CC 08-27-1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 8-27-90 Page 3 PUB. HRING. (Cont'd) Mayor Sather noted four (4) objections to the proposed assessment were received fram residents and questioned if the Engineer had found discrepancies relating to those parcels of land. 'lhe Engineer advised three property owners objecting to the proposed assessments are addressed in the letter; explained discrepancies were fourrl on eight parcels. Graham outlined three options for Council =nsideration prior to adoption of the assessment roll. 'lhe first option would be to adopt the assessment roll as it =ently exists, without changing any of the assessable areas for any properties. 'lhe second option would be to have the city absorb any reduction in the assessment, after adjustment of the properties listed in his report. He stated the total reduction in assessments would be $4,880.81. The third option would be to rp"",sess the remaining properties the total assessable cost, which would require re-initiating the notice and hearing process as the assessment rates would be higher than those in the first mailed notice. Council1nerober Maho.vald questioned if Graham =ld determine the rationale for the fonner city Engineer's calculations of the properties listed in the assessment roll. Graham stated he did not have sufficient information to justify the preparation of the initial assessment roll nor the opportunity to discuss the area assessments with the fonner engineer. Attorney Filla asked if the Engineer has addressed the objection from Dr. Roach regarding his property at 1628 oak Avenue. . Graham explained the assessable area calculated f= the Roach property, 0.51 acres, appears to be appropriate; the objection does not specify the asses"'''hle area, oru.y that the property owner objects to any assessment for the improvement. Mayor Sather asked for =nents fram the floor either in favor of = opposed to the proposed assessment. . Pete Duddleston, 1587 oak Avenue, questioned if the assessment is proposed to save a residential driveway. He stated objection to the assessment based on the fact it appears the project was initiated to co=ect erosion problems for a single residential driveway. Attorney Filla explained that the linprovement was initiated to ==ect water drainage problems in this area, which is a public =ncern, and the drainage happens to flCM in the area south of a driveway surface and causes erosion. He stated it is no different than if the storm water fla..red on the City street across Duddleston's driveway and caused erosion. Duddleston displayed photcgraphs of water runoff problems on his property and stated he will request city assistance to eliminate the problem. He explained he has had discussions with fonner May= Ashbach regarding the =nstruction of the home and driveway on oak Avenue which is experiencing erosion problems. Duddleston reported the CounciJ.rnembers at that time had expressed concerns regarding the =nstruction of the home and driveway at that location. Attorney Filla =nnented that due to the time-frame he is unsure as to how this matter was addressed or 1Nhether any agreements were negotiated with the property owner to pay for costs. He noted it would appear residents were aware of storm drainage problems in this area at the time of the home =nstruction.