CCP 05-10-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 26, 2004 3 Mr. Brown explained the project and the policies that were used to prepare the special assessment roll, Mayor Aplikowski explained the rules for the public hearing. She indicated anyone who wanted to object to the assessment had to file a written objection prior to the close of the public hearing, She noted the Council would not take any action or make specific comments regarding a specific question or objection until all questions and objections had been made. Mayor Aplikowski opened the public hearing at 7:19 p,m, David J. Monson and Mary Hirschboeck, 1175 Edgewater Avenue, stated they were objecting to the assessment because the project would not enhance their property value to a degree commensurate with the $9,159.43 assessment and may, in fact, diminish the value of their property, They noted it was unresolved as to whether the northbound leg of Edgewater Avenue would be rebuilt within the border ofthe existing roadway, and ifthe new road would cause their driveway to be shorter than it currently was by virtue of the new location of the road, the market value of their property would be significantly reduced, They noted the north end of the reconstructed Edgewater would not terminate in a cul-de-sac, and that leg of the road would be only 16 feet wide, therefore vehicles would still need to turn around in private driveways, The narrowing of Edgewater A venue would render on-street parking from the intersection with Lake Lane, difficult if not impossible. Dennis Stolp speaking on behalf of his parents, Raymond and Hazel Stolp, 3235 North Lexington Avenue, stated his parents were objecting to their assessment because they did not believe the improvement of Shoreline Lane would be an improvement to their property and therefore, without any benefit being provided to their property, it was unfair to assess a portion of the cost of the improvement against their property, He also noted the amount of the proposed assessment was incorrectly calculated in that the entire frontage was being assessed, when Shoreline Lane was actually a small portion of that length, Gordon and Bette Deau, 3233 Shoreline Lane, stated they were objecting to their assessment and requested the City reassess their property for the actual length of the street improvement that borders their property. He noted they were being assessed for the fulllength of their property and Shoreline Lane did not run the length of the property, He stated he was willing to pay for approximately 85 feet of frontage, but not the entire length of 171.3 feet as proposed, Shirley Ann Bambery, 1111 County Road D West, by letter - stated she was objecting to the front footage calculation and requested the City reassess her property for the actual length, She noted the City had the incorrect size of her lot in their records, Margaret Murphy, 1111 Edgewater Avenue, asked for a reduction of her assessment because she could not afford the amount being assessed against her property. She noted she was a single parent and Mr. Moore had indicated there was a hardship form she could fill out asking for this consideration. She stated she did not want to have to move and wanted to raise her children in