My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 09-11-2006
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
CCP 09-11-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:21:24 PM
Creation date
11/15/2006 10:09:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
215
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />2006 PMP <br />9/7/2006 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2) Oral comment: 3475 Siems Court, Steve Nelson <br />Mr. Nelson voiced a concern regarding the proposed retaining wall along the west side of <br />Sicms Court and asked the rationale for the cost being included in the total assessable costs. <br />He stated that the original wall was built by the previous homeowners in order for the privatc <br />driveway to be constmcted and that the wall was not a benefit to the entire neighborhood. <br />In order to properly support the new street and utilities and prevent failure, the <br />retaining wall needs to be reconstructed. The City has the obligation to make everyone <br />whole in the reconstruction process, providing access to each property. If the retaining <br />wall and private driveway were to be removed, the City would spend an equivalent <br />amount of money regrading the area and reconstructing each of the driveways, each of <br />which would need some amount of retaining wall. These costs would have also been <br />included in the total assessable costs. No information was found in City files regarding <br />any kind of agreement between the City and the previous homeowner for construction <br />of the retaining wall. <br /> <br />Mr. Nclson also askcd how property owners with double lots werc being assessed. <br />The assessments were calculated ou a per uuit basis based ou the number of existing <br />homes in the neighborhood. The assessment policy states that the City reserves the right <br />to recover an assessment if a property is divided, creating additional lot units. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />Recommendation: No change in thc assessment. <br /> <br />3) Oral comment: 3550 Ridgewood Road, Mike Aamoth <br />Mr. Aamoth voiced concerns that residents are receiving incorrcct infonllation about the <br />construction schedule, which is causing a great inconvenicnce to the residents. Staff is <br />working to better coordinate scheduling with the contractor and provide the best <br />available information to the residents. <br /> <br />Mr. Aamoth asked ifhe could review the bids submitted for the project. This information is <br />available at City Hall and was provided to him via e-mail. <br /> <br />Mr. Aamoth also asked if there was an assessmcnt mceting held earlier in the summcr. He <br />expressed concerns about the increase in the amount of the assessment from what the <br />neighborhood had bcen previously told. The feasibility report listed an earlier date for the <br />assessment hearing, which had been discussed as a tentative date at neighborhood <br />meetings in the spring. The assessment rate ended up higher than what was discussed at <br />the neighborhood meetings due to the higher bids aud the end result regarding total <br />assessable units. <br /> <br />Recommendation: No change in the assessment. <br /> <br />4) Oral and written comment: 3511 Siems Court, Lisa Abraham <br />Ms. Abraham provided a written objcction about the projcct in relation to her driveway. She <br />feels that thc proposed improvements will decrease the value of her property ifthc grade on <br /> <br />- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.