HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-10-23 CA Fax Re Homeowner Complainats Page 1of1
From: mj vierling <mjvierling@email.msn.com>
To: jAMES BUTLER <jbutler@cityofoakparkheights.com>; K.D. Widin
<kwidin@mmmpcc.org>; JUDY HOLST <jholst@cityofoakparkheights.com>;
KAREN SHIMON <kshimon@bonestroo.com>; 'Kris Danielson'
<kdanielson @ cityofoakparkheights.com>; Lindy Swanson
<Imswans@cityofoakparkheights.com>; MELANIE MESKO
<mmesko@cityofoakparkheights.com>; scott richards <nac@winternet.com>
Date: Saturday, October 23, 1999 12:27 PM
Subject: valley view homeowners complaints
Attached are my draft notes after having received and reviewed your
individual notes and the homeownners complaints. i invite your comments and
review....especially where I may have noted your name or placed a question
mark
Thank You
Mark
10/25/1999
VALLEY VIEW HOMEOWNERS COMPLAINTS
1. STREETS AND PARKING
A. WIDTH
B. ON STEET PARKING
C. PARKING STALLS
D. TEMPORARY STREETS-FINAL SURFACE
RESPONSE;
A. STREET WIDTH-PARKING STALLS
THE SEPTEMBER 9, 1994 PLANNING REPORT ADDRESSED STREET
WIDTH AND INDICATED THAT IF ON STREET PARKING WAS DESIRED FOR
VISITORS STRET WIDTH WOULD NEED TO BE INCREASED TO 32 FEET FROM 24
THESE STREETS WERE CONSTRUCTED BY THE DEVELOPER UNDER A
PRIVATE CONTRACT.
DEVELOPER RESUBMITTED PLANS SHOWING TWO STALL GARAGES AND
DRIVEWAYS COMPLIANT WITH CITY ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS.
ADDITIONAL PALNS WERE SUBMTI 1 ED SHOWING ADDITIONAL GUEST
PARKING STALLS ALONG THE NORTHERLY EDGE OF THE DRIVEWAYS
(INSTALLED PER JIM BUTLER)
FINAL SURFACING ON THE STREET IN ISSUE WILL FOLLOW
COMPLETION OF DEVELOPMENT.
SURFACE WIDTHS AVERAGED THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT ARE
SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT AND HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE CITY
AVERAGE FACE TO FACE IS 22 TO 23 FEET(SEE ATTACHED)
2. DRAINAGE ISSUES
A. LOCATION AND COPY OF ORIGINAL DRAINAGE PLAN? (1994)
B. MODIFICATIONS?
C. IS CURRENT DRAINAGE ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY-
RECORDING?
D.COPY OF APPROVED DRAIAGE PLAN
E.CITY RESPONSE TO KRONGARD 11/25/98 LETTER(SPILLWAY
MODIFICATION)
RESPONSE:
A. ENGINEERING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT HAVE COPIES(JOE &
JIM??)(DATED 3-11-96) THAT SERVES AS THE BASE DRAINAGE PLAN FINAL
DRAINAGE PLANS HAVE NOT YET BEEN RECEIVED
B. MODIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED SUBJECT TO THE
PRODUCTION OFA AMENDED DRAINAGE PLAN BY THE DEVELOPER
C.COPIES OF THE FINAL AMENDED AND APPROVED DRAINAGE PALNS
WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC PURCHASE
D. CITY HAS ACCEPTED THE SPILLWAY AS A MODIIFICATION TO THE
PLAN SUBJECT TO THE PRODUCTION OF AN AMENDED PLAN FOR DRAINAGE
3. RETAINING WALL.
A. HAS THE CITY APPROVED THE RETAINING WALL BETWEEN
THE CHURCH AND THE DEVELOPMENT
B. HAVE DOCUMENTS BEEN UPDATED TO RECORD THIS CHANGE
C. SHOULDN'T THE CITY HAVE CONTAC'T'ED ADJACENT
HOMEWONERS PRIOR TO THESE MODIFICATIONS.
D. IS THERE A WRITTEN APPROVAL FOR THE WALL AND CAN
THEY GET A COPY OF IT.
RESPONSE:
A. YES
B. WIT J,BE INCLUDED IN AMENDED DRAINAGE PALN
C.NO ADJACENT HOMEOWNER CONTACT ID REQUIRED
D.SEE B.
4. IRON MONUMENTS
A. LOACTION OF NW CORNER MARKER
B. OWNER-DEVELOPER DISPUTE OVER LANDSCAPING TO THE
MARKERS
RESPONSE:
A. EEFORTS OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO LOCATE
MONUMENTS/MARKERS AL[ACHED-MARKER MAY IN FACT BE IN TO GROUND
BUT MAY NEED TO BE UNEARTHED.
B. NOTA CITY ISSUE
5. SOIL ON STREETS.
A.WANT THE DEVELOPER TO KEEP STREETS SWEPT DURING
CONSTRUCTION.
RESPONSE:
A. NOT AN UNREASONABLE REQUEST- STREET SWEEPING IS REQUIRED
AS PART OD ALL DEVELOPMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION.
6. CURB SE CORNER BLDG D
A. WANT REPALCEMENT OF CURB
RESPONSE
A.???????JIM
7. STREET LIGHTING
A. WHY WEREN'T STREET LIGHTS PUT IN
RESPONSE:
THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REQUIRE STREET LIGHTING TO BE
COMPLIANT WITH THE CITY LIGHTING PLAN FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS. THE
DEVELOPER SUBSTITU'ILD GARAGE LIGHTING ON SENSORS?????
SCOTT OR JIM????
8. POND DREDGING
WHO OWNS THE STRORM WATER PONDS
RESPONSE:
STORM WATER PONDS AND RELATED DRAINAGE WAYS ESTATBLICHED
BY EASEMENT ON THE PLAT ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE CITY AND PART OF
THE STORM WATER UTILITY
9.GARAGE DIMENSIONS
DOTHE GARAGES AS CONSTRUCTED MEET THE CITY
REQUIREMENTS
RESPONSE:
ALL GRAAGE UNITS NOWCONSTRUCTED HAVE BEEEN APPROVED. PLAN
REQUIREMENT WAS FOR GARAGE DEPTH OF 20 FEET- WIDTH WILL VARY
DEPENDING ON SINGLE OR DOUBLE.
10. SIDEWALK ALONG 58TH
A. WHO OWNS IT?,AND THEREFORE WHO MAINTAINS IT?
RESPONSE:
THE CITY
11. TREES
A. ON THE 4Tx BUILDING TREES NOW HIT THE ROOF-PINE TREES
WERE NOT PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION...SCOTT NWAC MADE
RECOMMENDATIONS WHAT WAS JACKS REPONSE?
B. WILL THE ASSURE THAT THESE CHANGES WILL BE MADE
RESPONSE;
A. SCOTT??
B. NO....THIS IS NOTA CITY ISSUE