HomeMy WebLinkAboutShoreline Stabilization
...
",,--
(\
'.
r'\
_../
\
\--.h......-
) ,
c'
f)
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
cc:
September 3,1997
Bob Hutchins, Building Official
Steve Horsman, Code Enforcement Officer
Chronology on building permit #95-138, 14964 Pixie
Point Circle, Lot 13 Eastwood Addition
Don Rye, Planning Director & Frank Boyles, City
Manager
~1"95, Building permit application is received at City HaUlor 14964 Pixie
Point Circle.
5-1-16" Permit Application Checklists are accepted, with corrections, by the
Building and Planning Departments.
6-6-86, Permit Application Checklist is accepted by the Engineering
Department.
10-13-15, Engineer V.rtyn Rasen conducts final grading inspection, the report
notice requires work corrections regarding the drainage of .urface ....r ftom
Lot 13 Into the .tonn drain on Lot 14 I. not acceptable without a racorded
document of ....ponaibllltiea arad rig" of both property owners. Surface
.tonnwater flow on the north ..... of the home must be conveyed In a
drainage swale on Lot 13. Correct work, caN for reinspectlon.
4-21-86, Mr. Johnson, 14966 Pixie Point Circle (Lot 14), sends letter to Builder
Dan Reiland, with a copy to the City Builclng Dept., expressing concems over
drainage from, 14964 Pixie Point Clr.(Lot 13), onto his property.
Undated, COpy of letter from Jared Smith, COncept Landscaping, to the
Johnsons, expressing his opinion regarding concems over drain tile, landscaping
and the drainage swale between the adjoining properties.
12-20-96, Summary of a memo from Engineer Verlyn Raaen to the building
permit file #95-138 regarding gradtng Improvements for 14964 Pixie Point Circle.
Verlyn met with Mr. & Mrs. Johnson, 14916 Pixie Point Circle, to discuss
landscape and grading improvements made by Johnson-Reiland Const. between
the adjoining properties. The Johnson's were not .atisfled with the
Improvements, COU'" rock placed by .. Builder on the Johnson's
property was relRovecl, as agreed to between the Johnson's and ReUand.
but ,the.short drain pipe had ... extended from the SW corner of the
ReIland ...... d8wR .... .... .... it .......,... Johnaon'. bMch. Tile
JoIIn.on'. said they moved it ..... to IWIMd'. property. (see page 2)
~
~
12-20-11, Summery of memo continued; They also stated the Builder failed to
increase the depth of the dralnlgi swatebetween the homes. Vertyn could not
determine the current condition of the improvements due to deep snow cover.
There is no record on file, dated before 12-20-86, regarding a reinepection for
final. grading as required in Vertyn's inspection notice dated 10-13-86. The
Builder was into City Hall eartier in the week and requested his $1500.00 deposit
be returned.
12-27-96, Inspector Jay Scherer conducts final inspection with a corrections
notiCe requiring final grade inspection per Engineering Dept., and issues a
temporary certificate of Occupancy that expires on 6-1-87.
2-20-97, Building Official Gary Steber sends letter to Mr. Johnson, per phone
conversation, assuring Mr. Johnson that the drainage swale and all ou"tanding
issues will be addressed and resolved by the Builder Reiland and reviewed by
the City prior to the expiration of the temp. Cert. of Occupancy.
4-3-87, Engineer Vertyn Raaen and Building Official Gary Staber conduct the
final grading inspection and approve the tlnal grade with the conditions that the
retaining wall within the City right-of-way maybe partially/entirerty removed to
accomodate the future driveway for the adjacent lot 12. Builder Dan Reiland is
present as noted in the report.
5-15-97, Mr. Johnson sends letter to City Manager Frank Boyles requesting
assistance to resolve the issues and avoid litigation. Mr. Johnson asked for a
copy of the final grading inspection report and questioned how the drainage
swale could be determined without removal of the rock cover, and how the
Builder did not replace landscaping removed from his property.
5-11-97, Engineer Vertyn.Raaen sends a copy ofthe inspection report to Mr.
Johnson.
7-24-97, Mr. Johnson sends letter to City Manager Frank Boyles describing the
bluff slide that occurred on 7-22-'7, which caused one third of his lot to slide
into Prior Lake. Mr. Johnson also expressed his dissatisfaction in dealing with
the Builder and the City, and requested aid to help him cleanup. Copies of the
letter were sent to Mayor Andren and Attorney Timothy Dwyer. The City
Manager forwarded a copy to City Engineer Greg IIkka.
7-28-97, Buitding Inspector Paul Baumgartner conducts final reinspection,
report states that handrails for stairs not required for 3 risers.
7-2I-97(or later), Mr. Johnson phoned Inspector Paul Baumgartner. and stated
there was no permit for the rear retaining wall. Paul investigated and determined
there was no permit or indication of the rear retaining wall in the origin" building
permit application.
2
"
("-
f"""\
"
8......7, Inspector Paul Baumgartner sends letter to Builder Dan Reiland
refusing to return the Builders deposit until the required engineering for the
boulder retaining wall, including soils evakJatIon, is received for review by the
City of Prior Lake.
8-13-97, Planning Director Don Rye sends letter to Builder Reiland, per phone
conversation, supporting the posftion to hOld onto the Builder's deposit until the
submission of an engineer's statement .to the stability of the retaini"l wall "d
supporting soils. Statement to be received within 10 working days or the de",it
shall be utilized to conduct a review of the wall.
8-19-97, Builder Dan Reiland sends letter to Planning Director Don Rye, stating
that in April of 1997, the Building OffIcial told him that all conditions of the permit
were met and his deposit would beretumed in fun.
In summary, as of 9-2-17,. the required engineer's certificate for the solis and
boulder retaining wall have not been submitted to the CIty.and the dweling is
under an expired temporary Certificate of Occupancy as of 8..1-17. ". City
continues to hold the builder's $1500.00 deposit.
Also, see the attached copies of the originat inspection reports and letters of
conespondence that pertain to this chronology.
SH
3
r
{\
( ,
~'
Memorandum
DATE: September 12, 1997
,
~
TO: Don Rye, Planning Director
FROM: Robert D. Hutchins, Building Officia.
RE: Building Permit #95-138, 14964 Pixie Point Road
Mr. Michael Harte's residence
During a visit to the above site on August 22, 1997, with Verlyn Raaen,
we observed the present conditions of the building site. I observed the
bank of dirt that slid into Prior Lake, the tear retaining wall, and noticed
cracks in the foundation. I did not comment on anything I observed to
Mr. Harte other than to detennine the elevation of fiU under the lower
level floor. When Mr. Harte invited me into his home, I observed areas in
\
the lower:." that appeareclto be occupied by office equipment, and
also a meeting room setting.
On August 8, 1997, Paul Baumgartner sent a letter to Dan Reiland
requiring an engineered design for the rear retaining wafl. According to
you, Mr. Reiland is not willing to provide that engineering. I would
suggest that the $1,500.008uHder's Deposit, which was paid for with the
Building Permit, be utilized to help pay for an engineer to make a
determination on the structural integrity of the retaining wall and the
supporting soils. Mr. Harte indicated that he plans to employ an enginettr
to review the situation. Mr. Harte should submit the bill from his engineer
and the City should reimburse him up to the $1,500.00 Builder's Deposit.
I wilt also recommend that Mr. Harte employ a qualified person to
investigate the cracks in the foundation.
,
\
\,
, .- -IJ !:ffiJ:'::~~. ('
,"-,..
r"\
CONSULTANTS
· GEOTeCHNICAL
· MATERIALS
· ENVIRONMENTAL
September 9, 1997
Mr, Bill HaDSon
WorkiDa l"'~apes
884 RedwellLane
Apple Valley, MN 55124
RE: Geotechnir.al Services Proposal
Backyard Slope aDd. Sh01eliDe StabwDtlon
Harte Residfsc
14964 Pixie PoiDt Circle S.B.
Prior Late, MN 55372
DearMr.~
American J;.~ TestiDg, Inc. (AE1j is pleased to present this proposal for gerJteltanica1
services na.l. to leCOft'b~. for ~ and repairing the backyard slope.an4 lake
shoreline at die above ~.&taeocedsite. You MqIJeSSDd. this proposal duriDg our site visit em August
25, 1997. The inteDtofthe proposal is to preseDtour reCOhd}~OOed work scope, esrimA.o fee
and terms and conditioas of our services.
~..,......
The .. is .~1otwithaa aistiDg 2..story sjqie family house on the lot. The backyard
extcnd& 11111'1Mt leYel hill the rear wall of die boule for a ~ of about .10' . and tbIn slopes
downward ratber steeply to the sboretiDe of Prior Lake. The Jake level is about 30'-35' below the
level yard area just ~ the house. The slope area has scattered medium to large trees and some
brush.
During thjs past SIJ~, we ~~ a portion of the soils within the slopecoJlapsed and slid
down slope to near the water's edge. DmiDI our.. v:isit,tbe slope ~ area was covered with
plastic sheeting. However, it initially appean to be a rather shallow (1 '-2'} surface failure, as
opposed to a deep sea1ed rotatioDal sbear failure. A portion of neighboriDg propeny to the south
has also experiea:ed the failurC. - .
We ~ you plaa to re.c~ the slope by terracing and building retstiniqg walls. 'Ibis Iepair
may be doDein Slaps over a period of a year or more.
.N! AI'FINM11VI ACTION IlWL.CJV'ER"
21. CIIrI.wIWfy Aw..v. ..St..,..." ._114 . .1. _1<<11 . Fcc .12....1379
DuIutI . ManIado . Rocht8tIr . W8usau
"
(\
o
Mr. Bill Hanson
September 9. 1997
Page 2
We expect saadyand clay glacial till soils at the site.
pu~
The purposes of our services are to (1) determine cause of slope failure and (2) recommend
designs to stabilize the .shore1iDe and slope. while considering the aesthetics the property owner
desires to achieve.
Our services are not i~ to determine the chemical or biological contamination at the site.
~...of~
Based ()tl theiDfOfll'AtinaavaUable to us at. this time. our work scope will include the following:
· F.N'1!I' visit site to observe existiDg condition.
. Dri1l hand _ger boriags at selected locations in and near the slope failure area to
determine . the depth of failure and general soil types present. (we have coDSidered
machine boriDp. however. access is very difficult so this process would add
considerably to costs).
. Prepare a written report presenting the factual information obtained and present
g~cal engineering recoDI1DaIdati()llS for the following:
- Stabiliziag the shoreline. including erosion from. lake wave and ice actiOD.
- Temporarily stabilizing the slope to allow remediAl construction to begin.
- Stable earth slopes. retention systems and drainage for the remedial construction.
- ..Staged construction in the event all work is not completed at one time.
· Meeting at the site U-ferably with you and owner) to review and discuss our report
prior to construction.
. Make three trips to the site during construction (lit stage only if staged) to observe the
work and how the intent of the design is being met. These trips are planned at the
beginning of coDStrUCtion. approximately at half completion and at completion of the
project or first stage. whichever is the case.
. Prepare a brief report dOCl~1lg the construction observation.
- -
Services we perform for your project will be done under theafrection of an experienced
potec~,al .... .rogistetecl. iD the State of Minnesota. As part of our firm's qality
~. qstem. aI geotecJualcal reportB are internally peer reviewed.
r
"
o
Mr. Bill Hanson
September 9, 1997
Page 3
J"I~"l!e
For the mutual proteCtion oftheoWJaer. Working 1-"St'.ape8 and American EDgiDeeriDgTeIting,
IDe., we mAjllblin both general aud professioDalliabitity iDsuraDce. Certificates of such iDsurance
can be provided at your request.
Eas
Our fee for these services. will be charged on a time and materials basis in accordance with our
current schedule of fees, which is attached. For the work scope described above, the estimated
maximum fee is $4,900. These ~tM fees are considered maximum and not to exceed amounts
for the proposed worlCscope and the conditions we anticipate. This quotation ~ainsin effect
for 30 days. We can ~ complete portioos of our work if the ground is frozen or snow covered.
\
\
Our policy is to obtain '0% of the estimated fee prior to beginning the work with the balance
(other than about $1000 for construction site trips) due upon delivery of our design
recommendations report. . \ 1(\.... (1:,' {'j !\o /
-~" .\'~
CmuIiUo.D&
Our services will be performed per the attached three-page "Service Agreement, It along with the
.Subsurface Boring Supplement."
We can begin work at the site within one week after receiving notification to proceed. We
anticipate aboUt six hours will be necessary to complete the borings and other sitemeasuremtnts.
We will J;eview and verify a schedule which best meets your requirements. After.the borinp are
completed, we expect four to five working days will be necessary to complete the report.
Ac~nee
Please mdicate your acoeptaoce of tbis proposal by endorsing this origiDaland the attached copy.
Please return the .copy to us.
o
o
~
Mr. Bill Hanson
September 9, 1997
Page 4
AET Ioeks forward to providing service on your project. Please call me at 659-1300 if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
~~~
Principal
Phone: (612) 659-1300
Fax: (612) 659-1379
DKS/ale
AUac1mvmt$
PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE BY:
SIGNATURE:
COMPANY:
DATE:
o
,
r'\
American EQlineeriag Testing, Inc.
St. Paul, Minnesota
(Effective January 1, 1997)
ca~STRUCTION son. ~VTCES aNI.. Y
This fee schedule has been shortened from our full fee schedule for your convenience. We are able. to perform more
specialized potcclmical testing/services on your project, as well as construction materials or environmencal services. A
full. fee schedule can be submitted if requested.
Description
I. ~ecbnic:al Personnel Rates
llDit
~
A. Bnii~lEnvir~ Technician I
B. Drill Crew Person
C. ~lBnviroomental Technician II, NOT Level II
D. Drill Crew Chief
E. Senior ~ Technician m, NOT Level m
F. E.nameeriDg Assistant
G. Bngineer I, Geologist I, Scientist I '
H. Senior )::-9~ Assistant, Engineer II,
Geologist II, Sciendst n
I. Senior F..~,. Geologist, Scientist
1. Principal EnJineer
K. . Word Processing Specialist
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
$ 42.00
47.00
50.00
58.00
60.00
69.00
72.00
82.00
per hour
per hour
per hour
92.00
110.00
42.00
The rateS presented are portal to portal, with vehicle mileage. expenses and equipment rentals being additional.
Reduced rateS may be negotiated for long,.term projects.
Overtime for personnel categories A-F charged at above cost plus 25 % for over 8 hours per day or Saturday; and
at above cost plus 50% for Sundays or Holidays. Hazardous work charged at additional 25%.
II. Vehicle Mileage (personnel time and rental extra)
A. Personal AutomobilelTmck
per mile
0.35
r
American Engineering Testing, Inc.
/"\
1997 Short Form Fee Schedule - Page 2
ConstrUction $oil Services Onlv
~tion
R=
m . Earthwork Observation and Testing
A. Field P.f\IineeriDg Services
B. Field n..ity Tests, Trip Basis
1. Tri9 CbarJe (TDDe IDd Mileqe)
2. T. Charp, Nuclear_ SaDd-cone (at AET'Soption)
3. Test Cbarge,SaDd-Cone (when required by client)
4. Test Taken OD Weekends or Holidays
C. Full-Time Density Test Monitoring
1. JinsineerinI. Tedmician,per 4O-hour week
2. Sr. EngiaeeringTechnician, per 4O-hour week
3. Nuclear Gauge Rental
D. Compaction Laboratory Testing
1. StaDdar4 Proctor, 4 "(Method A)
2. StaDdard Proctor, 6" (Method B)
3. StaDdard Proctor, 6" (Method C, D)
4. Modified Proctor, 4" (Method A)
5. Modified Proctor, 6" (MetbodB)
6. Modified Proctor, 6" (Method C, D)
7. Preparation of Clay Proctor Sample
8. One Point Proctor Check
9. Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils
10. Water Content
11. Atterberg Limits (ASTM:D4318)
1. .PlaIticity Index
2. Liquid Limit or Plastic Limit Separately
12. ; Sieve ADalysiJ (includes -#200 determination)
Ilnit
See I, n
Seen
per test
per test
per test
quoted per project
quoted per project
per day
per test
per test
per test
per test
per test
per test
per hour
per test
per test
per test
per test
per test
per test
--
21.00
30.00
30.00
40.00
73.00
85.00
88.00
88.00
90.00
99.00
40.00
45.00
100.00
12.00
70.00
48.00
70.00
('
r\
SERVICE AGREEMENT "
1'DMS AND .cONImIONS
~ON 1 _ ,~,nTIi'J;
1.1- The partY to whom the proposalIcontraCt is Iddr:eued II die CHId of Amelican R~ TestiD&, IDe. (AET).
1.2 . Prior to AET pert'o.nDjD& work, ClieDt will provide AET widl aD iD&nIItica Ibat may a1fec:t me c:ost., proal" safety aDd
performance of the work. Tbis iDc111des, but is not limited to, iJIfomIaIioD OIl PfOPC*ld aDd aisliDlcoasa:uctioD.. aU ..fertiDeut
sectioDs of CODIrICtS betMen ClieDt aDd propertY OWJ*'. _safety ,...or 0Iber ~ wb.idl may CODttOl or Iffoct AET's
work. If new iJIfomIaIioD becomes available c:I:u.riD& AET's work, en. wilt provide R1Cb iDformaIioD to AET in a timely
Jl'I8DDef. Also, ClieDt will provide a represeDlltMfor dmB1y uawers to project-relared questioas by AET.
1.3 - Work by AET will DOt relieve other persaIIS of tbeir teIpQDIibUity to perform work ICCOrdiq to me \iUllk1Cl dQcumeDtS
or spec:ificati.oas, aDd AET will DOt be held respoasiblefor work or omiIIioDs by CtieaE adodm pet'SClIIS. ABT wI1 not be
responsible fordirectin& or superviaiDa the work of others, UIIless specifically audlorized in writiq.
.u. - Work by AET often iDc1udes u"'Pline at specific ~. 1Dbenmt with such samplin& is variaUon between 't""p~jpg
locations. ClieDl recori%l!!l this ~ aDd the asscx-ildll!lf risk, aDd admowIedps mat opinioas developed by ABT, based
011 the samples, are qualified to that extent.
U - AET is not respoosible for iutclplewiOllS or mocIific:atioDs of AET's ~,mn. by other porsoDI.
1.6 - Sbould cbaapd CODditioDs be allepd, C1ieDt &peel to DDCify AET before evideD:e of cbaap is DO lcmpr ~le for
~.
mrrt'ItW 2,. IlTK ~~ .A.ND 'R,-qrrn~'t'JON
1.1- CUIDt will furDiIb KEr AfeIDd lepl .. access.
U - It is UDCimstood by C1ieD1 that in the normal course of the work, some ctamaae to die site or materiIls may occm-. AET
will taD re__b~eprecautioDs to m;,nm~ such ctamaae. R.esto.raIiDa of the aiIa. is tile teSpOJIISibility of tile CBIm.
~3-S~
3.J. - C1iIIIl Sbd iDfoIm AET of 111)' kDown or suapectecl bazardous materials or UIIIafe ~ at tile work lite. If, duriD&
the coune of AIT's work, suchlDlllerials or ~ are discoYeted. AET resawa tile ri&b& to lite DHlIIUl'eS to ~ AET
persoDIIIl aod eqlliJ.l'~ or to mm-tiAMly termiDate services. Client sbI1l be lespoal1"b1e for paymeat of sac:h Idditinrulll
protectioIl COltS. ~
U - AET sbaI1 only be. respoadblefor safety of AET employees at the work site. The ClieDt or other perIODI shall be
respcman.le for ~ safety of all otIIer perIODS at die site.
~ON 4 .'It.wrrrJi'-~
U - Client is ..:....tor iDformiD& AET of any kDowD or suspected buardous materials prior to submiUal to AET. All
ltA"'Ples olJrlllif'llCl by, orsubaJPMd to, AET remaintbe propertY of the Clieat duriDa aDd after the work. ADy kDowa or suspected
bazardoua mareriIl samples will be remmed to the ClieDt at AET's cliJcretion.
~ _ Noo-bazudoua samples will be held for 30 days aDd tben discanIeci unless, wit:biD 30 days' of die zepoft daCe, d1e Client
provides a written request tbat AIT store or ship die samples, at the ClieDt's expease.
SECnON 5 - PROJI'.CT 'Il'RC(p~
The projeet records prepued by AET will remain the property of AET. AET sbI1l retain these recordI for a period of tbree
years followiDI submiIIion of tbe report, duriD& wIUcl1 period the project records can be-made available to ClicDt at AEr's ofJic:e
at rusoaable times.
~ON 6 _ST~A..J) OF r.It.RE
AET will p.nfoall..1ces CIOIISi_ wirh tbe )evd of care aDd skiD. aormally performed by other finDs ill tbe tdofeslion It die
time of cbis sem:e aiD Ibis ...~ area. UDder similar budaer-Y coasttaiDrs. No otber WII'I'IIIlY ill imp1IIlI otill~.
02DPMOll(3196)
AMElUCAN ~ fiaING.lMC.
('1
r--'\
Serftce ~. P8p 2
SEC110N 7 - ~CE
AET carries WOl'km"s ~~, Property Damage aDd ProfessioaalUability insurance. AET willfumish cerdficates of
iDsuraDCe to C1ieDt 1IpOIl request.
~ON , - ~ rAYS
If ABT wort delays are.~ by Clieat, work of 0Ibm. strikes. .... CIIBlS. weather. or ocher items beyCDl AET's CODUol.
a reasonable time exteDIion for performance of work sba1l be .gramed.. lid AET sball receive an equit.Ule fee .-.nem ,
SECTION 9 _ p.& VURN'T. ~1l'R'r ~ RR2.&CH
2J. - Imoices are .__receipt. ~ wiD.iDfoaD AE'J' of iDvoice .... or clisapeemf<~ within 15 days ofiDwice date;
UDless so infonDec:l, iD:Yoices are deemed comet.
u - ClIent apes to pay iaIereIt on uapaid invoice balaDces at a rite of 1.5 Sper lDODIh. or die maximum aUowed by law.
wbichever is lea. beJiDDiDI 30 days after invoice dale.
U - If any invoice remains 1IIIpIicl for 60 days. such DOD-pa.ym&:Dl sball be a material breach. of tbis qreeme:Dt. As . result of
such mat.erial breach. AET may. at its sole option. termiDare all duties to the CUem or odIer perIODS. wirhout liIbili&y.
U - Client will pay all AET collection expeaaes aad attomey fees mJatiDg to put due fees which the Cliem owes UDder tbis
qreement.
.R.C'nQN 1" . ~A.TIllN 'RRIUJIIlR~
Paymemof AET ~fGr OieDtlaMuill..... ABT wbich are~'Md or are judpd 1I+-.o.Jly in AET'staVOl' will be
die C1iem's respoaaibilky.AppIiaable costs include. but are DOt limiIecl to.auomey aDd expert "fIi1mafees. ocat COStS.aDd
AET costs.
~n _~~(';ATfQN
llJ. - AET ...to.... ~ _~.mify CHeat from aDd apiDst.liabi1ity IliIiDI oat .of AET's ~.;p:rIDrmaace
of me work, subject -any IimiW..... odIer ~ or 0Iber pmviaioaI ClieatllldAET JuweapeldlO inwritial.
.l.U - Client apees toJ1olcl bIrmleu aDd iDdemDify AET from aDd apiDst liability arisiDg out of ClJeaI's ~\pMcoDduct,
subject to any limit...v-. otber ~ifil!ftioDs or other provisiCllllS CHeat aud ABT haw apeed to.
.l.U - If ClieDt has ia.,ifm Inky aarecmeut with otber perIODS. the ClieDt sball include AET as a beDeficiary .
~ON 12 - T.1WI.TIQN ~ T.URIIJTY
CliIat .... 10 limit .\IT's ~ 10 CIieaIs ariIiDa from pro~ acts. errors or O"li~. such tIIat die 1laII1 eagrepte
liability of AET ~DOt a:eed $50.000.
~ 13 -~~~"'ON
Afar 7 days Wliaa DOdce..... ,patty may elect to termiDate work for jJtariftllhN! niuoaI. In tbis event. me ClimJlsball pay
for all work pelfOlmed, imlud.. damobilizadon aDd leponq COllI to COJDPlefe me tile.
~ 14. avp~"'JTY
Ally prcMsiaa of ddI....... s.r beld 10 violate a law or xquIariIa sba1l be deemal void. aDd all p!ft'IIlmm, ~ Iba1l
oomim~ in force. However. ClieIIt aDd AET will in aooct faith at1eIIIpt to repJace an iDva1id or uaeaforteabIe pIOViaion with
ODe that is valid lDdeufon:eable. aDd which CCIIDCS as close as pouibIe 10 expJ.'eISiD& die in1ent of dJe-oriJjDal pl'DVUIion.
SECTION 15. ~~ A".J1I'M1lNT _
1bia ~. iDcl1IcIIII ~~. is the eDIire apeemeat between AET aDil Client. This ap:meDl. nullifies my
previous wriaIoor oral~ W~ puCbIIeIwort orden. Ally mrrifit:atioas to tbis ..,.,..1D1JIt" iawridDa.
02DPM011(3196)
AMIlUCAN EN~ iBhN'ct INC.
/',
(\
~
h'7)[ "t k-
~
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Metro Waters, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN SSI06-6793
Telepholle: (612) 772.7910 Fax: (612) 772-1971
F'-[J-
Aupst 13, 1997
Michael Harte
14964 Pixie Point Circle SE
Prior Lake, MNSS312
~. '"""i'
MI.,..
Dear Mr. Harte:
."
I am writing this letter in response to the July 25, 1997 meeting between you, Jennif'er Tovar,
Verlyn R.ahn, and myself Due to the heavy rains we received in July, a large portiOSl of the blWf
in your back yard slumped down into Prior Lake. Upon further inspection of the site on July
30th, I found that you had installed a floating silt curtain, that you purchased, around the slunJped
soil exposed to the lake and laid plastic over the exposed soil to prevent further erosion into the
lake. If it had not been for your quick action this situation could have been considered disastrous
to the water quality and locaUish community of Prior Lake. The Department of Natural
Resources would like to take this time to thank you for yoUr initiative and expedient action.
Your actions represent the best possible scenario that we could have expected gives the situation.
It has been a pleasure "Working with you and I look forward to continued contact as you to restore
the shoreline along the back of your property.
Sincerely,
~/~
Dous1as Losee
Intern Hydrololist
c: City olPnor Lake, Verlyn hbn
Scott COunty SoD and Water Conservation District, Pete Beclcius .
. Prior kb-Spriaa~W"""District
ONR Infonn:llion: 612-296-6157.1-800-766-6000 . TrY: 611-296-5484.1-800-657-3929
An Eoiual OppunuiIMYIlmplo~
Whu Valucs Oi'lle".iIY
A Pnnlltd un RccYl.ied ~per COIlI"inin, a
., :l<linimum or IlK; p",.r-Con.umer W...,le
('
--
''J
q.::-- (~
"
Concept Laadscapillg and Rock Company
4360 Channel R.oad, SprmS Park, MN 55384
~
To whom this may c.onc.ern:
I bave recently met with 0011 and Birdie Johnson about some potentinlland8Ollpms
concema they have with the neiahhors de'\V home and landscape. They naked it' J would
noto any concerA t.hey .hould b. worried about as . neighborina property owner.
It is my opinion that there ore threo pOints thoy should be eoncerned with. 'lil'lt,
there is no noticeable swale between the two properties for excess water ruDOR: Arty
water runoff now will run to three locations. Two of which are the Johnson's drain tile.
The third is a bowl the builder has installed with a drain tile coming out the bottom.
The Johnson's drain. tile is currently under constnaotion. The existing drain tile
needs to be removed and replaced becau~) it had been filled with sand and dirt, So far a
portion of the drain lile has only been removed to handle the increased use and is soon to
be sehcduled for replacement with a new design to keep this sand ",d dirt clog from
~~~n. ~
~(\J
'rhe second problem is with the drain tile the builder installed cominS his drain
bowl. The drain tile is cut off and ends at the top crest of tho hill approximately on the
propeny Hne. In time it appears the water will be running down the Johnson's hillside and
erodina.it away.
Finally the third problem noted is the wood chips that have been placed on the
Johnson's property below the neighbors boulder wall. The Johnson's had becn told that
this is only temporary and is until natund growth takes over. Natural growth will be
greatly inhibited with the fabrio that was used under the wood chips.
O~~
~ Smith, Pr~.