1993_0927_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

t Page 6 Assessments 9/27/93 His second objection is that the irregular shape of the lot should use the odd�lot formula* This property is a triangular shaped lot and was reviewed under the odd-lot formula as well as the standard assessment policy, and the front footage is the same at 109 feet. Staff recommends that the assessments for 478 N. McCarrons Boulevard stand as proposed and any adjustments be -made after receiving the report from the appraiser. c. The third written objection was received from Ramsey County for the property located on Wagner Streettl The assessment amount for Ramsey county is $38,768*40a The county is objecting to the proposed assessment stating that they have been unfairly assessed for the project which can not and will not benefit the property either in the current use or future use to which the property may be put. They state that the property is not developable and is protected by state and federal wetland laws. The city has reviewed the site and believe there is the potential for some developments Therefore, staff is suggesting the assessment be deferred until the property is developed or the use changes to other than open space. d# There were some verbal objections to the assessments being levied a.ga inst the property of 445 Glenwood Avenue. Mr. Joe babe contests that the realignment of the street has devalued his property* . The construction of the street alignment added a substantial amount of green space between Mrs Dabe's home and the street surface. This item has been turned over to the appraiser for his review, and a report will be submitted on September 27, 1993s, A second item that Mr. babe objected to was the method of calculation for his assessment. This corner lot has a radius on the southeast corner of the property which requires the use of the odd-lot formula o Staff has reviewed the odd-lot formula and believes it was used appropriately in this situation and . has explained this to Mr. babes. Staff recommends that the assessment stand as proposed and any adjustments be made after rece iv ing the report of the appraiser. elb The second verbal 6bjection to the assessment was by Mr. Ed Owens of 458 S. Mccarrons Boulevard. Mr. Owens is contesting the work competed generates no benefit to his propertys, Mr* Owens also stated that he had a problem with the quality of work and that damage had been done due to heavy equipment activity in the area. Mr. Owens has discussed the damage issue with the engineering staff. The staff discussed the issue wit