03-13-2023 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

 The proposed Rear Patio & Step was 124 and now changed to a Rear Patio only (no step) at 108, but mathematically the size of 11' x 10' is 110.  The proposed driveway increased from 930 to 933  The existing stairs to basement decreased from 3'x8'=23 (math error?) from 27.  The math calculation for item "I" on the new Worksheet is not correct: (65+64+60+43+51+47)/2 = 165, not 139.5. Based on the scaled drawing (Exhibit F) of the bluff timber walls, a calculated value of the linear walls totaled well over 165. Granted, these calculations came from a paper copy, but the differences should warrant a second review of this line item.  Line items J through N: proposed stairs by the lake (upper, middle and lower), proposed stair landing by lake, and proposed deck/boar house, and are not supported by any drawings in the information packet. The proposed dimensions are provided, but there is no indication on the how the steps would be built within the 75 foot lakeshore setback area.  There is no line item for the A/C pads in the new Hardcover Calculation Worksheet. Summary To reiterate, this new Hardcover Worksheet dated 2/2/23 does not include the final 7th timber wall that was supposed to be built under the emergency request and City Council authorization, or the additional stairs needed to traverse over the final wall. The emergency corrections identified by Paul Schimnowski, P.E., in his letter dated Nov. 18, 2022 regarding the stability of the bluff and the necessity for building the 7th tier have not been completed. I believe the Planning Commission members and the City Council members should reject the applicants request for approval of an after-the-fact bluff and 75-foot lake setback variances since the "As- Built" retaining walls do not comply with the engineer's specifications. It appears that the overall question is whether the bluff retaining walls should be completed per the engineer's drawing of 7 tiers, or if the bluff should be restored more in line with "in-kind" with the original bluff retaining walls and the previous line of the bluff. My impression is that the new timber walls were constructed very well and the contractor made changes during construction to improve the bluff walls better than the original wall timbers. The contractor built solid retaining walls, but it was the method of removing the huge amount of dirt from the bluff that shocked us, the neighbors, and the city planners and inspectors. Since the contractor has built solid retaining walls, it may be prudent to let him finish building the final wall rather than trying to restore the bluff more in line with the original bluff line. This dilemma is the question for the Planning Commission members and the City Council members to fully evaluate and resolve.