01-17-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File ^1896 January 11, 1995 Page 2 D - E - F - G - H - I - J - Gustafson Letter 1/11/95 Allan Block Corporation Letter 11/15/94 Elevations, Section, Plan Large Scale Section/Plan Location Map Property Owners ’ List Survey Review of Application In November of 1994, Mrs. Yorks contacted the City to advise of the unstable condition of an existing retaining wall at the top of the steep lakeshore bank at her property. She was advised by her contractor of the need to replace existing retaining wall prior to the spring thaw and rains. Mrs. Yorks was advised that there were no future meetings of the Planning Commission for ’94 and that the first meeting of the year in 1995 would not be until January when it would be impossible for the contractor to proceed with retaining wall replacement. Staff advised that the City Engineer would make an inspection of her lakeshore yard to determine if there was a potential for serious collapse of the lakeshore bank based on the condition of the wall. Upon the City Engineer ’s inspection of the Yorks ’ property, he determined that there was indeed a great potential for the collapse of both wall and the steep bank. Mrs. Yorks was then advised that the City could issue no building permits until a conditional use permit review was completed, but that if she had to proceed that it would be advisable that she submit a conditional use permit application and provide all the necessary information for the Engineer to complete his review of the new construction. Gustafson approved the final specs and plans submitted by the Allan Block Corporation, review Exhibits C, E, F and G. Applicant was advised of the need to first complete the filing of a conditional use permit application and to also await the final review comments of the City Engineer before construction of the wall could begin. The wall was constructed sometime in late November or early December. Unfortunately, the contractor failed to ask for inspections of the project zs it was being installed. The Engineer recommended that if the wall was to be installed at a height greater than 4 ’, additional layers and depth of geo-grid were to be used. The Engineer also notes in his letter of January 11th, Exhibit D, the following should have been implemented: 1. Bond beam or bridged construction in front of existing trees. 2. Granular backfill in the bridged areas. 3. 14 inches of buried block (18 inches required at increased height) Gustafson contacted the contractor who advised he was not aware that he had to call for the inspections but noted that photos were taken during the construction of the walls and that to his knowledge, based on field notes, that all of the requirements set forth in the City Engineer ’s review were carried out. As Gustafson has no way of confirming that these were achieved, he