07-24-2023 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

only 4 feet tall. Based on the property survey completed by Gronberg on May 18, 2022 (prior to the bluff fire), the elevation level of my adjacent west side property near the top of the bluff is 963.1 feet. In Exhibit B, Sheet 2 of "Gates Designs", the portion of the 6th wall nearest my property is listed at an elevation of 957.4 feet. Thus, the resulting elevation gradient at that corner of the 6th wall would be 5.7 feet, i.e., 963.1 - 957.4 = 5.7 feet. This concern of mine was detailed in my written comments at both the February and March City Council meetings, and does not appear to be addressed in these new proposed plans. Also, the lack of retaining wall height to be added near my adjacent property is also identified in the Criterium-Schimnowski drawing in Exhibit B4. The proposal is to add 3.4 feet of height to the 6th retaining wall, but only near the center placement of the stairs as defined in Note #2. The remaining added timbers are gradually tiered lower as they traverse toward the adjacent side properties. This is the opposite of shoring up the walls along the adjacent properties. The Original Plans of the bluff retaining wall designed by Criterium-Schimnowski, dated August 24, 2022, state the following in the Design Limitations section: "Site Layout and grading design are not included in wall design services. Those services are the responsibility of the site civil engineer." The proposed plans to add 3.4 feet in height to the center of the 6th wall near the stairs, and then add subsequent timbers along the sides downward toward the adjacent properties, do not mitigate the gradient differences to the top of the bluff. So, if Exhibit B1 (Updated Survey / Grading Plan) was submitted to address the elevation gradients of the bluff retaining walls to the adjacent properties, these plans are not sufficient to mitigate the risk of bluff collapse along the adjacent properties. There is a slightly visible comment in the drawing that states, "T.W. = 961.0 PROP." This comment correlates to the Sheet 2 drawing in Gates Designs that denotes the proposed maximum height of the wall to be 960.8 feet in elevation. Since the licensed engineer Criterium-Schimnowski who designed the retaining walls is not responsible for the site layout and gradient services, I once again request that the site civil engineer provide the written assurances that the work was completed based on known industry specifications and building codes for mitigating soil erosion and collapse of slopes. I do not feel this has been adequately addressed in this packet of information, especially on my adjacent side of the property. The Topographic Survey dated 6/27/2023 (Exhibit B1) was provided to show an updated survey and proposed grading plans. The survey does contain discrepancies as to what existed on 6/27/2023 and the grading plans seem to be focused on the grading plans directly near the rear of the house. The drawing shows that the 108 sq. ft concrete patio is to be removed. This concrete patio was removed at the same time when the footings for the new 3-car attached garage were put in place and that was many months ago. The survey lists a "Prop Ground deck 220 sqft". Interestingly, this added portion of the proposed deck lies within the average lakeshore setback area and the footings were dug last Friday, July 21st. A previous variance request to build a deck in this same area was rejected by City Council in August 2022 as this portion of the proposed deck extends into the average lakeshore setback. The City Council only approved the replacement of the original 108 sq. foot concrete patio in the corner of the house in August of 2022. So, if this after-the-fact variance is approved, does that automatically grant approval to build the larger proposed deck within the average lakeshore area? The survey denotes that the "timber boarder(sp) of garden from adj. lot to be removed". As I have mentioned numerous times, the garden border is actually a retaining wall that steps down the elevation gradient of my property to the applicant's property. The elevation ranges from