Complaint Letters for Water and 2010 PMP

Home Browse Search

�i�ceiv�d AU G - � 20>0 Jeffer A. Weber and Gai�l A. �Veber Y 41�2 Valentine Crest Road Arden Hills, MN 55112 City of Arden H�Ifs LETTER OF OBJECTION DATE: T�: FROM: SUBJECT: August 9, 2410 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Jeffery Weber and Gail Weber, Resident Objection to Assessment — 2010 Pavement Management Project-Valentine Crest Road I object to the assessment for the 2010 Pavement Management Project for 4112 Valentine Crest Road for the following reasons : • Assessment Methodology The original plan had two properties listed as sub-dividable lots. These property owners were originally going to be assessed for two lots. There is a third property located at 1665 Valentine Avenue that is currently being assessed as a single residential lot that is not sub-dividable, however, they had applied for and been granted a building permit to build a second home on their two acre lot and should also be assessed as a double lot parcel. These three property owners have the ability to divide their lots and benefit from having a dividable lot but somehow their assessment became the same as those of us that will not see any benefit at all, in fact, may see a hardship, from this assessment. • Property Value The reconstruction of our street and cul-de-sac did not improve the value to our ro ert . There is no p p Y longer space available to park vehicles on the street. Diane Hankee, from WSB and Associates suggested that the city council can restrict parking on one side of our street to alleviate a problem that should not exist. That attitude is not conducive to our needs. Valentine Crest Road never had a parking problem, none of the residents ever wanted to restrict parking, and all but one resident opposed the reconstruction from the beginning. � Street Width The Feasibility Report submitted by WSB and Associates, Inc. stated that the street width would remain 28 ft. (4ctober 14, 2009, Information Meeting handout information stated the street width would remain the same.) Page 2 of 4 of Request for Council Action , Council Meeting Date March 8, 2010, listed the P�oposed St�eet T�idth (Face of Cu�b to Face of Cu�b) at 2 S feet. It was finished at a 26 ft. width. When brought to the attention of Matt John, we were told the measurement is back to back on street width. We cannot utilize the back of the cement curbing for driving or parking. This measurement technique did not benefit our street and was done incorrectly.