Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPrice_21Feb2023 Date: 21 February 2023 Subject: #LA22-000068, Valdes Lawn Care and Snow Removal LLC o/b/o Mark and Lisa Thostenson 2815 Casco Point Road After-the-fact Setback Variances Public Hearing Other Previous Documents  Certificate of Survey for Lisa Thostenson, dated 5/18/2022  RPS22-0000126 Permit Plan Packet, PC Exhibit J: Hardcover Calculation Worksheet, dated 8/15/2022 Hello Melanie, After reviewing the packet of information regarding agenda item #LA22-000068, please note some significant items that caught my attention and may solicit further scrutiny by the Planning Commission Members and the City Council Members. Background (page 1) This statement highlighted in red below is in error. "Because the work was halted prior to completion, on November 28th the owner requested and received permission from the City Council to install a final wall at the top of the slope which their engineer determined to be necessary to protect the integrity of the slope. Their engineer provided documentation showing the slope failure is imminent and needed an emergency correction. That final wall has been installed."  The final wall has not been installed. As a result, the integrity of the slope is not protected.  The "As-Built" drawings, Certificate of Survey - Wall Detail Original Design, dated 2/3/2013 by E.G. Rud & Sons, Inc. show six timber walls have been built to date. The original engineering drawing prepared by Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers, dated 8/24/2022 depicts seven timber retaining walls that were supposed to be built on the bluff. Hence, when the Stop Work order was issued on October 28, 2022, the final timber wall had not been built and the owner requested the emergency permission to build the final 7th timber retaining wall.  When the Stop Work order was issued, the crew from Valdes Lawn Care and Snow Removal did as much as they could to protect the bluff and stage the needed materials to build the last remaining timber wall. The exposed dirt at the top of the bluff was covered in erosion burlap; the timbers for the final wall build were staged at the top of the bluff and remain untouched to this day. The crew also left a large pile of dirt near the bluff with the assumed intent to use it to backfill for the final timber wall with dirt and stones.  The photos included in the letter from Schimnowski Criterium Engineers dated November 18, 2022 (regarding the "Timber Retaining Wall Upper Tier") most closely resemble the current condition of the bluff with the exception of snow on the ground. The outline for the placement of the 7th timber wall was shown the photos to depict the location of the final wall build. However, no timber wall was built in this location, and thus this final retaining wall was not included in the As-Built drawings. PC Exhibit D: As-Built Survey for Valdes Lawn Care Notes Listed on Survey: "The survey boundary was calculated using a survey by Gronberg & Associates Land Surveying dated 5-18-22." "Boundary work was not completed as part of the as-built survey any monuments and boundaries are for reference only." 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. Charles visited Gronberg's office once we discovered the discrepancy between the two surveys after a discussion with Scott Gates when Charles, Scott and I were at the bluff and discussing the location of the side property line at the top of the bluff. To date, Mr. Gronberg has not provided a reply to our request to reconcile the two surveys as his surveyor has been out on medical leave. Since the two surveys have not been reconciled, the determination of whether the timber walls are fully located on the 2815 property is not complete. However, I do not believe this is an issue that cannot be readily solved once the surveys are reconciled. I mention this to address a concern stated in the information packet. This is referenced by Section 78-350 & 78-1279 - Setbacks, page 2 of 5: "The plans do not specifically clarify whether or not the new walls were constructed entirely within the subject property boundaries; clarification is required." PC Exhibit D: As-Built Survey for Valdes Lawn Care & Hardcover Calculation Worksheet (Proposed), Exhibit E "The Prop. Impervious Surface Calculations and the Proposed Hardcover Calculation Worksheet, dated 2/2/23 in this current information packet do not match the RPS22-0000126 Permit Plan Packet containing the Gronberg Survey completed 5-18-22 and the Proposed Hardcover Calculation Worksheet, Exhibit J, dated 8-15-22. This Hardcover Calculation Worksheet dated 8-15-2022 (and I believe was approved by City Council on or prior to October 10, 2022) itemizes the home renovations, new attached garage, bluff retaining walls and stairs, etc that totaled to a 24.99% hardcover calculation. Interestingly, the updated Hardcover Calculations based on a new survey completed by R.G Rud & Sons total to less hardcover of 24.93% even though there are line items for the added girth and complexity of the new timber walls and the increase in stair length from the lake shore to the top of the bluff. I am concerned that the new survey was performed in January/February 2023 in which major exterior removal/changes have already been made to the house and property and with significant snow on the ground in which many items could be obscured or missing. Some of the discrepancies between the two Hardcover Calculation Worksheets include the following items (values given in square feet). Some of these are very minor changes.  The house footprint decreased from 1425 to 1343. How is it possible that the house footing is now smaller? There is no verbiage or drawings provided in the information packet that describe any changes to the house footprint. Is the house footprint discrepancy the result of the second survey that was completed in the Jan/early Feb months with at least a foot of the snow on the ground that obscured the house concrete footprint? If so, should the original survey and Hardcover Calculations dated 8/15/23 and approved by City Council take precedence?  The proposed garage is listed as 24' x 30' but the math changed from 720 to 710.  The proposed concrete walk increased from 72 to 74  The proposed stoop increased from 66 to 80  The proposed Rear Patio & Step was 124 and now changed to a Rear Patio only (no step) at 108, but mathematically the size of 11' x 10' is 110.  The proposed driveway increased from 930 to 933  The existing stairs to basement decreased from 3'x8'=23 (math error?) from 27.  The math calculation for item "I" on the new Worksheet is not correct: (65+64+60+43+51+47)/2 = 165, not 139.5. Based on the scaled drawing (Exhibit F) of the bluff timber walls, a calculated value of the linear walls totaled well over 165. Granted, these calculations came from a paper copy, but the differences should warrant a second review of this line item.  Line items J through N: proposed stairs by the lake (upper, middle and lower), proposed stair landing by lake, and proposed deck/boar house, and are not supported by any drawings in the information packet. The proposed dimensions are provided, but there is no indication on the how the steps would be built within the 75 foot lakeshore setback area.  There is no line item for the A/C pads in the new Hardcover Calculation Worksheet. Summary To reiterate, this new Hardcover Worksheet dated 2/2/23 does not include the final 7th timber wall that was supposed to be built under the emergency request and City Council authorization, or the additional stairs needed to traverse over the final wall. The emergency corrections identified by Paul Schimnowski, P.E., in his letter dated Nov. 18, 2022 regarding the stability of the bluff and the necessity for building the 7th tier have not been completed. I believe the Planning Commission members and the City Council members should reject the applicants request for approval of an after-the-fact bluff and 75-foot lake setback variances since the "As- Built" retaining walls do not comply with the engineer's specifications. It appears that the overall question is whether the bluff retaining walls should be completed per the engineer's drawing of 7 tiers, or if the bluff should be restored more in line with "in-kind" with the original bluff retaining walls and the previous line of the bluff. My impression is that the new timber walls were constructed very well and the contractor made changes during construction to improve the bluff walls better than the original wall timbers. The contractor built solid retaining walls, but it was the method of removing the huge amount of dirt from the bluff that shocked us, the neighbors, and the city planners and inspectors. Since the contractor has built solid retaining walls, it may be prudent to let him finish building the final wall rather than trying to restore the bluff more in line with the original bluff line. This dilemma is the question for the Planning Commission members and the City Council members to fully evaluate and resolve.