Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />APRIL 14,2003 <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />MOTION: Councilmember Rem moved and Councilmember Holden <br />seconded a motion to uphold the recommendation of staff for <br />denial. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). <br /> <br />Mayor Aplikowski stated staff had reviewed the objection from Gary and Carol <br />Abrahamson, 1228 Carlton Drive and recommended denial. <br /> <br />MOTION: Councilmember Rem moved and Councilmember Larson <br />seconded a motion to uphold staff's recommendation for <br />denial. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). <br /> <br />Mayor Aplikowski stated staff had reviewed the objection from Lynn Diaz, 1143 <br />Ingerson Road and recommended denial. <br /> <br />Lvnn Diaz, 1143 Ingerson Road, stated her points related to the State Aid in <br />general. She read from a prepared statement regarding State Aid, She asked how <br />much the residents on Lexington Avenue were going to be charged when their <br />street was done, She stated their road was a State Aid road and believed the State <br />Aid funds should be applied to their road. She noted the City was gaining by not <br />applying those funds to their street. <br /> <br />Mr. Parrish replied the policy did not preclude the Council from using the State <br />Aid in offsetting this type of an assessment, but past practice has not been done <br />this way. He noted the City did not assess the residents along Lexington Avenue <br />because that was a County road. He indicated the City would not allocate 100% of <br />the State aid funds to this project. <br /> <br />MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Grant <br />seconded a motion to uphold staff's recommendation for <br />denial. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). <br /> <br />Mayor Aplikowski stated staff had reviewed the objection from Frances <br />Swenson, 1216 Ingerson Road and recommended denial. <br /> <br />David Dudvcha, 1226 Ingerson, spoke on behalf of Ms, Severson, His rational <br />for objecting Ms. Severson's assessment was that Ms. Severson's property was a <br />double footage lot, which meant both the front and back side of her property were <br />