Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> , <br /> Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 8-27-90 <br /> Page 3 <br />. PUB. HRING. (Cont'd) Mayor Sather noted four (4) objections to the proposed <br /> assessment were received from residents and questioned if <br /> the Engineer had found dis=epancies relating to those parcels of land. <br /> The Engineer advised three property a.mers objecting to the proposed assessments <br /> are addressed in the letter; explained dis=epancies were found on eight parcels. <br /> Graham outlined three options for Council consideration prior to adoption of the <br /> assessment roll. The first option would be to adopt the assessment roll as it <br /> =ently exists, without changing any of the assessable areas for any <br /> properties. The second option would be to have the City absorb any reduction in <br /> the assessment, after adjusbnent of the properties listed in his report. He <br /> stated the total reduction in assessments would be $4,880.81. The third option <br /> would be to reassess the rem3.ining properties the total assessable cost, which <br /> would require re-initiating the notice and hearing process as the assessment <br /> rates would be higher than those in the first miled notice. <br /> Councilmernber Mahowald questioned if Graham could determine the rationale for the <br /> former City Engineer's calculations of the properties listed in the assessment <br /> roll. <br /> Graham stated he did not have sufficient infonuation to justify the preparation <br /> of the initial assessment roll nor the opportunity to discuss the area <br /> assessments with the former engineer. <br />. Attorney Filla asked if the Engineer has addressed the objection from Dr. Roach <br /> regarding his property at 1628 oak Avenue. <br /> Graham explained the assessable area calculated for the Roach property, 0.51 <br /> acres, appears to be appropriate; the objection does not specify the assessable <br /> area, only that the property a.mer objects to any assessment for the improvement. <br /> Mayor Sather asked for comments from the floor either in favor of or opposed to <br /> the proposed assessment. <br /> Pete Duddleston, 1587 oak Avenue, questioned if the assessment is proposed to <br /> save a residential driveway. He stated objection to the assessment based on the <br /> fact it appears the project was initiated to co=ect erosion problems for a <br /> single residential driveway. <br /> Attorney Filla explained that the improvement was initiated to co=ect water <br /> drainage problems in this area, which is a public concern, and the drainage <br /> happens to flCM in the area south of a driveway surface and causes erosion. He <br /> stated it is no different than if the stonn water flowed on the city street <br /> across Duddleston's driveway and caused erosion. <br /> Duddleston displayed photographs of water runoff problems on his property and <br /> stated he will request city assistance to eliminate the problem. He explained he <br /> has had discussions with former Mayor Asbbach regarding the construction of the <br /> home and driveway on oak Avenue which is experiencing erosion problems. <br />. Duddleston reported the Councilmembers at that time had expressed concerns <br /> regarding the construction of the home and driveway at that location. <br /> Attorney Filla commented that due to the time-frame he is unsure as to hCM this <br /> mtter was addressed or whether any agreements were negotiated with the property <br /> a.mer to pay for costs. He noted it would appear residents were aware of stonn <br /> drainage problems in this area at the time of the home construction. <br />