CCP 06-24-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I' .. DO 1,,\ !CT ,j;~'),,#~~J I ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - MAY 28. 1996 7 I' Mayor Probst closed the public hearing at 8:39 p.m. I Mayor Probst inquired if the Council should attempt to resolve each of the nine objections filed or direct that staff try to ,resolve before the next Council meeting. I Brian and Jane Hecht, 1620 Oak Avenue, stated they would like to file an objection to the assessment as well, based on the fact that part of their lot is unusable. Ms. Hecht stated she I did not understand that an objection must be filed this evening, and was stating after the public hearing had been closed. Mayor Probst stated he would accept the objection. I Council member Malone inquired if the Roach property (1628 Oak Avenue) front footage had been adjusted. Mr. Stonehouse stated the current assessment roll did reflect the adjustment, along with the Flanagan (1469 Arden Oaks Drive) property. I Councilmember Malone stated that the Christianson (1438 Arden Oaks Court) property front footage had already been adjusted, and was appropriate in his opinion. I Councilmember Malone stated the Albjerg (1680 Oak Avenue) property does benefit from the Ie street, and that the original assessment was 220 feet, calculating to $6,300 assessment cost. He stated the adjusted assessment cost of $3,700 was appropriate in his opinion. I Councilmember Hicks inquired if the Barnier (1624 Chatham Avenue) and Smith (1644 Oak A venue) properties had been credited for the previous assessments. Mr. Post replied that they had been credited. I Mr. Barnier stated he would appreciate any assistance the City could give in eliminating the drainage problem. Mr. Stonehouse stated he would review the area. I Council member Hicks inquired if the Johanson, Barnier, and Hecht properties could be split. Mr. Stonehouse stated that based on the topography, steep side slope, and extensive I landscaping, it would not be possible. Council member Hicks noted that the Barnier (1624 Chatham Avenue) property does not use I the street to access, but if there is no assessment than the taxes would be increased. He stated the two properties have a valid case in his opinion. I Councilmember Hicks stated the Hecht property (1620 Oak Avenue) is similar to the Roach property (1628 Oak Avenue) with a narrow front and rear lot width. Mr. Stonehouse stated I the weighted average calculation had been applied to this property, and the lesser assessment calculation had been applied. Councilmember Hicks stated that the Hecht property it assessment was then fair in his opinion. I