Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLA22-000068 (2815 CPR) Ex E2 Additional CommentFrom:Carol Price To:Melanie Curtis Cc:CHARLES PRICE Subject:2815 Casco Variance Requests: Comments for Council Mtg on 24July2023 Date:Monday, July 24, 2023 7:19:13 AM Hello Melanie, My review of the eight attachments to your email July 18, 2023 leads to the following comments: I don’t believe it is acceptable for this property to be granted a lakeside bluff variance to add a deck and a shed/boathouse on the bluff when this is not in any way an “in- kind” replacement of the previous retaining walls. Since little or no attention was paid to replacing the damaged walls as they existed before the start of construction, these new additions should be treated as new construction on the bluff, not as “in-kind” replacement. Attachment # 1: Shown on this survey: Drain rim: 959.8. Also shown is an elevation of 958 between the drain and the wall system and lake, which of course means no water will enter the drain. Proper grading will be required in this area to ensure the surface water pickup will catch all the surface water in this area. Attachment #3: Sheet 2. Gates Designs has indicated that the west end of the wall (left in this drawing) is 957.4, which is far too low to support the earth in this area which is 963 feet. It makes no sense that the highest elevation above this wall is being left unsupported by over 5 feet. This Gates Design drawing is not signed by a licensed engineer in the state of Minnesota. Attachment #3. Gates Designs proposal to add a concrete slab and poured footings with a boathouse and deck above does not contain a licensed engineer’s sign-off. The original engineered design of the wall system did not include this boathouse and deck, and therefore the loads created by this new structure have not been considered in the engineer’s plan. Attachment #4: A drain is shown on the east side of the wall structure, but there is no drain shown for the west side. Both sides have outlets for drainage from the bottoms of the retaining walls which MUST BE CONNECTED to pipes that will lower this water to the lake. Without lowering this water in a pipe, the soil on the back of the walls would get washed out by rainwater. Attachment #8: The words in Paragraph 8 read “every third course”, but the drawing shows header and deadmen every fourth course. Which is it? Regarding the hard cover calculations, have the latest version of the hard cover calculations been critically evaluated by city planners? Especially considering things like the deck, shed, and landings on the bluff, A/C pads, window wells, and the proposed expanded deck off the lake side of the house. The engineer designed a wall and put his seal on it. The City received the design based on the engineer’s seal without considering all of the design assumptions, additional information requested, design provisions, design limitations, and quality assurance requirements which the engineer has included in his design documents. These are conditions placed on the design which, if ignored, make reliance on the engineered design impossible. There are many such conditions included in Paul Schimnowski’s design of the subject wall system. Three of the more significant conditions are: 1.“Internal Compound Stability (ICS) has been calculated for this project by Criterium. However, ICS is not a substitute for Global Stability Analysis which should be performed by a qualified geotechnical engineer.” 2.“A qualified Geotechnical Engineer shall be consulted to verify the design assumptions made by Criterium.” 3.“Additional information requested by Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers but not available includes: geotechnical site survey and soil data.” It is easy to see how failure to satisfy the conditions the engineer has placed on his design may make the design unreliable, and holding the engineer responsible for failure impossible. I suggest that the City require completion of the soil testing that Paul Schimnowski requested to confirm his design assumptions. I also suggest that the City require a Retaining Wall Completion Report as described in Paul Schimnowski’s April 1, 2022 memo. Regards, Charles Price Charles Price From:Carol Price To:Melanie Curtis Cc:dwalsh2@ci.orono.mn; Richard Crosby; Matt Johnson; Alisa Benson; Maria Veach Subject:Comments for 2815 Casco Pt Rd Variance Request- LA22-000068 Date:Monday, July 24, 2023 11:59:40 AM Hello Melanie, Please see my comments regarding the after-the-fact variances requested under LA22- 000068. I forwarded my husband's comments earlier today as he cannot attend the City Council meeting tonight. Thank you for sending the earlier packet of information with the subject "Plans for 2815 Casco Point Road". However, I have focused my review on the Agenda Item #10 Packet of information just to be consistent with tonight's meeting. The most significant discussion at the March 13th City Council Meeting regarding the variance request for the incomplete As-Built retaining wall structure was that the plan to add 1.7 feet of height along the length to the 6th wall was not an acceptable solution. This March plan did not address the elevation gradients between the adjacent neighboring properties that would mitigate the erosion of the newly "bowl shaped" bluff. There were several comments by the council members that the As-Built retaining wall system was not "in-kind" and the natural bluff line from property to property was definitely altered. From the meeting minutes, "Council Members said they believe the new wall system has to go back to the original grade and line up with the tip of the bluff and the properties on either side." Towards the end of the meeting notes, Mayor Walsh stated "I can see that they wanted to get the bluffs down there taken care of but now they've created an entire new bluff landscape that was not part of the like in-kind. They have to figure out how to reengineer to get that grade back there, and figure that out to the best of their ability." So, that was basically the request of the City Council members to the homeowner: figure out a way to re-engineer the retaining walls such that the bluff was restored as closely to the natural flow of the bluff line and mitigate the elevation gradients to adjacent properties that were adversely affected by the restructuring of the bluff. Four months have passed since the March meeting. My general impression of the information packet is that there are very confusing site plans and surveys that are labeled "updated surveys / grading plans" that even the city engineer had difficulty reviewing. Next, Exhibit B2 is 7 pages of construction plans for an "in-kind" boathouse, deck, and stairs provided by a contractor that will not be supervising the work, doing the work, and he absolves himself of any changes that may be required once construction begins. Exhibit B3 is the Soil Information which contains graphs, but no engineering summary report. Apparently, this soil test data was completed on May 8th, but it was not given to the licensed engineer as he does not list this soil test data in Exhibit B4. The bluff landscape plan is Exhibit B5 which shows a drain tile system to lower the water to the lake on the east side of the property, but there is no similar drainage system on the west side. The following is further details and comments regarding the information packet. As stated in the current Background/Summary section, my husband and I met with Melanie C., the property owners and a representative from Valdes Lawn Care. My husband and I were primarily concerned with the stability and height of the 6th wall that contours along the side of 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 approximately 6 inches to 12 inches. So, if this is a grading plan, where is the note to explain what will be done once the timbers are removed such that my yard and gardens don't fall into the neighbor's yard? Conversely, the Landscape Plan, Exhibit B5, shows the border timbers still in place with the new bluff plantings. So, which document correctly depicts the homeowner's plans? Exhibit B1, Updated Survey This newly titled "Topographic Survey" is merely an update of the "As-Built Survey" presented to the City Council on February 21, 2023. Both surveys contain the same Notes verbiage, i.e., the "Field survey was completed by E.G.Rud and Sons, Inc. on 01/10/22", and "This survey boundary was calculated using a survey by Gronberg & Associates Land Surveying dated 5-18-22". The date of 01/10/22 in the Notes section is a typo mistake for the year 2022 because the Gronberg Survey did not exist until May of 2022, and the licensed engineer signed the As- Built survey on January 31, 2023. I mention this because hardcover calculations on a small lot are important to manage water run-off between properties. The existing house footprint decreased from 1425 sq.ft in the Gronberg survey completed in May 2022 to 1343 sq.ft in the E.G.Rud Survey completed in January 2023. So, how does the footprint of an existing home change by 82 sq.ft between surveyor's? Please note that the property boundary line between 2013 Casco Point and 2815 Casco Point are not in agreement based on two separate surveys conducted by Gronberg & Associates in 2004 and 2022, respectively. As of 7/21/2023, Mr. Gronberg has indicated he will send out a surveyor to reconcile the discrepancy within the next few weeks. However, I do not believe this is an issue regarding the placement of the bluff retaining walls between our adjacent properties, but this was an item of concern in previous Council meetings. Exhibit B2 - Construction Plans Hold Harmless Agreement (stated on Sheets 1 &2): 1st Paragraph: "The designer is not supervising the work on this project. Therefore, the use of these drawings by the owner or any contractor, subcontractor, builder, tradesman, consultant, or workman shall constitute a hold harmless agreement between the drawing user and the designer. The user shall in fact agree to hold the designer harmless for any responsibility in regards to the construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures and for any safety precautions or programs in connection with the work." 2nd Paragraph: "The designer is not under contract to oversee the construction of this project or the means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures in connection with this work. The use of these drawings and any specifications constrained therein, hereby agrees to hold the designer harmless from liability for damages and problems arising from acts or omissions of owner, tenants, contractors, subcontractors, tradesmen or workmen. The use of these drawings also implies that the designer takes no responsibility for the plan user's failure to carry out the work in accordance with the drawings or contract documents." Limit of Warranty of Designers Work Product "The designer and his consultants do not warranty or guarantee the accuracy and completeness of the work product therein beyond a reasonable diligence." The reason I highlight the "hold harmless" verbiage listed in the Gates Design drawings is that Mr. Gates is only providing drawings to be used by a contractor to build the stairs, wooden boathouse, and deck. He is not responsible for correctly building any of the proposed construction. I believe Mr. Gates is a contractor with building experience. However, Mr. Gates is not a licensed engineer, nor is he an engineer formally trained in the art of structural or civil engineering. Furthermore, the original bluff retaining wall design by Criterium Schimnowski did not take into account a wooden boathouse and deck to be built on top of the retaining walls. As we know now, the "As-Built" retaining walls were modified on-the-fly by the contractor who built 6 retaining walls based on the conditions he encountered last October 2022. The contractor was subsequently issued a stop work order in late October 2022 prior to completion of the 7th retaining wall because it was abundantly clear that the retaining wall construction was not "in-kind" to the original bluff retaining walls, nor was it built to the Professional Engineer's licensed design submitted by Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers. I understand the construction of the stairs up the bluff and over the retaining walls is necessary and acceptable. The stairs are "airy" to let water flow between steps, and the structural loading on the stair construction process is fairly evenly distributed up the bluff. But I have a significant concern with the proposal to build an impervious wooden boat house and deck on top of the tiered wall landings and adjacent to the retaining wall itself. The drawings indicate the wooden boathouse is to be constructed on a concrete slab with a deck on top of the boathouse. An additional large landing is proposed to enter the deck on top of the wooden boathouse. My concern is the added weight and hardcover that will be added between the 3rd and 4th retaining wall tiers that were newly built within the bluff. The earth of the bluff was removed to construct the retaining walls. Many photos have been provided in previous Council meetings to show the earth moving excavation process to remove the old retaining walls and construct the new retaining walls - including the road that was created from the top of the bluff down to the lake to accommodate the excavating equipment! The boathouse and deck should be considered new construction because the As-Built retaining walls were not built "in kind' to the previous retaining walls. Moreover, no licensed engineering information is provided on how the construction and hardcover of the boathouse and deck may affect the proper drainage and structural integrity of the retaining walls. The drawings, especially the lake view depicted on Sheet 2, do not show any safety railings that may be required based on the height and access points of the retaining walls. Is this an action item for someone within the Orono building department to investigate? Exhibit B3 - Soil Information This exhibit contains several graphs of a Direct Shear Test, and a single graph of a Moisture Density test based on samples gathered in April 2023. The test results were reported on 5/8/2023. However, no engineering summary was provided and it appears that no site licensed engineer has provided an evaluation of this test data and how it may affect the integrity of the As-Built bluff retaining walls. Exhibit B4 - Engineered Design/Letter The letter states that "No material sampling, analytic tests, precise measurement or engineering calculations were performed. This includes but is not limited to: compaction testing, soil sampling, global stability calculations." Additionally, the Original Plans of the bluff retaining wall designed by Criterium-Schimnowski, dated August 24, 2022, state the following in the Design Limitations section: "Internal compound stability (ICS) has been calculated for the project by Criterium. However, ICS is not a substitute for a global stability analysis which should be performed by a qualified geotechnical engineer. Additional subsurface exploration may be required." This packet of information does not contain the internal compound stability test that was requested previously by Criterium-Schimnowski. Summary Typically, I can access the information packet on the Friday afternoon after Melanie sends out the meeting notification prior to the following Monday meeting. So, at the March meeting with the homeowners, I asked if the information could be sent out earlier to the adjacent neighbors so that we could have more time to review the material than just the weekend. So, I want to thank the 2815 homeowners and their contractors for providing the plan information early such that Melanie Curtis could gather it together and send out the information on July 13th, and again on July 18th in order to give the adjacent neighbors more time to review the documents and provide feedback. As is common for lakeside homeowners, the month of July is a prime time for out-of-town guests from southern climates to visit, and unfortunately the timing was just right such that my husband and I were inundated with back-to-back house guests just as Melanie sent out the July 13th information packet. Thus, my husband and I did not start reviewing the documents until July 20th. Out of sheer anger and frustration based on our first pass glance of the new plans that do not seem to address our bluff concerns, we called Dennis Walsh to ask if he would hear our concerns since my husband was flying out-of-town early Sunday morning. Fortunately, Mr. Walsh graciously agreed to hear our concerns right away. Mayor Walsh listened to our concerns and seemed sympathetic to our plight that the neighbor's bluff had been irreversibly gouged out, and the As-Built retaining walls were basically rebuilt anew and not "in-kind". This thinking is verified by the comments recorded in previous meeting minutes by the Mayor and various council members. The Mayor did reinforce the need to get our comments to Melanie ASAP so that the Council Members had time to read them. As a result, I sent a text to my neighbors that it was very important to attend the meeting tonight and/or provide written comments to Melanie ASAP if they wanted to have any effect on the Councils understanding of the unprecedented bluff deconstruction project to build the As-Built Retaining Walls, and thus affect the decisions made by the Council members tonight for the After-the-Fact variance request. Fortunately, a few neighbors are here tonight that have similar concerns about these proposed plans. As the property owner on the west side, the elevation gradient to the top of the bluff is very steep with regard to the height of the 6th retaining wall. These plans will not support the bluff as it was carved out on my side of the property, nor tangentially, to the east side neighbor. Everyone who sees the bluff in person cannot believe what was done to the original natural bluff and the amount of earth excavated and hauled away in order to build the new retaining walls. I invite the Mayor, Council members, City Planners, City Engineer, etc. to come anytime and look at the lakeside bluff to get a better perspective of this entire project. This plan does not adequately support the bluff that was dug out on each adjacent property. The steep gradient from the top of the 6th wall to the top of the remaining bluff on each side has not been addressed in this variance request. This plan adds 3.4 feet to the height of the 6th retaining wall, but only in the center section of the bluff at the stairwell. Is there an inherent reason why the entire 6th wall cannot be heightened to 8 feet to support the bluff for the adjacent properties? Are there other bluff containment measures that could be implemented in combination with a heightened 6th wall to support and maintain the integrity of the bluff for the homeowner and the affected adjacent neighbors? My husband and I would like to work the homeowner, the Valdes Lawn Care contractor, Paul Schimnowski to discuss options that have been evaluated by licensed engineers such that the final version of the bluff retaining wall structure has been adequately vetted to maintain the long term integrity of the bluff and the risk of collapse is minimized. I ask the City Council to require that containment measures must be implemented to compensate for the change in elevation from the applicant's property to the adjacent east and west properties such that erosion is mitigated and controlled. Since the licensed engineer who designed the retaining walls is not responsible for the site layout and gradient services, I would request that a 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 lake side slopes. I believe this proposed plan is patently inadequate and ask the City Council members to reject this application regarding the after-the-fact variances for the retaining walls, a new boathouse, and a new lakeside deck to be installed within the lakeside bluff. Regards, Carol Price 2813 Casco Point Rd From:Penny Saiki To:Melanie Curtis Cc:Carol Price Subject:2815 Casco Point Road Date:Sunday, July 23, 2023 10:31:23 AM Melanie- I’m writing in concern for what the owners at 2815 are doing to the lake bank jeopardizing the neighboring properties’ banks. They removed much of the original bank and have left the neighboring properties with damaged grading. They were asked to return the hillside to blend the neighboring natural grading. Instead they have plans for more structure and the retaining walls do not indicate water management. This is from Carol Price, the neighbor to the north: Chuck and I are very angry that the proposed plans for the 2815 Casco bluff retaining walls did not address modifications to return the bluff closer to the original bluff line and mitigate the risks of the significant elevation gradients to the adjacent neighbors. This was their action item from the March 13th mtg. Instead, the homeowner basically spent the last 4 months creating plans for an "in-kind" boathouse and deck. These retaining walls plans are even less effective at mitigating the dirt loads on the adjacent properties than what they presented in March! Chuck and I spoke with Dennis Walsh to convey our concerns since Chuck will not be able to attend the Council mtg tomorrow. The Mayor indicated that he is Not supportive to grant an approval for an "in-kind" boathouse and deck since there is nothing left of the bluff that is "in- kind". However, the Mayor and Council members need our objections if they are to reject this proposal that essentially gives the homeowner the right to carve out the bluff to build "As- Built" retaining walls, and build a "new" boathouse and deck on the bluff. We need to object to these plans so that the homeowner is not rewarded for destroying the bluff and building structures without any regard to city codes. Please, please attend the Council mtg Monday or send your written comments to Melanie by tomorrow morning so that the Council members have time to read them. The bluff is currently a risky mess, but our collective comments could definitely make a difference to halt these proposed plans. I want to see better plans for the bluff. Please pass this along to any other concerned neighbor. Thank you. Penny Saiki LifeWave.com/litE psaiki@icloud.com 952-237-6753 L I V E W E L L From:Penny Saiki To:Melanie Curtis Subject:2815 Casco Pt Rd hill restoration Date:Sunday, July 23, 2023 9:03:42 PM Melanie a few pictures- please add to my first letter which I forgot to add my address. This is not a hill restoration. The first set of photos is looking towards west - I called it north before- Price’s side. The design as built cut into the hill 22ft from the original crest. Truckloads of soil was removed. Both adjacent properties have fences where the natural edge was. The hill from the lake: Whenever there is new construction,- which this wall design now is- and the grade is disturbed, it’s required that contours be matched with the neighboring properties. This design does not meet those requirements on either side. They already have a bowed wall- and we have hardly had any rain: There doesn’t appear to be enough weeps. There is no drainage designed. The drain that is on the drawings is at the top of the hill on grade. Also, no handrails are shown on the drawings. They are required any time there is a 30” height difference in accessible areas. They need to be 42” high and have 4” max spacing for horizontal rails. If there is granular fill backing the retaining walls as there should be, plantings shown will not flourish nor even survive. They continue to go around the ordinances to expand and use “after the fact” as if they have no choice. Please don’t let them get away with this. It’s a ploy and their response is as a spoiled child. Besides that, preservation, conservation and restoration are more in character of the lake. Thank you, Penny Saiki 2874 Casco Point Road psaiki@icloud 952-237-6753 L I V E W E L L