /4 " /FT. MIN.
REMOVE EXISTING 1 1/2" TYPE LV3 4" TOPSOIL AND SOD
NON -WEAR BITUMINOUS SURFACE
riL
Stantec
SECTION
CONCRETE CURB REPLACEMENT LAST REVISION:
NON DRIVEWAY LOCATION March 2004
PLATE NO.
OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MN STR -31
I5950E -
LU �. .,
0OK 15501
LU
LLI Lo
_. Zf 6zSO4 .._ D a t; _
D Los
Lo. PN
OL $CBOT,
I 8806E
,I _m
K; s oil, �
zBwL °
o �� y�
��p
44
137 vPP OJ�,N NN 1�p1
_ I 14421 ,
�
eLUm ,
7 , ' NOT OT 19
14426 .AD
Z
F- i '00061 4403 ' �tJ�,� q0 14405
"top
H <., 14391 & NV• , 13 N 1y 14393 _ F -
W ° li 0664 L' -` ' -. ^ .. NLN' - C� S-
14367 J �T
�, 1 ......
' -- -.•- _'. � �... �� - y ,�� �V�. m � 14335 � CO
I
e_ e.6. '
i V3 n— n --
ur 42
^1429
5
0L0 1423
L£L
0064 14291 87
m
9
-
�
�
-
.x 96M Pez" F NA` 14296 H�142B7
oes z
san ' .. LML .14266 V 14265
. _.... %.. _ I _Lij Z 14248 .14260
46'zOL O zBZ0l Lg�L r (�
_ W
, _-- 14272 , SLZOL 14250
-. _ X 14241 14240
Lij '' OL261. 920E 6 Van `�tbL 14266 W O 59241' 1424D 'W
OW
(I ._. .. _ ... _ Lo .� ��" 14231 142
i _.... 11241'. B9z04 ,LS2 b LiJ 'd` 14230
.. W.�
¢ 95206 W LL.
L
.. N00 a a U (/)Z 14221 1
O0Z0L L(} ,} O -Je - 14220 W 2W- ___
L6z01 ; Np'V d¢'a� , . _ ..:,Z aL. 14Y11
Cl) YizOL 5LZ6L. r r •Rry a _ „_.. 14210 p 0. ... -_, ... .. _
U U Wx:
.. a 12 r 1420D l m ^
9020E LOZOL
�Q R
OBW
n �St tQNORTH S
_ L58
F 3
a �
� L255,
iR
Hl2JON 3nN:F\b' N33aO: 0 f'
�r...___.J... .._. _
mam m
x o 0
o x
Wo
XFZ N
a z
''O^^ z O
V / 6-
R'
w?l Cl) z
N 0 ~ w
Kai N0
3 ❑ z ❑
i Wzmw
j Z U 0
o R F-
1n a d U U. rn
0
z
0
QY�
J
0DO
r�
V
W
Y
Q
a
Y
Q
O
U-
0
I
LO
^V1
W
ca
4 �•
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Bhrd. N • Box 2007 . Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • Phone (651) 439 -4439 • Fax (651) 439 -0574
7 -7 -14
Steve Johnston, PE (Also Sent via email 7 -7 -14)
Principal EngloeeF
Elan Design Lab
901 N 3rd Street, Suite 120
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Thank you for your email submitted to the City on July 2°", as attached.
We have the following comments:
The City Staff is not requesting that the storm sewer pipe be installed, rather Staff is requiring that it be
installed as part of the approval conditions based on the current discussion and is incorporated in to the
Staff reports. The City Staff's position is typically incorporated into final resolutions and developer's
agreement and is recommended to be a condition of your overall approval of the proposal, all of which are
subject to the City Council discussion and final decision. If there is an alternative plan through further
discussion, those Staff positions may change. My understanding is that more dialogue is planned?
The City is not stating that the Palmer's, nor the City nor the surrounding neighborhoods created any
particular drainage problem. What occurred 25+ years ago, thru today, in this area to create drainage issues
is unknown and what those parameters were pre- development and during the consUuction process would
be very difficult to identify. What we do know is that the Palmer property ownership tacitly .cm—pted. the
current conditions of the drainage over the last two decades or so and now must engage how it is managed
into the future as the ownership desires to substantially alter such landscape.
it would seem evident that there is less overall water going to the south, but the issue is the 100+ year
event Thus it is a choice that for the '100+" year event is it:
Option X: best drained overland?
Option Y: best drained underground?
If I is Option X, overland, it is important that you bench your plan as a "request' to utilize the City's drainage
and utility easements, as opposed to asserting some form of land rights (r). The Council may grant this
request, but will weigh those benefits with the concepts of how it may impact the neighbortrood both during
construction and over time – versus the underground option – Option Y, (which is also across City lands).
Under Option X, there may also treed to be off -site grading, and while the City could likely direct removal of
fencing, etc. from the City controlled drainage and utility easements, it would only do so under a coordinated
plan that would be at the Developer's expense for any re- grading and which must ensure the property
owners to the south are held- harmless, continue the enjoyment in their primary use of their lands. The use
of the City utility easement will not be so impeding as to create new issues, drainage or otherwise.
4. There is also the ambiguous issue of groundwater and would those wetland flows cause other issues to the
southern basements? This was discussed at the meeting in .tune. Only time would tell, but as part of any
final approval condition, Staff may seek that there be a preservation of rights that would require the
developer to provide a warranty to correct any resulting conditions. This warranty skustion may also be in
play for the 100+ rain event management as well, especially if overland use is requested and subsequently
granted.
5. Your request to have the City deduct tree caliper requirements is not something that the City may consider.
Deviations frorn tine required caliper incurs to be replaced would require a variance to those ordinances and
is not something that can, nor should, be negotiated from a financial perspective to off-set other costs. If the
City Council determined that it should or would desire to contribute to other costs, such as a storm pipe, the
Council would deal with that cost directly and not though an off -set in tree requirements.
6. As a matter of City pracice, all development costs (direct or indirect) are borne by the Developer. The City
does not share in those costs without a clear, bright line that identities a meaningful, substantial and long-
term public benefits and that are outside the required investments necessary to facilitate the basic needs of
the proposed development. In effect no subsidies or offsets are typically offered by the City. If you are
requesting a specific subsidy or benefit, please identify what those may be and explain in detail how #we
benefit the City via Identifying meaningful, substantial and long -term public benefits.
My understanding is that you will be meeting again with the City Engineer and Planner and I would encourage that a
plan be devised that ensures the property owners to the south are held- harmless (post - construction) from the
proposed development in all capacities and that use of City easements or lands are requested as opposed to
assuq 4. The City Council will certainly consider options, but would approve or deny them based on the overall
s * the efl)re set of impacts including how it impacts the residents to the south.
(1) if yVU fhel there fs a sQecAPc l and ►l8ht yairde►sl�oprnerrt hatds to drab► to the south far tte 100+ year event without Qty apprava►, ►1g
woW ask dWyou auf w yauspedk tape! rights to u9m any off srta drainage ce scfts both now end based w wwt ed F/•
This wren sent to y xr in in an wnd on d*2,' also attached. Please have ffid to rm bydrily 9* so our MAttwW may ebo review.
Cc: City staff
Weekly Notes
Mick Lynskey, Developer
O
Eric Johnson
Front
Steve Johnston � sjohnston@elaniab.com >
Sent
Wednesday, July 02, 2014 731 PM
To:
Eric Johnson; Christopher Long (Chris .Long @stantec.com); Scott Richards
(Scott@ Pla n ni ng Co.com)
Cc:
Mick Lynskey, nick@creativehci.com; Dan T
Subject:
Palmer Station offsite drainage improvements
Gentlemen,
We have reviewed your request for the developer to install storm sewer in the development to the south of the
site. Under our current proposed design we are reducing the volume and rate of runoff from our site. We have
identified options to provide filtration of stormwater instead of infiltration and are confident that we can engineer a
solution without the offsite storm sewer. In other words, it is our opinion that from an engineering perspective, we do
not need the pipe.
We have reviewed the grading plan, plat and record drawings for Valley Point 2"d Addition and note that prior to
development the contours indicate water flowed unimpeded from our site to the south. After development in 1990 the
runoff from our site was limited to a swale in a 15 foot public drainage and utility easement between Lots 4 & 5 Block
1. We have no way of knowing if the Swale was ever constructed properly but today the easement is encroached upon
by two fences and the grade is more than a foot higher than the original design. The owners of our site did not create
the drainage issues. They were created 25 years ago when Valley Point 2"d Addition was developed and the
infrastructure was designed and installed by the City of Oak Park Heights.
With that said we are supportive of the installation of the offsite storm sewer system since it provides some benefit for
our project and especially for the adjacent neighbors that are currently experiencing drainage issues. A storm sewer at
our southern border will simplify the filtration design and provide a positive well defined discharge point for Palmer
Station, which is beneficial for us. But, more importantly it could be utilized to lower the seasonal groundwater affecting
the neighbors basements, provide them with a greater degree of confidence that they will not see an increase in runoff
issues and show our intention to be good neighbors.
As we discussed in today's meeting we believe that the most cost effective way to install storm sewer in this fully
established neighborhood is by directional drilling. Under this scenario a pipe would be bored in the east boulevard of
Oakgreen Place N. from the existing pipe between Lots 4 & 5, Block 2, north to the lot line between Lots 4 & 5, Block
1. From there a second pipe would be installed along the property line, between Lots 4 & 5, Block 1, again by directional
drilling. A storm manhole structure would be built over the existing storm sewer line, at the connection point, and a
second storm manhole would be built at the extension of the 4 & 5 common lot line. Once the pipe reaches our site it
would be extended Into a redesigned detention basin. Drain tile could also be installed along the plat line to provide
ground water control.
The real benefit of directional drilling is that we will only need to disturb the boulevard where the two structures are
built, compared with typical construction where the street or entire boulevard would be torn up and all trees,
landscaping, sod, fences and driveways would be disturbed. With directional drilling the most suitable pipe material is a
thick solid wall polyethylene pipe. These pipes come in 50 foot pieces that are butt welded together on site to create a
single durable pipe. The only concern with this atypical approach is that the pipe would be curved around corners,
which actually improves flow characteristics. We have confirmed the following unit prices with an installer of these
pipe, E J Mayers Construction. They also confirmed that they can maintain grade of less than 1% without significant dips
as long as they do not hit a lot of rocks. They would televise the line after installation and open cut to repair any
W
significant settlements. The 12" pipe could be installed at a depth of approximately 5 feet at a 2% grade, or it could be
installed at a flatter grade to provide more depth at the plat line — the cost is roughly the same.
Estimated Cost
550 LF 12" PEP @ $75 =
$41,250
2 CB Manholes @ $2500 =
$5,000
Restoration
$5,000
Contingency
$5.000
Subtotal
$56,250
Engineering 10%
5 600
Total
$62,000
As discussed above the Palmers did not create this problem, and a result we believe the community should share some
of the responsibility for the cost. We request that the City use a funding source of their choosing to pay 50% or
$31,000. We further request that as part of the PUD the developer receive some compensatory relief from the tree
replacement requirements.
As discussed in the planning staff report our plan saves a 72% of the existing trees on the site which equates to 7 trees
per lot. However the tree replacement formulas require us to replace 429 caliper inches of trees or 195 trees (15 per
lot). Clearly, this is more trees than are needed to create an urban forest. To help offset our share of the off -site storm
sewer line we request a 5 tree per lot reduction. This still leaves an average of 7 large existing trees and 10 new trees
per lot (plus numerous small trees not counted in the inventory). We would propose to reduce the builder installed
trees to 4 per lot and group the remaining 78 developer installed trees in strategic locations around the perimeter of the
site where they provide the greatest aesthetic and buffering benefit.
If there are any questions please let me know.
Steve Johnston, PE
Principal Engineer
e4
L) E S i C N
901 N 3rd Street, Suite 120
Minneapolis, MN 55401
c 612.382.4804
d 612.260.7982
f 612.260.7990
www.elaniab.com
Eric Johnson
From:
Sent*
To:
Cc:
subject
7/2/14
Gentlemen
We will review your submission.
Eric Johnson
Wednesday, July 02, 2014 8:41 PM
Steve Johnston
Christopher Long ( Chris .Long @stantec.com); Scott Richards (Scott@ PlanningCo.com);
Mick Lynskey; nick @creativehci.com; Dan T_
Re; Palmer Station offsite drainage improvements
In the interim., Please produce your legal justification and demonstrate your formal legal right For your development to
drain water across land you do not control. I am in need Of specific verb and verse not conjecture nor concept. But a
legal reference with how it specifically applies here.
please provide that to me by Monday at 3 Pm and we will review that as well.
Lastly recall your development is seeking numerous other deviations from stated ordinances for which the city council
may consider but has no obligation to grant Thus they take the development concept as a whole, accordingly keep
those approvals needed in mind.
I will await your legal positions and data
Thank you
Eric
Sent from my iPhone
Please kindly ignore my iPhone use spell inftmistakesI I
On Jul 2, 2014, at 7:31 PM, "Steve Johnston"
Gentlemen,
We have reviewed your request for the deve't er to i II storm sewer in the development to the
south of the site. Under our current proposed -11.i a are reducing the volume and rate of runoff
from our site. We have identified options to pro . filtration of stormwater instead of infiltration and
are confident that we can engineer asolution - the offsite storm sewer. In other words, it is our
opinion that from an engineering perspective a do need the pipe.
We have reviewed the grading plan , p1gy nd record draw. ,s for Valley Point 2"d Addition and note
that prior to development the conto indicate water flowenimpeded from our site to the
south. After development in 1990 runoff from our site was *ited to a swale in a 15 foot public
III
)„ f« tt ► € -nii E S
F
O
If
x • fi 5� Al s�LE � �qi �d
RE
Q «Eai «tea W YW r� 1t• _ >'�
L. ��� °spa °�� a� $ �>: at
U °5 16*s�ao���a %� s� �E � g•� � s �� � s � � � m
ss�`agf$ °s 12 sgsn «s
�3 $ g ! °o
2 10
�� oil ��i��b8�g gpi ai ,+ SFS � • � Z � s � � 9 C g$
us 8 4 a
�-M
�I-LO KOl+lcli�� Ill`'`;'':2 s0f344n•E 3 ill Tali rwwo c.+'s"�I,e Rws �__ SEC. 4
r
,pp 5" I t M !/ �i' O IRY p
Sj lib m YO J \ '' ed 1= O RO t •R/ i J b• g >{ L_J SE 3 C �I
n
L — — _J L
F�1 11' o
PI.AC& — . --'r --
P
Ct N .J
s rya l � �pI 1(,y1 s Q yy■
1 4 0�•� �,� \ �"' N • l ~' O f P
73R Y L e1 _Jq ae I 8 I yy u 'd _ _li,i■f�4
FT
Y i• L w r J �a.en' c I
\� f3 I�w o t p I�
FBI C�: imoo —rye
E� 1 F /S
O
bb
2 �5 ~ t // 4 m I • J^ i� I l \ \p, 01 • i
� t � 8 // of � � • 1 n .�yN' I I rr �� \\ �+M� �� S
1-
r � � n � e —. 1443 — — 3 t/ • ' ° �'`7 �oYO LLM Nqn =
AVEN[JE
OAKGRM s N1SI ue d LCf A O Y A- U/6f. a Nu A— Q
427.40____ ' N 013447 W 166.74' tMG.l4—
83A3>di;:iEEii z� w013244•w AVENUE i$�Z�L3 $i -' L__ oarrc eu�4r we Marx r. p
\s�mlaui cam c.u. n.«e— Nmne'rY�.�- �1I l Niiila� w.n ci.w.:4 ii�l' p
•- �• - -_ - -_ I FLI \� OM'C°IItIJIS..I�N.RtO'I �
C9FND�fV.. iIJ•r•�•• ` I
:LIFV��P1yJ' 1 �7't
m
i3
> �'•
dod f
AT
•M)ilralp ='`
if
al
Al
� ,fir � ;�� � 3: .� � � � . � r } � `� j• �
f 4
r
City of Oat: Park i$
10 UI(S O.k Pak Bhtl. N, Bw:W'.O,k Mk J
Qf
f r ahce iolpaf.eiJi. rea roSUt3i.p!
�� �•• wnaJU,v.sau.mm.e.oearocwnnP
n° m,mxim°�imnn�nvawp11is'Mr�wc.
t !r — arar uunxn. ome unu,m >o
ewiu'n n
un,
0 25 50 100 150 200
ROOCnICK A. LAWSON
UONAL13 1. RALE/ON
RA7�240N* 0.MARMHALL
JOHN SCOTT 4,40ONALO
1.AWJ0N, RA1.,E1A11 a MARM IA( I, V. A.
�• LAWYERS 1 W
30246 tA1tC 4LM10 AVtNU; NO11111
LAKE ELMO,MINNESOTA 55042
Re; Common Enemy Doctrine
("101 777 -6960
G
REURCN O. V"01VCVN rota -1907
MILTON LINOBLOOM I925-1930
CHEOTER O. WILOON 1810.1971
At your request I write this letter to you and the
Managers for purposes of briefly explaining the so- called
Common Enemy Doctrine. Minnesota originally adopted this
approach in the case of Pye v. City of Mankato, 36 Minn. 373,
31 N.W. 863 (1887). Bas zca ly, tTie' hot ing an that casd
allowed a land.owner to get rid of surface water as best he
could without unnecessarily injuring a neighbor. The Court
held:
"Surface water is a common enema, which each owner,
in the necessary and proper improvement of his land,
may get rid of as best he may, subject, however, to
the restriction of the maxim that a man must so use
his own as not unnecessarily to injure another."
This approach was slightly modified in a later case,
Beach v.. Gaylord, 43 Minn. 476, 54 N.W. 1095 (1890). In that
case the Court added certain limitations to the Common Enemy
Doctrine in that (1) the activity must be incident to the
ordinary use and improvement of the property; and (2) the
resulting discharge must not be greater in volume or quantity
then would naturally occur.
A later Minnesota case, Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436,
61 N.W. 462 (1894), restated the so-�catled Common Enemy
Doctrine thusly:
"The old common law rule that surface water is a
common enemy, which each owner may get rid of as
best he can, is in force in this State, except
that it is modified by the rule that he must so
use his own as not unnecessarily or unreasonably
to injure his neighbor. Under this rule, it is
the duty of an owner draining his own land to
deposit the surface water in some natural, drain,
if one is reasonably accessible; and he*is entitled
11,
a
. Page 2
to deposit the same in such natural. drain, though
it is thereby conveyed upon the land of his
neighbor, if he does not thereby unreasonabl
injure him.` �T
C.
The law as stated in the Sheehan case is generally referred to
the Reasonable Use Doctrine,an it is presently applicable today
in Minnesota with reference to surface waters. The principals
contained in the Sheehan case can be briefly restated as follows:
1 A land owner can mane a reasonable use of his land,
even if it increases the natural. drainage Tinto a
neighbors property.
2. What is reasonable is to be pleasured by balancing the
benefit of the improvement against the harm to the
receiving land.
3. The method of drainage must not unnecessarily damage
the neighbor and must do the least damage possible.
This is an affirmative duty to divert the water into
a natural drain or into some course that will do the
least injury to the neighbor.
4'. Obstruction of water coming on to his land must'also
be reasonable. A land owner cannot obstruct a natural
drain and consequently flood i:pl.and property if that
drain is an important one.
It is interesting to note the Court in the Sheehan case
also made the following statement:
"The water must be discharged, and must necessarily become
a common enemy which the common law calls it. In such a
cash every man has the right to get rid of it as best he
can, and the only remedy is a public system of drainage,
which the public, and not the individual owner, must
inaugerate."
Other more recent cases have continued to uphold the Reasonable
Ilse Doctrine. in closing I would point out the following exerpt
taken from Ender-son v. Kelehan, 226 Minn., 163, 32 N.W. 2nd 286
(1948) :.
L/ "The problem arising out of the disposal of surface
waters involves an' infinite variety of factors and
circumstances, and therefore the reasonable use rule
cannot be reduced to a cut - and -dried formula, but must
10
r �
Pfige 3
0
r.
Y
remain flexible, according to the full. and normal
implication's of the term 'reasonable use', to allow
for a consideration of each individual case according
to its own peculiar facts. No one factor or circumstance
is controll.in2. What is reasonable use is a n uestio
_._
fact to #�b� resolved a�co dr �L�._t� the s�ec�al
circumstance of each articular case:'
Yours truly,
ROM : 9.''11
Raymond 0. Marshall.
L+