Re: as-built - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Coni ui r r 101 D TOY) WOL Christine Mattson Temporolly C .0. From: Christine Mattson Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 10:17 AM To: 'andrewv@chadescudd.com' Cc: 'John Sonnek'; 'Jim Lillesve; 'rwallander@wayzatapartners.com'; Mark Gronberg; 'steven.groen@hennepin.us'; Roger Peitso; Melanie Curtis Subject: 1070 Tonkawa Road/#2014-01157 (new house)&#2015-00809 (detached accessory structure and driveway relocation) Attachments: IMG_1078.jpg; Surrey Requirements-August 2015.pdf, Nov 2014 eng comments.pdf Andrew Our City Engineer has reviewed the as-built survey dated 11-30-15 and visited the site on 2-24-2016. He has the following comments: 1. The survey does not comply with city standards(survey requirements attached): a. All retaining walls must have top of wall and bottom of wall elevations called out(#23). b. Service utilities(water,gas,electrical,and sanitary sewer with invert elevation'at connection point) (#14) c. Drainage patterns are not indicated with arrows(#21). d. Drain tiles are not indicated. The outlet for all of the drain tiles that the downspouts feed into could not be located. (#9) e. Driveway slope is not indicated (#22) 2. The approved plan had a drainage tile and swales on the south side of the home. These are not shown on the as-built survey and do not appear to be present on the site. Were these constructed in accordance with the comments provided in November of 2014?(copy attached) If not,explain why not. There does appear to be a swale at the west end of retaining wall"P" directing runoff to the south and into a depression on the neighboring property near the utility pole. Photo attached (looking south from driveway). This must be remedied either with the originally planned drain tile or some other mechanism to capture the hardcover runo and direct it somewhere other than the neighboring property. 3. Retaining wall,identified as"M"on the survey and hardcover calculation worksheet,appears to be on and over' the property line to the north and may be in conflict with City Code Section 78-1405(5.1). Please revised to comply. 4. The as-built survey shows topographic contours changes and a deck and stairs within the lakeshore setback which were not shown as existing on either of the proposed surveys(9/30/14 or 6/18/15). Please provide evidence that the structures were pre-existing and, if reconstructed,were built in-kind. A new deck in this location is not permitted and a permit is required for reconstruction, if applicable. 5. Please provide evidence of compliance with Hennepin County's ROW permit. Due to the incorrect or incomplete items noted above, only a temporary certificate of occupancy(TCO)can be issued. final CO will not be issued until issues are addressed/resolved and the site stabilized with vegetation. A TCO will require submittal of escrow funds in addition to the building permit$2500 escrow totaling$10,000. The City will hold the $10,000 escrow until disturbed areas on the property are satisfactorily vegetated from an erosion control perspective and the above items are corrected. Upon verification of compliance the CO will be issued and the$10,000 escrow will be refunded. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.