Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JULY 23, 1997 <br />Consequently the property owner had no input into the construction or <br />desi~n of the wall. The third reason is that the collapse of the wall was <br />brought on because of defective design and the use of approximately 50- <br />year-old timbers to construct the wall. Jaszewski felt that the City <br />Engineer should have supervised the project and caught the defect. <br />Finally, Jaszewski indicated that both the insurance adjuster and retaining <br />wall experts he had look at the wall feel that the bottom tier of the wall <br />collapsed first due to water pushin~ out the timbers. Jaszewski indicated <br />that the bottom tier of the wall is within City easement area. <br />Pedersen asked the age of the wall. Jaszewski replied that the wall was <br />constructed in 1978. <br />LaValle reported that the retaining wall was constructed so the developer <br />could get another lot. Scalze agreed that this was the reason the retaining <br />wall was constructed. <br />Jaszewski reported that he had copies of Council resolutions from 1978 <br />taking action to withhold additional building permits until the street was <br />completed and the retainin~ wall built. <br />Scalze reported that the City made sure the retaining walls got completed, <br />and pointed out that the City did not engineer the wall. <br />LaValle pointed out that there are four retaining walls in the Dianna Lane <br />area, and noted that the 1978 resolutions do not specify which wall is <br />being referred to. <br />Morelan agreed it appears the wall was consttucted so that the Jaszewski <br />home could be built. The alternative would have been to slope the <br />property into the adjoining lot. Morelan felt that whether or not the wall <br />was on ('ity right-of-way is irrelevant. The wall was not constructed to <br />protect the street, but rather to gain an additional lot. If it wasn't for the <br />retaining wall, the Jaszewski home could not be there. A City-owned <br />retaining wall would not have been constructed to benefit just one <br />property owner. Morelan pointed out that if the City reconstructed the <br />wall, the benefiting properties would be assessed the cost of the <br />improvement. In this case it would be solely the Jaszewski property. <br />Jane Jaszewski pointed out that the City paid to reconstruct the retaining <br />walls at the entrance of Dianna Lane. Jaszewski felt those two walls were <br />not benefitin~ the City any more than the wall adjacent to their property. <br />Morelan stated that he saw two differences between the retaining walls. <br />The entrance walls are located solely on City property. Those two walls <br />