Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1896 <br />January 11, 1995 <br />Page 2 <br />D - Gustafson Letter 1/1 5 <br />E - Allan Block Corporation Letter 11/15/94 <br />F - Elevations, Section, Plan <br />G - Large Scale Section/Plan <br />H Location Map <br />I - Property Owners’ List <br />J - Survey <br />Review of Application <br />In November of 1994, Mrs. Yorks contacted the City to advise of the unstable condition <br />of an e.xisting retaining wall at the lop of the steep lakeshore bank at her property. She was <br />advised by her contractor of the need to replace existing retaining wall prior to the spring thaw <br />and rains. Mrs. Yorks was advised that there were no futu.e meetings of the Planning <br />Commission for ’94 and that the first meeting of the year in 1995 would not be until January <br />when it would be impossible for the contractor to proceed with retaining wall replacement. Staff <br />advised that the City Engineer would make an inspection of her lakeshore yard to determine if <br />there was a potential for serious collapse of the lakeshore bank based on the condition of the <br />wall. Upon the City Engineer ’s inspection of the Yorks ’ property, he determined that there was <br />indeed a great potential for the collapse of both wall and the steep bank. <br />Mrs. Yorks was then advised that the City could issue no building permits until a <br />conditional use pe;mit review was completed, but that if she had to proceed that it would be <br />advisable that she submit a conditional use permit application and provide all the necessary <br />information for the Engineer to complete his review of the new construction. Gustafson <br />approved the final specs and plans submitted by the Allan Block Corporation, review E)^ibits <br />C, E, F and G. Applicant was advised of the need to first complete the filing of a conditional <br />use permit application and to also await the final review comments of the City Engineer before <br />con.struction of the wall could begin. The wall was constructed sometime in late November or <br />early December. Unfortunately, the contractor failed to ask for inspections of the project as it <br />was being installed. The Engineer recommended that if the wall was to be installed at a height <br />greater than 4’, additional layers and depth of geo-grid were to be used. The Er.cineer also <br />notes in his letter of January 11th, Exhibit D, the following should have been implemented; <br />1. Bond beam or bridged construction in front of existing trees. <br />2. Granular backfill in the bridged areas. <br />3. 14 inches of buried block (18 inches required at increased height) <br />Gustafson contacted the contractor who advised he was not aware that he had to call for <br />the inspections but noted that photos were taken during the construction of the walls and that to <br />his knowledge, based on field notes, that all of the requirements set forth in the City Engineer ’s <br />review were carried out. As Gustafson has no way of confirming that th^. e were achieved, he