06-08-88 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council June 8, 1988 Schrier• Townhome Development (Cont.) that the townhome association was to be tur~ned over~ in June of 1988, the other~ stating June of 1989. The City Engineer• r•eported that he has looked at the retaining wall and it is caving in and ther•e are cur•r•ently br•aces on it. It appear•s that Mr~. Schr•ier~ has been doing some wor~k on the r•etaining wall, however~, the condition has not impr~oved. The City Engineer• felt it would be in Mr~. Schr~i er~' s best i nter~ests to get the wal l r~epai r•ed si nce no one wi 11 pur~chase a home in this ar~ea with the pr•esent condition of the wall. Owners of the townhomes r~epor•ted that ther~e is other• shoddy wor~kmanship within the development and r•epor•ted of difficulties that the homeowners have in dealing with Mr•. Schr~ier. The owner•s stated that they want these pr•oblems cor•r•ected befor~e the townhome association is tur•ned over to them. The owner~s also commented on the condition of the r~oad within the development. The Ci ty Engi neer• r•epor•ted that Syl van Str•eet i s a publ i c r•oad, however•, the dr•ives to the townhomes are pr•ivate. Fahey stated that while ther•e ar~e DNR r•etaining wall, there was nothing the of the pwivate dr~ives. r~egulations that r•egulate the City could do r•egarding the condition Collova r•epor~ted that the Building Inspector• will ensur~e that life-safety r•egul ati ons ar•e met wi th r•egar•d to the r~etai ni ng wal l. Fahey agreed that the Building Inspector~ will follow up on this matter• and pointed out that the City has joint enfor•cement author~ity with the DNR r•egar~ding the condition of the r•etaining wall. Fahey noted that Mr~. Schr•ier~ has just r•eceived the letter fr~om the Building Inspector and the City must give him some time to comply. Fahey war•ned the residents that these matter•s usually do not move very quickly. However~, the City will r•eview its or•dinance to deter•mine what clout it has to get the matter• r~esolved. Fahey suggested that the pr•oper•ty owner•s may have cause for~ a civil action against Mr•. Schr~ier• in ar~eas wher•e the City has no enfor~cement author•ity. The pr•oper•ty owner•s asked if ther~e ar~e specifications on file for• the development which could be available to them for~ their~ r•eview. Fahey r•eplied that this infor•mation is a matter of public r•ecor~d and was available to the pr•oper~ty owners. The pr•oper•ty owner•s also expr~essed concer~n with the lack of landscaping in the development. Fahey r~eplied that there should be a landscaping plan on file which would have been par~t of the or•i gi nal devel opment pr~oposal . Page -6-