CCP 10-25-1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Arden Hills Council 4 october 12, 1993 . Mayor Sather invited public comments. He noted that written correspondence had been received from Ron Bongard, prospective buyer of property at 1553 Arden Place. The comments of speakers are summarized as follows (not verbatim): Arnold Lindberg, 3520 Siems Court: The proposed improvement project would not be needed if the City would have proper! y maintained the existing drainage pipe in the area. Although owners of the affected properties are sympathetic toward the plight of the owners of the properties at 1553 Arden place and 3505 Ridgewood Road, we do not wish to share in the cost of solving their problem. Ron Bongard: My wife and I are attempting to purchase the property at 1553 Arden Place, previously owned by Warren McGuire. Our mortgage broker has advised that our mortgage is in jeopardy if this drainage issue is not resolved. I believe the City has been negligent in the handling of this matter and the City should pay 100% of the cost to resolve the problem. The existing pipe was apparently inadequate and not properly maintained. In 1982 the City approved a lot split which . created 1553 Arden Place, and City records indicate that the City Engineer at that time advised that the property was buildable and no drainage problems would be created by constructing a house there. The City later issued building permits to allow 1553 Arden Place to be built. Tom Mulcahy, 3530 Siems Court: I have 1 i ved in my home at 3530 Siems Court for over 25 years and have not altered the natural flow of drainage whatsoever. My property would not benefit at all from the proposed project, therefore, an assessment to my property is not justified. If the Option 2 assessment alternative were used, my property would be assessed as a 50% contributor. In fact, my lot drains almost completely to Siems Court, not to the area where the project is proposed to be installed. Bill Thornton, 3510 Siems Court: The City Engineer has stated that the Option 2 assessment alternative would base assessments on storm water contribution. I question the accuracy of the topographical maps from which "contribution" is being determined. Maurer stated that the 25%, 50% or 100% contributor designation was determined based on topographical maps (which he considers quite accurate) and visual survey of the properties involved. .