Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> ur <br /> Page 2 <br /> Assessments <br /> 9/27/93 <br /> 2. Projects P-90-4-02 and T-90-11 Neighborhood 19. Heinel Drive area <br /> There were no wrik:ten ,objections to the assessments of this project. <br /> There were verbal objections raised at the hearing. <br /> a. The first objection was by Ms. Ginger Garra of 799 Heinel <br /> Drive. she states that no portion of her property drains into <br /> the storm sewer system and, therefore, she should not be <br /> assessed $947*18 for storm sewer. <br /> This item was reviewed by staff. It was found that no portion <br /> of Hs. Garra's lot drains into the storm sewer system. <br /> Therefore, it is recommended that this assessment be dismissed. <br /> be George Pudelko of 715 Heinel Drive objects to the storm sewer <br /> assessment of $947. 18. He states that the only portion of his <br /> let that gains into the street is the driveway which is <br /> approximately 201 X 201 area. Mr. Pudelko ii being assessed <br /> for one full unit for this area. His contention is that this <br /> is an excessive assessment for the amount of area draining into <br /> the system. <br /> This was reviewed by staff and field. inspected. The drr ivewa <br /> is the only area draining into the storm sewer system. <br /> Therefore, staff recommends a reduction in the assessment of <br /> 1/4 unit decreasing the dollar amount to $236,79. Mr. Pudelko <br /> was contacted -by phone to discuss this assessment and agrees to <br /> this amount. + <br /> 301 Pro'e ct P-9 -0 Ne" icrhborhood 2 , Tro Seth Road <br /> a. The first objection was by Mr. Fe lger of 2996 Tro Seth Road. <br /> This related to an odd-lot formula and was addressed <br /> previously. <br /> b. The second objection was by Mr. Hosell of 2995 Troseth Road. <br /> Mr. Hosell had a driveway that was in excess of our 6-foot <br /> limit. During our construction, a sodded island was installed <br /> in the r ight�-o f-way area creating a more defined horseshoe <br /> drive with two curb cuts that met are 26-feet standard. The <br /> apron area wan restored with a city standard 211 bituminous mat <br /> to the width of an existing driveway with the exception of the <br /> sodded area. Mr. Hosell proceeded to resurface his driveway <br /> without contacting city staff to inform them of his objection <br /> to the apron areas The total estimate for the resurfacing was <br /> $700, which Mmr�. Ho se l l is requesting be reduced from his <br /> assessment. <br />