CCP 09-11-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2006 PMP 9/7/2006 Page 2 . 2) Oral comment: 3475 Siems Court, Steve Nelson Mr. Nelson voiced a concern regarding the proposed retaining wall along the west side of Sicms Court and asked the rationale for the cost being included in the total assessable costs. He stated that the original wall was built by the previous homeowners in order for the privatc driveway to be constmcted and that the wall was not a benefit to the entire neighborhood. In order to properly support the new street and utilities and prevent failure, the retaining wall needs to be reconstructed. The City has the obligation to make everyone whole in the reconstruction process, providing access to each property. If the retaining wall and private driveway were to be removed, the City would spend an equivalent amount of money regrading the area and reconstructing each of the driveways, each of which would need some amount of retaining wall. These costs would have also been included in the total assessable costs. No information was found in City files regarding any kind of agreement between the City and the previous homeowner for construction of the retaining wall. Mr. Nclson also askcd how property owners with double lots werc being assessed. The assessments were calculated ou a per uuit basis based ou the number of existing homes in the neighborhood. The assessment policy states that the City reserves the right to recover an assessment if a property is divided, creating additional lot units. - Recommendation: No change in thc assessment. 3) Oral comment: 3550 Ridgewood Road, Mike Aamoth Mr. Aamoth voiced concerns that residents are receiving incorrcct infonllation about the construction schedule, which is causing a great inconvenicnce to the residents. Staff is working to better coordinate scheduling with the contractor and provide the best available information to the residents. Mr. Aamoth asked ifhe could review the bids submitted for the project. This information is available at City Hall and was provided to him via e-mail. Mr. Aamoth also asked if there was an assessmcnt mceting held earlier in the summcr. He expressed concerns about the increase in the amount of the assessment from what the neighborhood had bcen previously told. The feasibility report listed an earlier date for the assessment hearing, which had been discussed as a tentative date at neighborhood meetings in the spring. The assessment rate ended up higher than what was discussed at the neighborhood meetings due to the higher bids aud the end result regarding total assessable units. Recommendation: No change in the assessment. 4) Oral and written comment: 3511 Siems Court, Lisa Abraham Ms. Abraham provided a written objcction about the projcct in relation to her driveway. She feels that thc proposed improvements will decrease the value of her property ifthc grade on -