Laserfiche WebLink
Bonestroo <br />Rosene <br />Anderlik & <br />Associates <br />Engineers & Architects <br />Otio a Bon«tioa PE. <br />Ro(>en W. Rosene. PE. <br />Joseph C. AndefUk, PE. <br />BfMfoni A. Lemberg. PE. <br />Ricturd E. Rjmef. PE. <br />James C. Olson. PE. <br />Glenn R. Cook. PE. <br />Thomas E. Noyes. PE. <br />Robert O. Sehonicht PE. <br />Marvin L Sorvala. PE <br />IMh A. Oordoa PE <br />Rlehard W. Fosur. PE <br />Donstd C flurgarOL PE. <br />Jerry A. Bourdon. PE <br />Mark A. Hanson. PE <br />1M K. Field. PE <br />Michael T. Raucmarsa PE <br />Robert R. PfeTferle. PE. <br />OavM a losloca. PE <br />Thomas W. Peterson. PE <br />Michael C. lynch. PE <br />James R. Maland. PE <br />Kermeih P Andersoa PE. <br />KeRh A. Bachmarvs. PE <br />Mark R. RolTl PE <br />Robert C Russek. AJ.A. <br />Thomas E. Angus, PE <br />Howard A SanfOrd. PE <br />Oamel Jl Edgertoa PE. <br />Mark A. SHc. PE <br />PhNip X Caswell PE <br />Mark a walks. PE <br />Charles A Erickson <br />Leo M. Pawelsky <br />HarlanM. OHon <br />Susan M. acrRn. CEA <br />Noveaber 18, 1988 <br />City of Ocono <br />Box 66 <br />Crystal Bay, MN 55323 <br />Attnt Ms. Jeanne Habusth <br />Ret File No. 139 <br />Crystal Bay Road <br />Dear Jeanne, <br />We have prepared a preliminary layout for the reconstruction work along Crys­ <br />tal Bay Road. The plan reviews two options for repair of the failed lakeshore <br />banks. Option One was proposed by the City as the minimoa amount of work <br />necessary to restore the failed areas. Option Two ittas developed iFtei meeting <br />with the property owners and discussing the repair work. <br />Option One would provide for construction of a retaining wall with City <br />forces. The backfilling of the lakeshore bank and rip rap work would be <br />completed by the property owners. Option One would leave the lakeshore bank <br />in a condition similar to that which existed prior to the storm. There would <br />be no wall area exposed after completion of the construction. <br />The lakeshore bank would be expensive to repair under this option as the slope <br />would be very steep (2:1 or greater). The propety owners would need to use <br />additional retaining walls or fabric layers to retain the bank. The surface <br />would have to be covered with erosion control blankets to stabilize the bank. <br />Option Two would again provide for a retaining wall constructed with City <br />forces, retaining wall would be extended to protect areas along the shore <br />that have not failed. The property owners are concerned about additional <br />areas failing in the future. There is some surface cracking visible in these <br />areas that indi-ate some type of subsurface movement. The vegetation (root <br />growth) in these areas was adequate to hold the bank during the big storm. <br />In addition to extending the wall some of the property owners have requested <br />that portions of the wall remain exposed. This will require additional <br />structural support to provide for the exposed wall. The City work under this <br />option would be greater but the property owners cost would be less. The <br />slot could be flattened out (3:1 max.) and restored by seedinj^ or sodding. <br />Page 1, <br />2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600