Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />APRIL 14,2003 <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br />MOTION: Councilmember Rem moved and Councilmember Grant <br />seconded a motion to uphold staffs recommendation for <br />change. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). <br /> <br />Mayor Aplikowski stated staff had reviewed the objection from Steven Zilmer, <br />3363 N. Dunlap Street and recommended denial. <br /> <br />Council decided to discuss this later in the meeting. <br /> <br />Mayor Aplikowski stated staff had reviewed the objection of William Cmit, 1252 <br />Ingerson Road and recommended denial. <br /> <br />William Cmit. 1252 Inl!erson Road, stated staff had answered two of his <br />questions, but he asked the legality of property he owned that might have been <br />changed. He stated they were still working on the legality of the lot lines and he <br />was going to call them tomorrow. He stated he would withdraw his objection. <br /> <br />Linda Swanson, Lake Josephine Association, read from a prepared statement <br />regarding the objection by the Association to the assessment. <br /> <br />Mariorie Alexander. 3251 Fernwood Street, stated she lived adjacent to the <br />Josephine Association property, which she stated was considered total wetland by <br />the Rice Creek Watershed. She stated when they built their home, they needed <br />special permission from Rice Creek Watershed because of the wetland status, and <br />they needed many variances from the City. She stated at this point, it would not be <br />possible to build a home on that property. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson stated the reason for the 41 percent assessment on the <br />value of the property was because it was undeveloped and there were also other <br />lots in the City that had this issue. He asked the City Attorney regarding the <br />easement that crossed the property and the covenant on it. <br /> <br />Mr. Filla replied if the property was buildable before the improvement project <br />was constructed, it was buildable after. If the property was impacted by a large <br />use easement before, it was impacted after. The use has not changed as a result of <br />this project. What they needed to figure out was if this project improved the <br />market value of the property and if it could be developed. A benefit did not need <br />