Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />October 25, 1989 <br />Fahey asked if the City required construction of the <br />retaining wall. <br />The City Planner replied that the site plan does not <br />show the retaining wall, and he believed that Schrier <br />put in the wall in an attempt to shore up the area. <br />Scalze stated that she thought the retaining wall was <br />put in to get the units up higher so that they would <br />have a better view of the lake. <br />Fahey suggested that the City Engineer take another <br />look at the situation. <br />Council also discussed whether this was a private <br />matter between Schrier and the Homeowners Association. <br />McNabb pointed out the development agreement the City <br />has with Mr. Schrier, and stated that the Council <br />previously indicated that the City has some <br />responsibility in this matter. <br />Fahey stated that he did not disagree that this was a <br />concern of the City i£ the retaining wall is eroding <br />and dirt caving into the lake. <br />Don Pantzar, property owner in the area, reported that <br />he has discussed the matter with the Watershed and DNR <br />and he understands that the City required the builder <br />to construct the retaining wall. Pantzer reported that <br />the erosion is such that it is now threatening a patio <br />of one of the units. Pantzer reported that he was <br />informed by the DNR that the retaining wall should have <br />been inspected by the City to ensure that it was <br />properly installed. <br />Fahey suggested that the City's liability in this issue <br />should be determined based on a review of the <br />development agreement. <br />McNabb reported that the Building Inspector's letter <br />dated June 21, 1988 clearly stated what Mr. Schrier <br />must do. <br />The City Engineer sugqested that he meet with the City <br />Planner and Building Inspector on this issue, and if <br />necessary, will consult the City Attorney. <br />Page 24 <br />