The URL can be used to link to this page

4. Assessment Roll for Lake Ann Sewer 4 c I TY 0 F .. 1 _ 4‘ CHANHASSEN . • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESO TA 55317 I (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 mix. ulf ?•1 ; indOrtfL. -V Mrk - 1.....—..---- — I MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager II FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer ............_..... ._. ____ . - . DATE: July 31, 1991 g 1. - 15 I 1 SUBJ: Assessment Hearing and Adoption of the Assessment Roll for Lake Ann Interceptor Sewer II Project No. 87-35 _ . On March 3, the City Council approved the Lake Ann 11 Interceptor public improvement project (see attached minutes). • ThiS joint City bf Chanhassen and Metropolitan Waste Control Commission sanitary sewer/trunk project involved the installation 11 of an inceptor through Chanhassen west of ,Lake Lucy and Lake Ann from Chanhassen's northern border on Highway 41 south to the lift .. station located in the southeast of Chanhassen Estates. This project evolved as the most appropriate alternative to meet I both the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's concerns , regarding the service availablity for the communities west of the Lake Viginia lift station and the City Of Chanhassen's concerns II for a project that best meets the long-term plans of serving the City. As such, the City agreed to pay a local share for the future use of this interceptor line extending through Chanhassen. II This local share has been equated into benefit for a previously established trunk sewer service area and results in property assessments typically associated with a municipal improvement II project. - - - The local share for the project as specified by the interceptor agreement was $482,000.00. The previously determined servide area is described largely in part as that area being north of Highway 5 west of Lake Ann and Lake Lucy, adjacent to and south of Lake Lucy Road and adjacent to and east of State Highway 41. I This area yields 107 affected parcels. The area of each parcel has been evaluated to determined the amount of wetland and topographically unbuildable area-in aii.effort to determine the actual "usable acreage" for each parcel. .A trunk sewer rate can II then be applied to these "usable acres" to determine the trunk sewer benefit. It should be noted that the properties acquiring sewer from the Whitetail Ridge development have been assessed for I trunk charges previously and have been removed from this assessment roll. I - 1 Don Ashworth July 31, 1991 Page 2 The Lake Ann interceptor assessment rate has been established based on two primary criteria, an area development density and the City's current trunk charge per unit. In 1986, this proposed service area, including the Lake Lucy Highlands plat, were all outside of the Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA). It was concluded that the existing topography of the Lake Lucy Highlands area was very typical and representive of the terrain throughout this portion of the City of Chanhassen. The Lake Lucy Highlands ' plat presented 49 units on 60 acres yielding a density of one unit per 1.3 acres. Applying the City's current trunk charge at that time which was $600 per unit yielded a per acre assessment rate of $460. This was believed to be the most appropriate method to treat all undeveloped land outside of the MUSA equally. The proposed assessment rate has been revised to an amount equal ' to $539 per acre of "usable land area ". This increase is primarily the result of adding in the interest cost the City has incurred for the last two years. As was discussed at the March 3, 1986 Council Meeting, this project was proposed to be assessed relatively soon after the project was completed, thus, this assessment hearing would have been held in 1989. Therefore, the interest the City has incurred for the 1990 -91 calendar years has ' been incorporated into the assessment rate. A recent re- evaluation of the land area has resulted in a net decrease in the total amount of "usable area" to be assessed. Thus, a slight adjustment for this has also been accounted for in the revised per unit assessment rate. A revised assessment roll for each affected parcel within the Lake Ann Interceptor service area is attached. The assessment term has been established for 10 years at an interest rate of 9 %. This interest rate is based on the results of the bond sale for the bonds of 1986 that provides the long -term financing for this project. ' As mentioned previously, one of the City's primary concerns with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission project is that it meet the long -term needs for the City. As such, the resulting project yielded a rare opportunity for the City and property owners to acquire long -term sewer needs at very advantageous costs. For example, the City's cost for this interceptor was about 1/3 the cost that it would typically incur in constructing its own local trunk sewer. In addition, assessment rates to undeveloped parcels typically are in the ballpark of about 1.85 units per acre assessed as compared to the one unit per 1.3 acres rate for this project. It would be somewhat naive for this office to expect that this assessment methodology will not be challenged or criticized at ' the public hearing. The previously developed assessment concept was developed for the purpose of treating all of the area outside 1 Don Ashworth July 31, 1991 Page 3 the MUSA equally. Since the feasibility hearing and project completion, some of the properties have changed ownership and with the pending assessments, the sellers have escrowed monies for the trunk assessment accordingly. While there may now be other assessment methodologies raised, it would not seem appropriate nor justified to create the administrative disruption. Hearings were previously held on this project including the assessment methodology as developed by the previous engineer. A representative of Engelhardt & Associates will be present on my behalf to address any questions that might be raised at the assessment hearing. At the close of the hearing, if there are no outstanding issues or questions to be resolved,-it would be appropriate for the Council to adopt the Lake Ann Interceptor Assessment Roll for Improvement Project No. 87 -35 and that assessment terms be set for 10 years at a 9% interest rate. CITY PLANNER'S COMMENTS During the preparation and public review of the recently approved comprehensive plan amendment, the issue of utility extension and related assessments was repeatedly raised. Staff's response to these repeated inquiries is a matter of record. In general, we indicated that a two -track approach needed to be used in the consideration of assessments. It was made clear that much of the area proposed to be brought into the MUSA line was subject to a pending assessment that resulted from the Lake Ann Interceptor. In most of the cases, those who raised questions in public hearings were aware of this fact since many of them had already had funds escrowed to cover these assessments when they were levied. In these meetings, staff indicated that the assessment would be approximately $460 per acre based upon the original feasibility study and that we had an expectation that the levy would occur during the summer of 1991. The area in which staff indicated the City could be sensitive to residents in these areas was related to new utility construction that would be undertaken to support development as it occurrs in the new MUSA line. To this end, a goal and policy statement was 1 added to the plan as follows: GOAL: To recognize the often unique circumstances of unserviced lots located both inside and outside of the MUSA line located in subdivisions that were platted prior to 1987 under ordinances that allowed them 2i -acre lots. 1 1 1 Don Ashworth July 31, 1991 Page 4 POLICY: These lots were, for the most part, developed relatively recently and have new on -site sanitary and water services built to high standards. The City will therefore seek to insure that these subdivisions are not unduly burdened by new local utility lines and related assessments. The City Council should seek to adopt sensitive policies for trunk line improvements as well. The City will utilize policies listed above to insure proper maintenance and functioning of these systems. Property owners must understand that proper maintenance and upkeep of on -site systems is their responsibility. At such time that on -site systems begin to fail, the ' City will work with residents to restore utilities to these subdivisions in a coordinated, comprehensive manner. Since on site systems tend to fail at different times at different lots in a subdivision, residents ' should be aware that utilities may need to be provided before concensus is achieved from all impacted property owners. Homes developed since 1987 in the rural area U are equipped with alternate drainfield sites. If problems occur with the primary site, the City would look favorably on allowing the use of the secondary site if it is still functional. It should be made clear that in all the public meetings that were held, there was never any indication given that the Lake Ann ' Interceptor assessment should or could be dismissed by the City. In fact, the reverse was true - it was stated that this pipe is in the ground and the City has already expended several hundred thousand dollars on it and that any concerns raised by the affected residents could be heard at such time that the assessment is levied. At this point too it may also be useful to reiterate some of the understandings that were developed during the comprehensive plan as to timing of development. When the original city plan was ' developed in 1980 it was difficult to anticipate the rate at which development would be occurring. At that time, much of the area covered by the recently adopted MUSA line amendment had been proposed for a 1990 inclusion into the MUSA system by the City. Under the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement and under some protest by the City, the Metropolitan Council required the City to change its 1990 date to the year 2000 under the contractural agreement that secured the construction of the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement. Even at the time this agreement was signed the rate at which the City was growing made it clear to staff and members of the Planning Commission and City Council that a revised comprehensive plan would be required to accommodate the growth. This process started approximately the same time the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement was signed. It took several years for the plan amendment process to really get going but the effort 1 1 Don Ashworth July 31, 1991 Page 5 accelerated when it was clear that the City would double in size in terms of population between 1980 and 1990 and increased from approximately 1,000 jobs to 6,000 today. It was further noted that projections indicated a further doubling in population and employment in the coming decade. During the time that the effort on the comprehensive plan first started, it was difficult to anticipate with any certainty when things would be occurring. However, the fact that our MUSA line amendment was approved the Metropolitan Counchil based upon the fact that there was little or no land left within the existing serviced area in 1991, demostrates that events moved with greater rapidity than had originally been anticipated. This question often came up during public hearings when people indicated that they had been informed that development probably would take place until the year 2000. It is unfortunate if there was a perception that this date was cast in stone but it certainly has turned out not to be the case and the recently approved comprehensive plan has been designed to accommodate the growth that reasonably could be expected over the next ten years. jms /ktm Attachments: 1. Final Assessment Roll dated 8/5/91. 2. Staff Report dated February 28, 1986. 3. City Council minutes dated March 3, 1986. 4. Public Hearing Notice to Paper. 5. Affidavit of Mailing. 6. Notice of Correction to Special Assessment Notice and corresponding Affidavit of Mailing. 7. Assessment Objections. 1 c: Jean Meuwissen, Treasurer Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technican Bill Engelhardt, Engelhardt & Associates 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II 1 1 LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR ASSESSMENT ROLL I TOTAL USABLE ASSESSED P.I.D. OWNER ACREAGE ACREAGE AMOUNT 25- 0922900 • ..- . 2.48 _2_2.4- 1721 L510 T -ake Luce- --Bmad • , 1 i 2-5 - 0022600 A+4 -r-ed & Ma y Har ‹ 4 4 � -Z-2 -- 4.82 , .5 -- d Excelsior, MN. 55331 1 25- 0024000 Almond & Carolyn Krueger 3.92 3.41 $ 1,846.17 1600 Lake Lucy Road I Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 6850050 Dale Hiebert 0.96 0.48 $ 704.10 6510 Yosemite Avenue II Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 0021600 Richard & B. Ortenblad 24.45 16.71 $ 9,046.79 I 1351 Lake Lucy Road Excelsior, MN. 55331 II 25- 0025800 Theodore Coey 17.89 13.46 $ 7,287.24 1381 Lake Lucy Road Excelsior, MN. 55331 I 25- 0025820 Joseph & Gayle Marin 5.48 3.05 $ 1,651.27 1441 Lake Lucy Road Excelsior, MN. 55331 1 25- 0025810 Brian & Nancy Tichy 6.22 3.77 $ 2,041.08 1471 Lake Lucy Road I Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 0025700 Robert & E. Christensen 8.85 6.89 $ 3,730.25 1511 Lake Lucy Road 1 Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 0025600 Warren & A. Phillips 12.11 7.24 $ 3,919.74 I 1571 Lake Lucy Road Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 0025500 Minnesota Wildlife I Heritage Foundation 2.49 0.18 $ 704.10 c/o Hugh Price 5701 Normandale Road I Suite 308 Minneapolis, MN. 55424 II II 2 TOTAL USABLE ASSESSED II P.I.D. OWNER ACREAGE ACREAGE AMOUNT 25- 0030100 Mark & Kathryn Sanda 10.76 4.75 $ 2,571.66 II 1685 Stellar Court Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 0033600 Almond & Carolyn Krueger 0.44 0.44 $ 704.10 • 1600 Lake Lucy.Road . Excelsior, MN. 55331 1 25- 0033700 Myrna M. Johnson 3.78 3.53 $ 1,911.14 1630 Lake Lucy Road II Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 0033800 Melvin & J. Babatz 0.44 0.44 $ 704.10 1650 Lake Lucy Road II Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 0033200 James & Cecelia Palmer 0.83 0.83 $ 704.10 II 1670 Lake Lucy Road • Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 0033300. City of Chanhassen 10.97 7.37 $ 3,990.12- , 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN. 55317 25- 4070010 Breck & Marliese Johnson 2.56 2.56 $ 1,385.98 II 6621 Galpin Boulevard Excelsior, MN. 55331 II 25- 4070020 Steve & Wendy Lamburesh 2.50 2.50 $ 1,353.50 6651 Galpin Boulevard Excelsior, MN. 55331 - II 25- 4070030 Christopher & Sandra Ramsey 2.50 2.50 $ 1,353.50 6681 Galpin Boulevard II Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 4070040 Norwest Mortgage, Inc. 2.42 2.42 $ 1,315.60 ' Attn: Mary Fernholz 1021 - 10th Avenue S.E. Minneapolis, MN. 55414 25- 4070050 John & Mariellen Waldron 3.97 3.97 $ 2,149.36 II 1900 Lake Lucy Road Excelsior, MN. 55331 II II 1 II II 3 TOTAL USABLE ASSESSED 1 P.I.D. OWNER ACREAGE ACREAGE AMOUNT I 25- 4070060 John & Melanie Gorczyca 4.47 4.47 $ 2,420.06 1850 Lake Lucy Road Excelsior, MN. 55331 I 25- 4070070 Alan & Kathleen Peterson 4.46 2.70 $ 1,461.78 700 West Village Road, ' Apt. 106 1 Chanhassen, MN. 55317 25- 4070080 Merle & Diane Steinkraus 2.46 2.46 $ 1,331.84 I c/o Pillsbury Company 1800 Lake Lucy Road Excelsior, MN. 55331 1 25- 4070090 Jerry R. & Cynthia M. Gill 2.47 2.47 $ 1,337.26 1760 Lake Lucy Road Excelsior, MN. 55331 1 25- 4070100 Patrick Johnson & Mary Cordell 2.47 2.47 $ 1,337.26 I 1730 Lake Lucy Lane Excelsior, MN. 55331 I 25- 4070110 Paul McAllister 2.52 2.01 $ 1,088.21 7510 Erie Avenue Chanhassen, MN. 55317 . I 25- 4070120 Mark & Chanda Riddersen 6.32 3.39 $ 1,835.35 1811 Lake Lucy Lane Excelsior, MN. 55331 1 25- 4070130 Scott & Kathy Gavin 7.82 4.76 $ 2,577.06 1851 Lake lucy Lane I Excelsior, MN. 55331 Mark & Tracy Williams 2.45 2.38 $ 1,288.53 1655 Lake Lucy Road 1 Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 4070150 Bruce & Rebecca Plowman 2.50 2.46 $ 1,331.84 1 1665 Stellar Court Excelsior, MN. 55331 - 25- 4070160 Clarence & Phyllis Haile 4..34 3.40 $ 1,840.76 I 1675 Stellar Court Excelsior, MN. 55331 II II 11 4 II TOTAL USABLE ASSESSED II P.I.D. OWNER ACREAGE ACREAGE AMOUNT 25- 4070170 Mark & Kathryn Sanda 6.22 3.68 $ 1,992.35 II 1685 Stellar Court Excelsior, MN. 55331 ' 25-4070180 Eric & Norma Riukin 10.07 3.96 $ 2,143.94 . 1695 Stellar Court Excelsior, MN. 55331 1 25- 4070190 Allen & Barbara Finstad 3.06 2.04 $ 1,104.46 1701 Stellar Court II Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 4070200 Judith Dirks 7.07 2.68 $ 1,450.95 1205 West Ash ' Olivia, MN. 56277 25- 003200 Kristin Struyk 1.35 1.35 $ 704.10 II 1941 Crestview Drive Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 7500020' Mary Zehrer 0.84 0.84 $ 704.10 II 1930 Crestview Drive Excelsior, MN. 55331 • 25- 750030 Merrill & R. Steller 0.63 0.63 $ 704.10 II 1931 Crestview Drive Excelsior, MN. 55331 1 25- 7500040 Kristin Struyk 0.83 0.83 $ 704.10 1941 Crestview Drive II Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 7500050 Mary Muethlhausen 0.81 0.81 $ 704.10 1961 Crestview Drive II Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 6840010 Mary Muethlhausen 0.95 0.95 $ 704.10 I 1961 Crestview Drive Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 7960020 Michael & Kathleen Schultz 2.08 2.08 $ 1,126.11 II 2150 Crestview Drive Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 0032700 James & D. Mielke 1.97 1.97 II 1645 Lake Lucy Road $ 1,066.56 Excelsior, MN. 55331 II 1 II i 5 TOTAL USABLE ASSESSED II P.I.D. OWNER ACREAGE ACREAGE _ AMOUNT I 25- 0032800 The Greenery Company 12.45 12.45 $ 6,740.43 c/o Don Mezeenga 5816 Dickens Avenue Minnetonka, MN. 55345 I 25- 0035100 Reinhold & L. Guthmiller 11.42 11.42 $ 6,182.79 1801 West 67th Street 1 Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 6930010 Martin & Beth Kuder 8.27 8.05 $ 4,358.27 II 6831 Galpin Lake Boulevard Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 6930020 Martin & Beth Kuder 7.46. 5.78 $ 3,129.29 I 6831 Gaipin Lake Boulevard Excelsior, MN. 55331 • II 25- 6930030 Earl C. Gilbert III 10.0 8.25 . $ 4,466.55 6901 Gaipin Lake Boulevard Excelsior, MN. 55331 1 25- 6900030 Prince R. Nelson 9.0 9.0 $ 4,872.60 2121 Avenue of the Stars c/o BRJ &S # #1700 II Los Angeles, CA. 90067 25- 0034820 Jerome & Linda Carlson 21.0 14.75 $ 7,985.65 II 6975 Gaipin Lake Road Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 0040300 Jerome & Linda Carlson 53.58 43.17 '$23,372.24 II 6975 Gaipin Lake Road Excelsior, MN. 55331 I 25- 0034810 Edward & Mary Ryan 37.90 32.19 $17,427.67 6730 Gaipin Boulevard Excelsior, MN. 55331 II 25- 0034800 Brian Klingelhutz & D. Gestach 25.86 21.84 $11,824.18 8407 Great Plains Boulevard II Chanhassen, MN. 55317 . 25- 5590010 James & Linda Ring 4.13 4.13 $ 2,235.98 I 6640 Gaipin Boulevard Excelsior, MN. 55331 11 II • II 611 TOTAL USABLE ASSESSED II P.I.D. OWNER ACREAGE ACREAGE AMOUNT 25- 5590020 Sam & Nancy Mancino 23.48 23.48 $12,712.07 6620 Galpin Boulevard , Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 0041210 Westside Baptist Church 10.19 5.02 ' $ 2,717.83 I 1455 Park Road Chanhassen, MN. 55317 . 25- 0040500 Dennis & Beverly Jacobson 12.5 12.5 $ 6,767.50 II 6841 Hazeltine Boulevard - Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 0091200 Joan Wegler 0.96 0.96 $ 704.10 I 7010 Ches Mar Drive Excelsior, MN. 55331 1 25- 0091300 William & B. Johnson 0.96 0.96 $ 704.10 7060 Ches Mar Drive II Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 0091100 Michael & Susan Gilbert 1.0 1.0 $ 704.10 7100 Ches Mar Drive ,' Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 2050010 Herbert F. Ewald 1.0 1.0 $ 704.10 2700 Ches Mar Farm Road II Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 2050020 Geraldine Eikaas 2.35 2.35 $ 1,272.29 II 2763 Ches Mar Farm Road Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 2050030 David C. Bell Investment Co. 2.45 2.45 $ 1,326.43 II 3915 Highway No. 7 Minneapolis, MN. 55416 II 25- 2050040 David C. Bell Investment Co. 5.20 5 $ 2,815.28 3915 Highway No. 7 Minneapolis, MN. 55416 II 25- 2060010 Charles & Virgina Gross 2.39 2.39 $ 1,293.95 2703 Ches Mar Farm Road II Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 2060020 David C. Bell Investment Co. 10..13 10.13 $ 5,484.38 II 3915 Highway No. 7 Minneapolis, MN. 55416 II II II 7 I TOTAL USABLE ASSESSED P.I.D. OWNER ACREAGE ACREAGE AMOUNT 25- 0092500 Walter & M. Whitehill 2.54 2.54 $ 1,396.81 I 725? Hazeltine Boulevard Excelsior, MN. 55331 I 25- 0091800 Donald & Betty Roy 0.61 0.61 $ 704.10 7205 Hazeltine Boulevard Excelsior, MN. 55331 . I 25- 0092100 David Weather & Karen Edelmann 0.88 D.88 $ 704.10 7235 Hazeltine Boulevard 1 Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 0092200 David Weather & II Karen Edelmann 4.0 4.0 $ 2,165.60 7235 Hazeltine Boulevard Excelsior, MN. 55331 I 25- 0091500 Paul & Roseanne Youngquist 25.0 25.0 $13,535.00 7105 Hazeltine Boulevard Excelsior, MN. 55331 I 25- 8860010 John & Frances Dassett 2.60 2.60 $ 1,407.64 c/o Val Wirtz II 19380 Highway No. 7 Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 8860020 John & Frances Dassett 5.47 5.47 $ 2,961.46 I c/o Val Wirtz 19380 Highway No. 7 Excelsior, MN. 55331 1 25- 8860030 John & Frances Dassett 5.0 5.0 $ 2,707.00 c/o Val Wirtz 1 19380 Highway No. 7 Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 8860040 John & Frances Dassett 0.06 0.06 $ 704.10 I c/o Val Wirtz 19380 Highway No. 7 Excelsior, MN. 55331 1 25- 0090700 Dean & Jacqueline Simpson 1.83 1.83 $ 990.76 7185 Hazeltine Boulevard Excelsior, MN. 55331 I 25- 6910010 Charles & Irene Song 100.0 80.25 $43,447.35 7200 Gaipin Boulevard II Excelsior, MN. 55331 1 811 TOTAL USABLE ASSESSED P.I.D. OWNER ACREAGE ACREAGE AMOUNT 25- 6910020 Charles & Irene Song 10.0 10.0 $ 5,414.00 I 7200 Galpin Boulevard Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 6900010 Prince R. Nelson 19.74 16.27 $ 8,808.58 1 2121 Avenue of the Stars c/o BRJ &S #1700 Los Angeles, CA. 90067 1 25- 6900020 Prince R. Nelson 156.07 114.88 $62,196.03 2121 Avenue of the Stars c/o BRJ &S #1700 Los Angeles, CA. 90067 25- 0100200 Marvin & Judith Janicke 6.49 6.49 $ 3,515.69 II . 7021 Galpin Boulevard Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 0100400 Partnership Investment, Inc. 2.70 2.70 $ 1,461.78 ' 730 - 2nd Avenue South Suite 281 Minneapolis, MN. 55402 25- 0100100 Robert & Penelope Arneson 3.75 3.75 $ 2,030.25 6921 Galpin Boulevard Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 0101540 David & Anga Stockdale 5.65 5.65 $ 3.058.91 II 292 Ryan Avenue St. Paul, MN. 55102 25- 0101500 David & Anga Stockdale 12.39 12.39 $ 6,707.95 1 292 Ryan Avenue St. Paul, MN. 55102 25- 0101530 Theodore & Marlene Bentz 6.0 2.03 $ 1,099.04 7300 Galpin Boulevard Excelsior, MN. 55331 1 25- 0101520 Darlene Turcotte 5.0 5.0 $ 2,707.00 4400 West Arm Road, Apt. 127 Spring Park, MN. 55384 25- 0101510 Douglas & Theresa Bentz 5.0 4.37 $ 2,365.92 77 Thomas Lane Chaska, MN. 55318 II 1 9 1 TOTAL USABLE ASSESSED P.I.D. OWNER ACREAGE ACREAGE AMOUNT I 25- 0101700 Theodore & Marlene Bentz 14.64 5.88 $ 3,183.43 7300 Galpin Boulevard Excelsior, MN. 55331 1 25- 0101300 John 6: Rengers Hennessy 1.84 1.84 $ 996.18 7305 Galpin Boulevard Excelsior, MN. 55331 I 25- 0101600 John & Rengers Hennessy 0.92 0.92 $ 704.10 7305 Galpin Boulevard 1 Excelsior, MN. 55331 25- 0100500 Michael J. Gorra 49.9 44.26 $23,962.36 II 1680 Arboretum Drive Chanhassen, MN. 55317 1 25- 0100800 Michael J. Gorra 8.63 8.63 $ 4,672.28 1680 Arboretum Drive Chanhassen, MN. 55317 I 25- 0100900• Michael J. Gorra 58.67 52.38 $28,358.53 1680 Arboretum Drive Chanhassen, MN. 55317 II 25- 0101000 Leander & P. Kerber 2.79 2.79 $ 1,510.51 1620 Arboretum Boulevard Chanhassen, MN. 55317 II 25- 0101100 David 6( Juliann Luse 4.98 4.98 $ 2,696.17 14358 Golf View Drive 1 Eden Prairie, MN. 55344 25- 0101200 Michael Klingelhutz 17.41 17.41 $ 9,425.77 1 8601 Great Plains Boulevard Chanhassen, MN. 55317 25- 0101210 Conway Lars 49.8 49.8 $26,961.72 I 4952 Emerson Avenue South Minneapolis, MN. 55409 I 25- 0101220 Brett Davidson 13.0 13.0 $ 7,038.20 7291 Galpin Boulevard Excelsior, MN. 55331 ' 25- 0100600 Michael J. Gorra 18.8 18.8 $10,178.32 1680 Arboretum Drive Chanhassen, MN. 55317 1 II 1 10 TOTAL USABLE ASSESSED II P.I.D. OWNER ACREAGE ACREAGE AMOUNT 25- 0100700 Michael J. Gorra 3.38 3.38 $ 1,829.93 1 1680 Arboretum Drive Chanhassen, MN. 55317 25- 0110200 City of Chanhassen 60.32 60.32 $32,657.25 1 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN. . 55317 25- 0110300 Raymond Notermann 1.14 1.14 $ 704.10 II 1450 Arboretum Boulevard Chanhassen, MN. 55317 25 - 0034830 Daniel & Linda Murphy 2.74 2.02 $ 1,093.63 6651 Hazeltine Boulevard Excelsior, MN. 55331 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 mom mom mom mom milm limm mu um Imm mom IIMM 111111 MOM , 111111 MOM MIN TO: Lake Ann Interceptor Assessment File • FROM: Allan L. Larson William R. Engelhardt Associates, Inc. SUBJECT: Property Deleted From Assessment Roll DATE: August 5, 1991 NOTE: The City of Chanhassen has deleted the following properties from the Lake Ann Assessment Roll due to payment made under other projects. MAP REF. NO. NAME PID NO. PROJECT 1 • Terrance 7 M. O'Brien 25- 0023100 Harvey /O'Brien Sanitary Sewer Extension 2 Alfred & Mary Harvey 25- 0023000 Harvey /O'Brien Sanitary Sewer Extension 41 Wayne & Joyce Poppe 25- 7500010 White Tail Ridge Development 47 Bruce & Jean Mattson 25- 0034200 White Tail Ridge Development 48 Ingwald Eiden 25- 0034400 White Tail Ridge Development 49 Arnon & P. Reese 25- 0034500 White Tail Ridge Development 50 Paul & Linda Wolf 25- 0034000 White Tail Ridge Development . 51 Michael & Kathleen Schultz 25- 7960010 White Tail Ridge Development • 53 Steve & Suzanne Miller 25- 0034700 White Tail Ridge Development 54 M. & Clarke Nicholson, Jr. 25- 0034300 White Tail Ridge Development 55 Daniel & D. Nickolai 25- 0034100 White Tail Ridge Development 56 Gerald Jablinski 25- 5350010 White Tail Ridge Development 57 Robert & L. Peterson 25- 5350020 White Tail Ridge Development 58 Henry & Carl Wong 25- 5350030 White Tail Ridge Development 59 Richard & B. Atherton 25- 5350040 White Tail Ridge Development 60 Walter & D. Felton 25- 5350050 White Tail Development 61 William & J. Ashenback 25- 5350060 White Tail Ridge Development 62 Bernard & S. Benz 25- 5350070 White Tail Ridge Development 63 Don & K. Kelly 25- 5350080 White Tail Ridge Development 1 .f - I P Y ' 1 : }rf !II 1 13in T,\ l�‘ 1 MI - iwo . bim ar gem. p 1 I dim ' vlit Ev7 , � a /� HIL 1 , La rAl © © L. . 1 v „ ::...nowtp ii.4° A A=Z ' •. v ........s.,1., • `Y.. ` • i All ..� 21 gel,„ ®A® . . Amp — � M�ti� b Wee i t ia-sa-• Ali _ 1 g . : '' 1 '% °1111 111113111 1U1 r ' o ''n E 'V,� t ®� N Dy _latirdi' ` ; cos 1 •∎ N' � t Ni lip �� 1* 1 l aral 4- .0*" s� 'Ili 1 7 NI,' " tar 1 III Aliiiin PA. r - i' . . . .7 11.1 s mi 9 0 W.,1■■ 2 ' 4/4 l' ,./.r-nzi • il / I 44 i o r )10, - A 7,W; ‘ :: . . ♦ ` �� . _ . � 1 r te,;` i 1 ASSESSMENT MAP i r 1. . . _ CITY OF c7R (A.. I �, L , . cHANH I AI, • „_ c = . ' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937 -1900 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager 1 FROM: Bill Monk, City Engineer I DATE: February 28, 1986 SUBJ: Lake Ann Interceptor Public Improvement Hearing 1 On January 13, 1986 (minutes attached), the City Council called for a public hearing to consider the Lake Ann Interceptor improvements. This hearing is required by State Statute, even I , though the Interceptor is being handled as a joint project, since the City is incurring local costs through provisions of the agreement. These costs have to be translated into benefit for trunk sewer service and result in property assessments consistent with any other municipal improvement project. To offset the $482,000 local participation included in the pro- I posed Interceptor Agreement, a service area has been established- as noted on the attached map. Additionally, usable acreage, excluding designated wetland areas, has been determined for the I affected 95 parcels. It is proposed that a trunk sewer rate be applied to these "usable acres” so that a trunk sewer benefit can be established. I The rate of $460 per acre included in the attached schedule was derived using the ultimate development plan submitted as a part of the Lake Lucy Highlands plat process. This plat is included I in the proposed service area and is representative of the rough terrain throughout this portion of the City. The ultimate development plan, for the replat of the approved 21 acre sub- ' division, showed 49 units on 60 usable acres for a density of one ,-unit _ per - 3: °3..acres. Applied to the City's current trunk charge of $600 per unit, the per acre equivalent worked out to $460. The attached parcel schedule shows the extended assessment calcu- ' lations for each parcel using this per acre rate. Up to this point the proposals listed seem totally consistent I with previous municipal projects. However, this projcet is uni- que in that connections within this service district are restricted until the urban service district is enlarged via a MUSA line change. This means no benefit will be realized by the 1 property owners until some unspecified future date. Essentially, the Council is in the position of ordering an improvement for which it will have to defer the assessments without interest. II Don Ashworth February 28, 1986 II Page 2 While unique, the situation still represents an unusual oppor- ' tunity for the City and property owners in terms of allowing for long term sewer needs at reasonable costs. The City; however, must establish a means by which to finance repayment of the local improvement costs to the MWCC until the MUSA is enlarged and assessment payments are received. As reviewed previously, three funding sources are proposed to cover the $52,800 annual payment. They are as follows: 1. Establish a $150.00 connection charge (in addition to the existing $600 amount), that will be incorporated into all building permits for properties within the MUSA. In 1985, this charge would have generated $37,500. Such a charge would be abolished as it is offset by assessment collections from the area being discussed. 2. Redesignation and continuance of an existing G.O. obliga- tion to the MWCC for trunk benefit to the entire City that will be paid off in 1987. The current value of this obliga- tion given existing City wide assessed valuations is $33,000. 3. Trarsfers from the Sewer Availability Fund (401) as a back -up to either of the above mentioned sources. At this point, I feel the City is in a position to approve the ' joint project and authorize installation of the Lake Ann Interceptor within Chanhassen consistent with the cost and assessment proposals included in this report. As a final note, I am sure there will be questions concerning the usable acreage figures from various properties. Unless there is an obvious error, it is recommended changes be deferred until the assessment hearing at which time each parcel will be more closely reviewed. BM:v Manager's Comment: During the initial stages of negotiating the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement we presented a skeleton format for repayment, i.e. a sur- charge to our SAC fund, re- direction of our existing metropolitan sewer levy and special assessments. The final report reflects that those initial estimates were correct and continue to represent the most feasible means to insure that the debt we are incurring will be repaid. The three fold concept for funding recognizes that the Lake Ann Interceptor means signi- ficantly more than simply providing sewer service to a new area. - r 1 FIGURE 1 . i .. 2/ - c• ck • 41 I ` p E it 1 I . /� F W •_�` :o , • a • • J < cc cc I ¢W / �,� � •pi ) w w I 0� W / • • p � J/ J 5 ID �Z ■ � � 3 w • Ci f( CO N 2 I • \ < • • • I CC r, . 1 , 1 1 _ ,W • W CC \ \ �' Q W W 1... if„..., 0 II li cc II , Z ) _ \ • \ W z cr \ i - . ; : • . : ' . ' . I 1 , - i; 7 11 \ - N ij . _ _ ._ ...,....\ _ _ i ..... f e 1__L 1; :_:::,4:;- _ Z 2 i , \ h mil • • y Y • o. i N / .. ....) . 410 •i r - \�� \\ \\• _ \ ,, a • • l ; I Z cc \ r - "...J I f _�L_ = a 1 z U r 1 , / \ < U 1_, i 5 z T 2 at ; tx < > z 1 ` I 1 ¢ J „r W • t zo f — �� #..\-- \_ ' —( L - rev rip 1 I L 1 • i 4 : P51, • 1.... -. .... -.... ..... -.... .. -... .... .... _.1 /..,* , I - -'/ r I 1 2 , II CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT HEARING 1 FOR LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen City Council will , meet in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 690 Coutler Drive, on Monday, March 3, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. to consider entering into a joint agreement with the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Waste Control Commission concerning construction of the Lake Ann Interceptor. This project includes construction of a local sani -° - tary sewer trunk line as a part of a metropolitan interceptor. Construction of the local trunk is being handled pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.011 to 429.11. The area proposed to be assessed for these improvements is bounded roughly by Lake Lucy Road and its extension on the north, TH 41 on the west, TH 5 on the south, and a line extended along the eastern edge of Lakes Ann and Lucy on the east. The following properties are within the assessment area: 25- 0023100, 25- 0023000, 25- 0022900, 25- 0022600, 25- 0024000, 25- 6850050, 25- 0021600, 25- 0025800, 25- 0025820, 25- 0025810, 25- 0025700, 25- 0025600, 25- 0025500, 25- 0030100, 25- 0033600, 25- 0033700, 25- 0033800, 25- 0033200, 25- 0033300, 25- 0031900, 25- 0032000, 25- 7500010, 25- 7500020, 25- 7500030, 25- 7500040, 25- 7500050, 25- 6840010, 25- 0034200, 25- 0034400, 25- 0034500, 25- 0034000, 25- 0034600, 25- 0034700, 25- 0034300, 25- 0034100, 25- 5350010, 25- 5350020, 25- 5350030, 25- 5350040, 25- 5350050, 25- 5350060, 25- 5350070, 25- 5350080, 25- 0032700, 25- 0032600, 25- 0032800, 25- 0035100-, 25- 0032900, 25- 6900030, 25- 0034820, 25- 0040300, 25- 0034810, 25- 0034800, 25- 0034900, 25- 0035000, 25- 0041200, 25- 0040500, 25- 0091200, 25- 0091300, 25- 0091100, 25- 0090800, 25- 0090900, 25- 0092500, 25- 0091800, 25- 0092100, 25- 0092200, 25- 0091500, 25- 0091400, 25- 0090700, 25- 6910010, 25- 6910020, 25- 6900010, 25- 6900020, 25- 0100200, 25- 0100400, 25- 0100100, 25- 0101540, 25- 0101500, 25- 0101530, 25- 0101520, 25- 0101510, 25- 0101700, 25- 0101300, 25- 0101600, 25- 0100500, 25- 0100800, 25- 0100900, 25- 0101000, 25- 0101100, 25- 0101200, 25- 0101210, 25- 0100600, 25- 0100700, 25- 0110200, and 25- 0110300. The estimated cost of the sanitary sewer improvements is ' $482,000. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvements will be heard at this meeting. Don Ashworth City Clerk /Manager (Publish in the South Shore Weekly News on February 13 and 20, 1 1986) If l a C I TY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 I February 11, 1986 1 Dear Property Owner: For several years, the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission have been reviewing options in regards ' to major sewer facility installations that would relieve the severe capacity problems currently being experienced at the Lake Virginia Lift Station. As noted on the attached sketch, those options were reduced to two more specific alternatives, namely the Lake Virginia Forcemain and the Lake Ann Interceptor. The Lake Virginia Forcemain represents a 30 to 36 inch pressurized pipe system that traverses northern Chanhassen and Eden Prairie in the areas of Lake Lucy and Pleasant View Roads. The Lake Ann Interceptor, on the other hand, is a 24 to 42 inch gravity trunk line that traverses lowland areas of central Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. The Cities of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie have long argued that the interceptor alternative represented the best long term propo- sal in terms of its overall economic and environmental impacts as well as the way it addresses the eventual sewer service needs of ' the Cities it affects. Our argument was founded on many points, several of which are as follows: 1. The forcemain option represents a major facility that resolves the Lake Virginia problem in the short -term, while providing no benefit to others along the route in that connections to the pressurized line are not ' possible. 2. The forcemain travels through environmentally sensitive areas where adequate control to handle a rupture in the line cannot be provided. 3. The extension of yet another forcemain into the sewer district will effectively restrict the development of numerous outlying suburbs well into the future and in all probability create more capacity problems than are currently occurring at Lake Virginia. 1 11 February 11, 1986 1 Page 2 4. Construction of the forcemain will cause Chanhassen and Eden Prairie to install local trunks along the intercep- tor route in the future at a much greater cost than if a joint facility is constructed. 5. The economic comparison of the interceptor and forcemain options shows the two systems are of equal cost and this does not even take into account the additional local costs described in item 4, above. At this point, the Metropolitan agencies have approved a service 1 plan that includes the Lake Ann Interceptor. The Cities of Eden • Prairie and Chanhassen are financially involved in this agreement as it is based on a cost sharing arrangement whereby the Cities pay for local trunk capacity being provided by the interceptor. In Chanhassen's case it is very important to note that the capa- city being provided is for an area outside the established muni- cipal urban service area. This means that property owners (presently being notified) will not be able to connect to the trunk until some future date when a change in the service area occurs. However, when that service area change does occur, the trunk line will already be in place at what the City believes to be a reasonable cost. , At this point in the process, the City Council has called a public improvement hearing for March 3 (see attached hearing notice) to review the proposed sewer improvements. This review " will detail the service area, the project costs, and the benefit to affected properties including the timing of any assessments given the restriction on use. Because of the large number of property owners and issues involved with this improvement, an informational meeting will be I/ held at City Hall on Thursday, February 27 at 7:30 p.m. At that time a general presentation will be given and details concerning individual properties will be available for review and comment. I look forward to seeing you at that time. Sincerely, y� 1 William Monk 1 • City Engineer WM:k 1 1 1 II REGULAR CHANHASSEN C . COUNCIL MEETING March 3, 1986 ii r -- Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson, Councilman Geving, and Councilwoman Swenson II Members Absent None I Staff Present 1 Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Bill Monk, and Roger Knutson 1 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the agenda as presented with the addition of discussion on a new ordinance. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. I CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: A -93 1. a. RESOLUTION #86 -11: Approve Proclamation Designating Volunteers of America Week, March 2 -9, 1986. I b. Chanhassen Fire Department Relief Association By -Laws, Final A -30 Adoption, Amendments. II Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. II PUBLIC HEARING LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR PROJECT: II a. Public Improvement Hearing. b. Approval of Agreement. Mayor Hamilton called the hearing to order with the following interested persons 0 present: iiT Terry Obrien 1420 Lake Lucy Road Al Harvey 1430 Lake Lucy Road Pennie Arneson 6921 Galpin •Boulevard Bob Arneson 6921 Galpin Boulevard II Sever Peterson Eden Prairie Mike Gona 1680 Arboretum Boulevard Ray Odde Metropolitan Waste Constrol Comm. lit Keith Gordon Nancy Tichy Bonestroo Engineering 1471 Lake Lucy Road Brian Tichy 1471 Lake Lucy Road Eric Rivkin 5525 Conifer Tr., Minnetonka Dave Luse 1660 Arboretum Boulevard Council Meeting, March 3, 'Q86 -2- Ray Notermann 1450 Arboretum Boulevard Terry Olson 6360 Forest Circle Tim & Dawn Erhart 775 W. 96th Street Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Boulevard Marvin Janiske 7021 Galpin Boulevard Richard M. Nieland 8510 Great Plains Boulevard ' Dale A. Gunderson 845 Creekwood Jeff Fox 27990 Smithtown Road, Excelsior • Bobbi & Ted Coey 1381 Lake Lucy Road Mayor Hamilton: This is a public improvement hearing dealing with the Lake Ann Interceptor so if anybody has any comments that they would like to make about the Lake Ann Interceptor you may do so. Bill Monk: As the Mayor stated, this is a public hearing on the Lake Ann Interceptor proposal between the City and the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. We did have en informational meeting last Thursday. We did have a good turn out and good discussion on this project, so I will go through this quickly. The City is considering a joint sanitary sewer /trunk project which involves running the water size interceptor through Chanhassen just to the west of Lake Lucy and Lake Ann all the way from Chanhassen's north border on Highway 41 all the way down around to the existing lift station at the southeast corner of Chanhassen Estates. This project is being proposed as a way of alleviating existing problems currently ocurring in the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission system. For the communities west of the Lake Virigina lift station, there were two options that were looked at in depth, one being the Lake Virginia Forcemain, which traverses northern Chanhassen, which was a 30 inch pressurized forcemain that would go directly from CI Lake Virginia station over to the existing pergatory interceptor close to TH 494. The other option is the plan that is beginning to be the City's comprehensive sewer plan for some time which included an interceptor coming down through Chanhassen and another one that would come down through Eden Prairie and would, in essence, replace the Chanhassen lift stations and forcemain. The City has argued for quite a while that the interceptor represented a better long term plan in terms of serving the entire district. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and the Metropolitan Council are now ready to install the Lake Ann Interceptor and the Red Rock Interceptor, which is the one that would come through Eden Prairie, as an alternative to the Lake Virginia Forcemain. To do that it is proposed that a cautionary arrangement be agreed to. The City would pay for the future trunk use of the inter- ceptor line as it would traverse Chanhassen, it would be new service from Highway 5 up to TH 41. The area that would some day derive service from that line is outlined in red on this map with a rough location of the existing proposed interceptor. The proposal at this time is to assess this area for trunk /sewer benefit as it would draw benefit from this line at some point in the future as the MUSA line is changed and this area falls within the urban service district. The proposal would include assessments that the Council would, in essence, have to defer. There would be no option to that in that the benefit would not be dropped until some future date when this area falls within the pervious surface area. Assessments were calculated using a recent example that did come up. Lake Lucy Highlands plat that was recently platted into 2i acre lots east of Galpin Boulevard, just south of Lake Lucy, did sub- mit word that its preliminary plat submittal stay ultimate development plan. They broke the 2i acre lots down into more urban size lots. I used that example, it was about 60 acres of usable property, broke down int, 49 lots ultimately. There was'a ratio of 1 lot per 1.3 acres. That is a very low rate when we are considering the city's urban service area, but topographical restrictions and several considerations entered into the calculation bringing the number into 1 unit per 1.3 acres. The pro- posed assessment was generated from that number. That 1 unit per 1.3 acres was bro- Council Meeting, Jar •y I3, 1986 - 3 - ken down, multiplied by the city's sewer charge of 1 unit for'$600 to come to a figure of $460 per acre. That was applied to all of the properties within this II district. It is recommended tonight that the Council approve the joint project and in its approval give concept approval to the method of assessment and condition that upon the approval of the agreement which will be discussed later tonight. When I did the calculations for lot areas, I did take into account lake boundaries and designated wetlands, as on the city's wetland map, to come up with as close of an acreage as I could given the time constraints we were under to hold a hearing. On ' the assessment role you will see an actual acreage and a usable acreage. The usable acreage does not necessarily mean that includes every acre of land that will defini- tely be usable. All I did take out was the designated wetlands. I am sure there will be some questions that may well come up concerning the acreage and that it ' doesn't appear right and I would advise the Council that a closer look at the exact acreage for all of these parcels will be looked at as federal improved right of way, etc. as we get into the assessment hearing. But tonights discussion in approving ' this joint project and moving ahead with construction should include an overall look at the proposed assessments and the methods to be imposed with those assessments. Mayor Hamilton: What I like to do at a public hearing is not to make a debate of it, IlArY but if you have comments that you would like to make you are welcome to do so. After your comments are made the Council will take them into consideration in our delibera- tions after the public hearing is closed and we will attempt to clarify any questions that are left. Pennie Arneson: I live at 6921 Galpin Boulevard. Am I to understand that you are going avoid the wetlands or what did he state about the wetlands? Mayor Hamilton: He said the wetlands would be taken out of the total acreage when assessed. Pennie Arneson: They would be taken out of the acreage so they wouldn't be involved at all? ' Mayor Hamilton: That is correct. ' Pennie Arneson: We have quite a bit of forest behind our house and I have a feeling that it is going to be touching the edge of it or going through some of it and we do have some wetlands that do go through there also and quite a bit of wildlife. I am really concerned about the impact on the wildlife. Although you are going to avoid it you are still going to change it. Mayor Hamilton: Do you mean during the construction period or ' Pennie Arneson: During the construction period and are you sinking the pipe line? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Pennie Arneson: What if there is a rupture and something leaks out like toxic waste. We moved out here about 3 months ago specifically for having land and being out with II the wildlife. Eric Rivkin: I wrote a letter to Bill Monk and the Mayor. I own land on Lake Lucy. I would like to make some comments about the project in general and I would also like to focus on my own lot in regards to the assessments and it has an impact on the way I guess everybody elses lots are going to be judged. I like the interceptor idea as opposed to the forcemain and I think Bill has some good ideas regarding the environ- Council Meeting, January " , 1986 _4_ mental impact. However, I think there are some things that residents probably would want to know which are things that were not mentioned here. That is the forcemain as opposed to the interceptor, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has a list of problems in the Metropolitan area with regard to failure of forcemains and failure of gravity interceptors. They have stated that f'orcemains have had an equal or better than record as far as a leakage is concerned. I was concerned about the fact that if the thing ever burst or if a forcemain would ever burst, along Lake Lucy Road, because of all the wetlands along the way would be polluted for many years. They said that the forcemains were only suppose to last for about 35 years and have a good record. Interceptors are gravity fed systems and a much larger pipe, 36 inches up to --24 feet in diameter they could be. What is the diameter of the pipe going to be? Mayor Hamilton: I don't think that has been determined yet. Eric Rivkin: Well large enough to handle all of this. They said the leakage occurs naturally. It is not seals and whatever. There is a certain amount of leakage that occurs all the time. Because I live on Lake Lucy Road and because the forcemain would go right in front of my house, I guess in my own selfish interests, I guess I wouldn't want the whole place carved up and that thing right in front of it. In my own case I would prefer the interceptor. The deferred assessment idea, I like that and it seems fair. You shouldn't have to pay for some service that we don't have. For the future, however, I feel that it is somewhat unfair that sewer projects in general and municipal service projects. A lot of people within that red line bought land down here with the intention of moving out here to a rural setting. I bought five acres, about four of which is all woods, swamp, wetland, designated DNR wetland and I wanted it to be preserved that way and so are my neighbors to the'west and the N i east and surrounding area on the north side of Lake Lucy. I would like to ask if the NI Council has thought what the depth of your consideration is to this whole issue of running laterals from this interceptor all over the City of Chanhassen in this area to force development through the levy of assessments. This kind of thing snowballs. You put the interceptor in and it gives the opportunity for people to divide. I think the assessments on this interceptor are probably the bargain that we are never going to get. I agree with the price, it seems to be fair. I talked to the Metropolitan Council this morning and they said that this type of thing in the very long range, and we were talking 35 - 50 years down the road, they have a disagreement with the City Council that the population growth rate is not as much as you proclaim. I suppose 50 years from now this area in Chanhassen may or may not be turned into a place that looks like St. Louis Park. But I bought land here and a lot of people behind me bought land here not wanting that. And if we want to preserve that and that is our right, it's our pursuit of happiness, the Bill of Rights say so. We shouldn't have things put on us to force it. The interceptor, I think, if it's going to go in and the people surrounding the areas are, and some of them are large landowners, 100 acres, 120 acres, farming is not a very good business to be in these days and pro- bably won't be for some time and some of them want to develop their land and they have a perfect right to, but I don't think that because they have all this acreage and can make big bucks doing this that we should suffer with, and they will be serviced by this line, that us in the areas that cannot be serviced by the sewer at all, for topographical reasons really shouldn't be imposed with laterals extending to that area. I want to get into the issue of usability and what 8i11 finds as usability. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think we need to debate what Bill defines or doesn't define but if you have specific issues that you want to ask questions about, that's what we are here for. 1 1 II Council Meeting March , 1986 - 5 - II Eric Rivkin: Those are my comments about the plan. Now I have some questions about the assessments. I want to make a proposal about the definition what usable land is and I want you to comment on that. I was kind of vague as to what Bill's definition of what usable land was but let me propose a definition. My impression is that unusable land is II unbuildable land whereas that land would be, that the City Engineer or Building Inspectors would not allow a residential structure to be built upon because of geographi cal features. Now these geographical features should be well defined. One is that it 1 includes wetlands, not only designated ones but undesignated ones. There is a map in the City Hall of what designated wetlands really are. The second point is that land that is inaccessible because of the wet terrain, trapped by the wet terrain or inac- ' cessible because of steep terrain. The third point is that it should be defined as land use for drainage from the toad to other properties. The fourth is easements acquired by the state or city for drainage, utilities, whatever. I have got four points. In my particular lot, I would like to show you an example, according to that 1 definition if we assumed that that definition of usable land, right now with a general look that 8i11 has given this, if you focus in on what is really usable, here is my proposal, here is an easement up here 50 feet from the road, that's unusable. 1 This part here is steep in elevation and there is woods there and the engineer would never allow me to build a house there. This is inaccessible because of the slope. This area right around here is drainage from the street and from the surrounding pro - perties. There is nothing I can do about that. I can't build a house over there I ('\I either. This is zoned designated wetland. I have got a five acre parcel and maybe 3/4 of an acre is usable. I think I should be assessed on this definition of usabi- J lity. "I am sure everybody here has got a specific case about that. I Mayor Hamilton: You realize that this is not an assessment hearing and this will all be discussed probably years down the road. This hearing is not an assessment hearing. The IL only thing we are doing here is looking at the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement and the Councils' action on that particular item and the improvement hearing itself but we are not doing any assessing of anyones property tonight. The only thing that would be com- mented is that at the present time, under the present circumstances it would be about 1 $460 per acre of assessible land. I believe Bill made a comment the other night that an assessment hearing may be held as soon as possible. If that is not the case the assessment hearing would not be held maybe for fifteen years,, who knows. It's not hap- ' pening now. Your property is not being assessed. Eric Rivkin: When is the time that those usable acreages get changed? Mayor Hamilton: Not unless there is an assessment hearing. That's when all the parcels are reviewed and your comments would be germane at that time. 1 Eric Rivkin: How about the definition of usable land. Mayor Hamilton: Probably about the same time. 1 Bill Monk: I am keeping track of all the comments being made and we will try and give short responses once everybody has a chance. I will go back over each one very briefly and go usability, assessment hearing, and those things just to make sure there is no II misunderstanding. IL Eric Rivkin: Are you going to keep the one home for ten acre part of the contract that the Metro Council has recommended? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. 1 1 Council Meeting March 3, 19' -6- Mayor Hamilton: We have fought this as long as we can. We had to hire outside attorney's that are familiar with the way the Metropolitan Council operates. We have had many hearings with them. We have worked and done as much as we possibly can to change their minds and to get the best possible agreement that we can of the Metropolitan Council and I think that we now have that. If we were not to approve the agreement that we currently have with the Metropolitan Council we would end up ' with something worse than what we currently have. It seemed in our best interest to go ahead with this project seeming as how they saw fit to see our side of the story and to say that the Lake Ann Interceptor is, at this time, the best way to go both II economically and for the long range development. Now any time you put in a pipe it's true that you do force some development. It's hard not to and this is a very unusual situation because they are putting an interceptor through a part of Chanhassen that is not going to be inside the MUSA Line before at least the year 2000 which means II that you are not going to be hooking up to it immediately by the agreement and yet we are in the middle of it. Chanhassen is really stuck in the middle of it. We are trying to relieve a problem that's happened in Lake Virginia and we are also trying II to look out for our best interests twenty, thirty, fifty years down the road so it's in our best interest to try to work out the best long range agreement that we can to solve any problems that we may have in the future. If the forcemain were to go in we would not be able to use it ever. There would be no connection to it. Consequently, I we would be left to be putting in the Lake Ann Interceptor at our own expense. We V kind of got put between a rock and a hard spot and no matter how we come out of it to some of you, I am sure, it's not going to look right or good but that's a little bit II (� of the history just so you know where we have been and that we haven't been just \c `� sitting here twittling our thumbs and trying to figure out some way to assess somebo- dy's property. Pennie Arneson: Is this a gravity line now? II Mayor Hamilton: Yes. It is a gravity line and if there is a break, the flow is much [II less and much slower from a gravity line than it is from a forcemain. There were some calculations done on the forcemain if there were to be a break as it went past Lotus Lake and and Christmas Lake and it was, I don't know how many hundreds of thousands of II gallons of sewage would be pumped into the lake in a very short time. In a period of time that it would take them to shut it off because you can't .just shut it off. If a break occurs it doesn't just stop it keeps pumping. In a gravity line the flow is slow. You can stop it. All you do is dig it up and you can repair the line very quickly and II it just continues on its way. There is no question that if there is a break there is probably going to be some seepage in the ground which can be cleaned up. During the construction of the line, I am sure that some of the wetlands and the wildlife areas I will be disturbed. However, once the line is in the ground all the terrain will be returned to its original state and all the wildlife will be encouraged to return and rehabitat that particular area. So, hopefully, there will be some short term II interruptions. We will do everything that we can to keep everything as it is today. Bill Monk: I did a parcel by parcel breakdown and I tried to figure as closely as I could with the small scale maps I had where the wetlands were and I subtracted them in II my calculations from the "usable" acreage. That's the first issue. The second one is the disruption of the area, there is no question that as any interceptor goes through .there will be disruption during construction and in places it could be somewhat exten- II but hopefully can be kept down to a relatively narrow strip. As the Mayor - alluded to, it's something that basically can't be avoided. One of the things that we were looking at and very conscious of through this whole thing was the disruption of ' the two areas. We tried to be extremely conscious of the long term environmental effect of a forcemain versus a interceptor. The disruption when you are digging in II II Council Meeting, Marc ', 1986 -7 II existing streets may not be quite as bad but we were probably more worried about the forcemain record. A forcemain is as reliable as an interceptor because we have got a lot of forcemain in the City with about 21 lift stations and a nagging headache trying to take care of the forcemains and lift stations. One thing I do know though is even if you had an equal number of breaks in either system the breaks in a forcemain, in my opinion, are much more detrimental to the surrounding area because the line is under pressure, just the amount of sewage that could be released in an equal time break in a forcemain versus an interceptor. That is something we were very conscious of and was one of the main reasons that I still believe the interceptor is the way to go I because even if you have a partial blockage in here sewage will continue to flow either along the pipe or in the pipe until it can be corrected. In a forcemain a par- tial blockage can cause a break and if it does cause a break it's bad news from all I standpoints. Another issue that was raised was the development being forced. I take issue with that comment as the Council is well aware normally when the City is put in a position of having to assess something it's.a rate of about one unit for 15,000 II square feet. In looking at this area, because of the cost of the interceptor being about 1/3 of the cost of a local trunk we are able to assess one unit for 1.3 acres which puts, I think, these homeowners potentially in a position where even if the MUSA Line were to change they wouldn't necessarily be forced to develop because they may be I able to absorb the costs associated with this line, whereas, if we were to put in a local trunk and use a more dense ratio there is no question that development would ry come on a much quicker basis. As far 5S the usabi go again, it's based on one uni f 1 ac Th r for th i s e w hat M r . Ri wa s d i that a lot of this land is unusable in slopes, woods, lowlands, and so on and for that very reason we did not attempt to use any type of a standard assessment rate but Ilf instead broke it down to one unit for 1.3 acres which I think is close to what may be achieved out here ultimately. Again, as we get into the assessment hearing each par- cel will have to be looked at, which hasn't been done to date, and see what they look like so that we can try and determine and get some parameters on the usability portion I of the assessment. As I noted on Thursday night and again tonight is that it is pro- posed that if the project goes through that the assessment hearing would be held rela- tively soon after the contract for the pipe is actually awarded to avoid having to I call these assessments pending with all the bad connotations that go along with a pending assessment and instead to assess it, since the number is known, at this point as quickly as possible so that the assessments can be set and deferred and people buying or selling property will know exactly what is going on as early as possible. II It is proposed that the assessment hearing would be held probably, if the pipe were to go in, sometime within the next two years because it probably will take that long to get to the construction stage. When the assessment rate was calculated that calcula- ' tion was done completely separate of the fixed rate that the City is being charged. I did not attempt to back in the assessment rate so that it would equal $482,000 instead I used a localized example and came up with an assessment rate and figured what that I rate would be and the rate does come up to $420,000 which is short of the $482,000 in the agreement. The reason I didn't try and equate the two numbers was that there is an overall City benefit that is being realized with the construction of the entire interceptor. There may well be added development pressures after the pipe is in t because the City and developers are in a different negotiating position, but the City has basically agreed to put in the pipe. We will have to defer assessments until the MUSA Line is changed and basically, all that was agreed to for the very reason that I the City is not looking actively at this point in time seeing this area develop as there are other areas in the City that still need to develop and the proposition that this pipe go in was not proposed at any point by the City as a way of altering the rural flavor of the area but instead was a way of perhaps letting that rural area I develop some time in the future under a less strenuous economic impact. Although the assessment method does not work perfectly for all individual parcels, I left all the parcels at that same rate to maintain consistency. There will be adjustments that II will have to be looked at, at the time of the assessment hearing in the near future. II Council Meeting, March 3, 1^ -8- Councilman Horn: I have just one comment about trying to understand the one unit II for 1.3 acres correctly. It would mean that a person, with a half acre lot is paying th'e same amount as one with a 1.3 acre lot, is that correct? Bill Monk: Anyone with two acres or less was assessed one unit which is $600. As soon as it exceeded two acres the $460 per acre was triggered and all lots over two I:: acres were done the same. Councilwoman Swenson: I am looking at the proposed method of financing. I am not sure that I understand, would all three of these be an ongoing thing? II Bill Monk: As noted the trunk surchaged and G.O. redesignation should generate $70,000 based on 1985 activities. However, should the SAC units drop down substan- II tially the Sewer Availability Fund would act as a back -up so that additional G.O. obligation would not be required. The financing at this point is the first two items, the third one serves as a back -up should there be any change in the existing status of either. II Councilwoman Swenson: Redesignate an existing G.O. and it would increase that by $33,000, is that what you are saying? II Bill Monk: No. Don Ashworth: Basically it's an extension. When the City had the Waste Control II Commission take over the old treatment plant in the Chanhassen Estates area there was . a cost associated with Metro Councils taking over that facility. Each year for the past 15 years there has been a general obligation levy to literally repay that amount. II That debt terminates in 1988. We would simply redesignate that amount of money back to paying off of this facility. The dollar amount is higher than it was in 1970. ill What we have done is to take an equal position, the dollars as they would apply to a household in 1970 versus those dollars today and we have tried to put us literally to the same position that we were at that point in time. In other words, the dollars and services being provided when the Waste Control Commission took over the facilities and charged the City at that point in time for a system that would fully handle our com- ' munity versus the system that we are talking about today which once again would put us into a position of being able to totally serve our community. Councilwoman Swenson: This, at some future date, will serve the south side of Highway II 5 as well as the north side? Don Ashworth: Only to the extent of the MUSA Line. II Councilwoman Swenson: Is there going to have to be another drainage system similar to this to service the area farther south? II Bill Monk: The area farther south cannot drain into this interceptor. Councilwoman Swenson: As I see this we are not anticipating any changes here until II the year 2000, the assessments from the Metropolitan Council pay back is 21 years, if we are not allowed to do any growth in that area for 15 years it appears that the II entire City will have it paid off before anybody can hook in. . Eric Rivkin: Given that this is going to spur future development, is there any 0 chance that this zoning, people that don't want laterals extended to their areas, are they subject to rezoning because some guy in a majority of this area that's going to get service to the periphery of the line and you run all of those laterals back and 1 Council Meeting, MarcF 3, 1986 -9 forth around this line and at the fringes of this does the City ususally expand the zoning to include everything inside that red line from R -1A to R -2A, going from a 2} acre minimum to a quarter acre minimum. Mayor Hamilton: Not necessarily all at one time. It would probably be a staged thing even in the year 2000 I would think it's fairly unlikely that that whole parcel would ' come within the MUSA Line. The line would change, the Metropolitan Council at that time would suggest a realignment of the MUSA Line, where that might fall is anyones guess. It could include the whole parcel, it might not because there are other parts ' of the City that would fall within the MUSA Line also and would be extended. Eric Rivkin: Does the fact that may be anything that's included in the MUSA line automatically mean that R -la is in jeopardy just by its nature? ' Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I would think so. I would say it is fairly likely. It is agriculture. Once you come Within the MUSA line then you are talking about ' developing that particular property into residential. Eric Rivkin: Even though we think it is rural, it is still designated now by our ' property tax statements as urban. We are already urban even though we are R -la, so () , we have had urban rights. \(\ Mayor Hamilton: I am sorry to say, the City is going through an extensive process of doing rezoning of the whole thing and that is the process that continues all the / time. We are continually looking at it and trying to change and adjust and make two -year zoning so that the City grows in a real orderly fashion. By the time the ' year 2000 rolls around we will probably be going through the same process again and looking at rezoning of all kinds of areas. Councilwoman Swenson: We might clarify something too, when we talk about that one in ' ten acres. This does not constitute the minimum lot size. ry 2. B. Approval of Agreement: Mayor Hamilton: I would like to ask Roger to tell us what our legal position is in relation to this agreement with the Metropolitan Council if we do or if we do not approve it. Roger Knutson: One of the things that we have discussed with the Council over a long period of time now is what is going to happen if the Council does not approve this agreement. Will you be able to stay at the current zoning ordinance requirements or ' are we going to be forced to go one for ten anyway. I would advise the Council that it might not be today, it might not be tomorrow, but within the next year or so the Metropolitan Council is going to force us to go to one to ten. Around 1976, the l Legislature passed an amendatory land plan act. Under that act the Metropolitan Council was directed to and has written a development framework plan that sets out certain requirements for all communities in the metropolitan area as far as land use development. Through the years that development framework plan was amended and is going through another process right now. By using that tool and by using the tool of sewer allocation and other tools available from the Metropolitan Council. Whether the City signs this agreement today or doesn't, you will end up with that same effect as far as the one for ten. One way or another the Metropolitan Council has got us. All this provision does is advance that day of summons. Probably not by much. I think Barb was going to talk to us about what one for ten means and how that fits in with 2} acre lot sizes. Barb Dacy: As Mr. Knutson relayed to, the Metro Land y La Planning Act also required com- munities of the Metro area to adopt a comprehensive plan. The City of Chanhassen did that in 1982, which consisted of this plan text and a land use plan that denotes spe- Council Meeting, March 3, ' S -10- 1 cific land uses and what was then approved at that time as a 1990 Metropolitan Urban Service Area. To implement the comprehensive plan, obviously, we have the zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance. Our existing zoning ordinance was adopted in 1972 and part of the Planning Commission's action for the proposed ordinance is to update the zoning ordinance to help in part implement the comprehensive plan. I would like to start with density. If I could ask all of you to eliminate lot size III from your mind for awhile and just think of land area, the Metropolitan Council's policy for rural areas is one unit per ten acres with a minimum lot size greater than 2i acres. 1) How does the Metropolitan Council define a rural area? There are two II definitions. They ca_1 it a commercial /agricultural area and the general rural use area. The commercial /agricultural area is strictly for those areas that are for ag preserve, a one unit per 40 acre density. The general rural use _area, they define that in four ways. They say that that type of rural land is used for general farm II land, rural residential areas, ex -urban development, which is an additional residen- tial development and urban associated uses like campgrounds, R -V parks, etc. What the Lake Ann Agreement is requiring the City to do is to amend our comprehensive plan II to provide for a general development guide in our rural area of one unit per ten acres. This comprehensive plan defines and guides what happens in our urban area, the area that is served by water and sewer. It also guides what should develop and II how the rural area should develop. When the plan was adopted in 1982, as you all recall, ordinance 45 was still in effect. So the comp plan was very general in saying the City will discourage significant residential development. Then in 1983, ,� /the zoning ordinance was ame due to a various number of factors including some II 1\ legal action to allow 2i acre lots. The Metropolitan Council states that they feel that this is inconsistent with their policies. The Metropolitan Council states that 6) this type of subdivision; r x i u ad cres o +� l the M Cou eample c t s yo a n h urban 50 d . Th d divided nit ot into con sid e r 2 acre i t a rural density. Their rural density is one unit per ten acres. The second issue II comes up okay if the comp plan is amended to guide the rural development on a one per LI ten basis. How do you enforce that? That is where the zoning ordinance comes in. The zoning ordinance is an implementing tool of the comp plan to enforce the guide. How do you enforce the one per ten? The Planning Commission proposal is for ten acres. That is their preferred option as it stands now to enforce that one per ten density. II Some options that will be considered, I am sure, at the next public hearing and at the City Council would be exemplified in this manner. For example, under the ten acre option, if you had 40 acres of land, obviously 40 divided by 10 equals four II units. That 40 acre piece is eligible for four building units with a 10 acre minimum lot size, we divided it into four. If a five acre minimum lot size would be con- sidered, the same acreage parcel, 20 acres would have to remain as agricultural and the remaining 20 could be developed into four 5 -acre lots. Under a 2i..acre minimum II lot size option, 30 acres would remain and 10 would be developed. You see the denisty is always being maintained one per ten. The issue is how do you enforce it. The agreement also sets out that the City must implement these official controls by II May 1, 1987. There is one more issue that I would like to review briefly and that is the issue regarding the 1990 versus the 2000 year MUSA line change. Through this process of negotiating the Lake Ann Agreement, City staff counted the number of acres II of vacant developable acreage in the urban service area. Metropolitan Council does a calculation as well as the City does and we wanted to make sure that their figure was right. What we came up with that there is an existing supply, 2,440 acres of vacant developable land in the MUSA area. The Metropolitan Council's policy is that that II must be developed first before the MUSA line is extended to include more area. Communities in the metropolitan area who have the MUSA line bisecting their areas are all moving toward changing their 1990 MUSA line to the year 2000. We have to wait 0 until everything is filled before that can be changed. . Isn't that area right now the 1992? I . 1 Council Meeting, Marc 1, 1986 -11- Barb Dacy: Originally when the comp plan was passed it was anticipated that this would be developed on a post 1990 time frame. However, now with this change, this area that the interceptor is traversing through will not be able to be hooked up into until after the year 2000. _ You are not changing the area, you are just changing the year. Mayor Hamilton: That's right. ' Barb Dacy: I would like to state also that there was an initial time that they were considering maybe pulling the line back, but we were able remain with the existing amount of land. ' Councilwoman Swenson: Roger, on page 4 of the agreement on 4.2) I appreciate "(which authorization shall not be unreasonably withheld)." I think that is very amuzing. Under 4.3) "Indemnification - The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Commission, its employees, or agents from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including attorney's fees attributable to any claims regarding utilization of the trunk sewer capacity in the facility." Does this mean, for instance, that !V\'‘)( these people who are adjacent to but are outside that remain rural decide that they have a right to use that and should there be any suit against the City for using that. Does this mean that we have to handle it all by ourselves? I mean we'd have to battle this even though it is a manditory inclusion in the. agreement. Roger Knutson: That is correct. Obviously, it is a process of hard negotiation. This is not a particularly great paragraph. ' Councilwoman Swenson: It almost indicates that they are anticipating problems like I am. Roger Knutson: Any time you enter into a contract you anticipate problems. That goes without saying. Councilman Gevinq: I would like to have Barb explain again the 2,440 acres of vacant developable land and how you are going to maintain that land base. ' Barb Dacy: That's the supply of land that can be developed and how we determined that was through a series of open space and plenimetering various maps. For example, we would exclude wetlands, steep slope areas, areas that we knew were unbuildable and ' calculated the amount of acreage that could be developed and served by sewer Councilman Gevinq: Using the ten acre minimum, is that right? You are just using a runoff figure of 2,440. ' Barb Dacy: In the urban service area only. ' Councilman Gevinq: Let me ask you, Barbara, how existing and short term planned developments will be affected by this agreement. Plans, for example, that are in the process or if I were a developer would want to know how fast I would have to move to ' be able to be covered by the existing City ordinances and rules and not be caught up in this ten acre minimum before the date that we had talked about of May of 1987. But, it is quite likely that we would amend our zoning ordinance prior to that time. Could you comment on that please. Barb Dacy: Another public hearing is scheduled for the zoning ordinance for March 19th and then if acted upon at that time it could reach the Council sometime in 1 Council Meeting, March 3, 1'96 -12- II April. It would be up to the Council consideration the amount of public input and so on. It would be hard to say when it would be adopted at this point, but something would be before May of 1987. Councilman Gevidq: I think that is a key point, though, because if you were a deve- loper sitting out there you would want to know these dates and the up coming activi- ' ties. Why did they include the term greater than 2.5 acres in 6.1 (A) 3. I think that is a new term. I never saw greater than before. We always talk in terms of 2.5 acres and not greater than. That has some bearing upon how you would develop a par- II cel within the ten - acres. Could you explain that key word? Barb Dacy: I believe what their requirement is based on is Mr. Knutson referred to the development framework, they specify, for example, in the proposed draft, they say II that rural residential density is of no more than 1 unit per 10 acres and a five acre minimum lot size. This is the proposal that is going to the Metropolitan Council. II Councilman Geving: That is why I say this term has changed since the last time I saw it. It's greater than. Now I don't believe I saw that word in there before. Mayor Hamilton: It was in there. II Councilman Geving: It does have a different connotation when you use greater than, if you could say equal to or greater than, because, obviously, then it would be II somewhat affected. Do you agree with that, Roger? r _ Roger Knutson: All you would have to do is come in with 2.501 and you got it. VS Councilman Gevin g: But if you are trying to develop a neat little parcel that just II happens to be 2.5 or some kind of derivative of that. Roger Knutson: Why they drew the line exactly there, I think is arbitrary as most IJI lines are, but that is the line they drew. Councilman Geving: What are the penalties for nonpayment of these annual fees of II $52.801.40? I don't see a provision in here. Roger Knutson: There are a lot of provisions. They didn't forget that subjet. One II provision says they can limit our use of it, another is they can come and get levy judgement against us so they pull them out. Councilman Geving: The interest rate that we talked about of 9 percent. On a II - long term construction project, that is fairly high. Don Ashworth: I think that almost went under at one point in time. They are not II proposing to sell bonds to carry out this construction, with the dry up of federal dollars. They are looking to their own sac fund, which is literally our own money that is going into this. But Dick Berg, their financial controller has put to note I that average return on that fund is approximately 14 percent. They felt that since the dollars that would be used to pay for that portion of the project that would benefit Chanhassen would be paid through those monies and they would, again, pull in 11 those investments that the City should pay that amount. Our position was you should be able to sell bonds in today's market 7 - 8 percent and that reasonably the City would in no way agree with the 14 percent or that type of interest rate. The actual ' resolution of this came about through Metropolitan Council itself, the members con- sidering comments from Chanhassen basically said, lets make it 9 percent. Councilman Gevinq: I was just curious as to how that was arrived at. 1 II II Council Meeting, Marc 3, 1986 -13- Mayor Hamilton: This whole project has been a very frustrating process and a long list of frustrating experiences with the Metropolitan Council. It is one that we I have spent three years on and a great deal of money. I certainly don't like the agreement and I don't think anybody on the Council does, however, we have pushed it to the maximum and we don't think we can get anymore and if we work to continue to I agrue a point we would end up with something less than what we have now. I believe we have explored all alternatives to this particular agreement. We have even said at one point that we should not agree to it and we were assured that if we -did that the Metropolitan Council and the MWCC would go ahead with the forcemain, which is not the I best alternative. As I have said it has been been very frustrating and the Metropolitan Council tends to dictate to you exactly what they want to do and we have tried to take what they have dictated and make the best of it. What we have, I feel, I is the best of what we are going to get. As Barb said, this agreement will probably not go into effect until May of 1987 or until such time that we have completed all our zoning changes and approve that, but May of 1987 is the latest that it can be II approved, is that correct? - Barb Dacy: Right. I Councilwoman Swenson: For clarification, is it not true that once this agreement has been signed, this doesn't have to wait for the comprehensive plan. Once this Council /): agrees to this "the Section Under Hamilton ner econ 6.1 the City agrees that it shall do and perform I � p o the following on or before August 1, 1986. So the earliest would be August 1, 1986. I Roger Knutson: As far as the agreement itself, it is effective when you sign it. But as far as what you have to do for these things, that is August 1, 1986. I Councilwoman Swenson: We will have agreed that we are in accord with the one and ten. When will that be official? Is that not as soon as this is signed by both parties? I Roger Knutson: You have item six also coming up. You have committed yourself to doing it. I Councilwoman Swenson: I wanted to dispel any misconception that can come before the completion of the comprehensive plan, and once it is done then the commitment for the one and ten is made. The only thing that still will be flexible is the actual mini- ' mum lot size, which has to be greater than the 2.5. I wanted to say this because if we sign this and somebody out there thinks gee, we don't have to worry this until the comprehensive plan is done, which maybe next May, then they will come II in and say you can't do that because we have got this agreement and we are not going to do that. That could be rather stunning to wait until that time to come in. I just want to have a clarification that we don't have any misunderstanding out there. I Barb Dacy: And that's the zoning ordinance. Councilwoman Swenson: That's right. This is what worries me that we have got the II two combined. Mayor Hamilton: With this all we are doing is agreeing that we are going to do it... I : Just sitting here and listening to what you are talking about, it sure seems to me like you are going to ratify something that somebody else is making a decision on about the future development of Chanhassen and I don't like it at all. II Councilwoman Swenson: And we don't either. Council Meeting, March 3, '-96 -14- I do not like the idea that I am in a City that is being dictated to II by big brother. I hate to see you pass something like this because I don't think any of you really feel good about this. I certainly don't. Councilman Gevinq: Let me tell you something. We sat he.re for about a year arguing about this very same thing. This has been placed upon us. None of us like it. We whittled over this many times. In fact, we tabled it and we agreed not to even sign . it or even further consider it That is what you should tell them. II Councilman Gevinq: We did. We threw is back at them. Our attorney has been meeting with them for over six months. We don't like this agreement any better than anybody I else in Chanhassen. I don't think we have any choice. I would be the first to tell you, I hate this agreement. Why don't you tell them to forget it. You could tie them up for II years in court. They can't cut the sewer off. Mayor Hamilton: Yes they can, whether you think they can or not, they can. II But someone is going to come in, Tom, and you are going to get your 4 pants sued off all over again like you did two years ago on the 2} acre. You will be II fighting law suits and you are not going to have the MUSA to back you up. We are g oin g to have to pay for it. Some developer is going to come in and sue you and you . \ are going to be continually going to court over this. k II im Mayor Hamilton: I don't think that will happen. To answer your question, we may not like the agreement and we have agonized over it a long time, we have had very good council representing us, they have given us very good advise, told us this is the ' best agreement that we are going to get, to tell them to just stick it is not an alternative at this point. As elected officials, I think we would be doing less than what we have been asked to do if we were to do that type of a thing. What we would II end up with would be what we have here. I think we need to be concerned about the long range development in the community and I think this is something that we need to have. A community really needs to have it. Just because we sign the agreement, really effectively what that does, in my opinion, is tells the MWCC to construct the II gravity line. Once it is in the ground you have some other alternatives and those will be explored at that time. Why can't a City decide itself what areas are going to open up, what I areas are going to develop. Why do you have to have an outside agency making all your decisions for you. II Mayor Hamilton: This goes a long way back to when the legislature formed the Metropolitan Council to be a planning function of the legislature. They gave them some pretty broad sweaping powers. This affects the seven county metropolitan area, II but it also affects the rest of th'e state also. Everybody has to conform and all cities and states have a comp plan. They have to submit something to the state to .tell them how they are going to develop. But they are the toughest in the seven II county area. I have often times said that they might just as well run the town, the planning department. Someone brought up that you are going to be assessed on some of parcels if you have over two acres, yet you can't divide off until you have got ten 0 acres. That doesn't make any sense either. Bill is coming up with assessments based on 1.3 and that would hit me for an X number and other people the same way, yet I II II Council Meeting, Marr 3, 1986 -15- couldn't divide off if I wanted to because I have to have 10 acres. I have acres, I could never subdivide and yet I am getting hit for a whole bunch of a got 9. I whatever. Y Roger Knutson: That will change though at some point. Once you are able to use that trunk, whenever that ,point comes, you no longer have to have 2.5 acres at that point That is not true though because I may n ever Y get to use that trunk because if you don't run any laterals down my street, I am still stuck, but yet I am ' still paying on the maximum with what Bill has come up with as far as Mayor Hamilton: You are paying for the trunk, not the lateral. : I understand that, but I am saying you shouldn't have to pay for all of the assessments if.you don.'t have more than one house. ' Mayor Hamilton: I think all of us have been arguing with the Metropolian Council for at least eight years. It is a frustrating experience at best and we will continue fighting the battles. Once in a while we win one and unfortunately we lose some. • ' r � Has it been proven that the Council probably knows that the ll Metropolitan Council in the past has shoved forcemains down. Why did we give them a choice? Why can't they just take the Lake Ann Interceptor and accept it. Don't give them the opportunity. Mayor Hamilton: It wasn't our choice in the first place. They came to us and said ' they were going to put a forcemain in and we said no you are not. That's not what we want. We didn't ask them to do it. They just came here and said we are going to put a forcemain through your town and you are going to pay for it and you can never use I it. We said that is not acceptable to us, so we have been fighting it. So now they have gone back to the position of what we have been planning for the last 20 years. It has taken us three years to fight that war so we can get what we planned 20 years to do. ' I take it other Councils are being forced into to the same situation. ' Mayor Hamilton: Absolutely. : How many law suits are pending regarding this. ' Roger Knutson: We don't know of any. We are in a situation that we can't build an interceptor. It costs approximately $12,000,000. The City can't build an intercep- tor. They don't have any statuatory authority to do it. If the MWCC and the ' Metropolitan Council says your not going to get it, your not going to get it. Then you go to St. Paul and battle there. So far, the Metropolitan Council and its agen- cies have been more successful in lobbying those things than anyone else. ' Mayor Hamilton: The difficult thing with going to St. Paul and trying to fight that battle is that most of your legislators don't know a thing about what the Metropolitan Council does and they really don't want to know. You get the legisla- ' tors over there and the thing was formed long before they ever got there and they don't really ever have anything to do with them. They don't deal with them on a day to day basis or even a legislative basis. They really don't have much contact with ' them. : Did I hear you right with Dale's comments that possibly you are going to assist in the developments shown before the Council here before May 1, 1987? Council Meeting, March 3, 186 -16- II Mayor Hamilton: Sure. Absolutely. Councilman Gevinq: That is why I spoke up in that respect so that you have some advance warning that you can get something going here. Mayor Hamilton: I have met with some property owners and told them if you want to 111: develop even a portion of your property, be sure to get it platted prior to that par- ticular time. - • : I don't think I got a real date out of the Council as far as the II earliest that this will be passed, if it is passed. II Mayor Hamilton: The agreement itself says August 1, 1986. I am not sure if we have II to have our land use amendment completed prior to and how do those tie together? Barb Dacy: The August 1st was in reference to the comp plan amendments and item 6. II is on the agenda for tonight. Councilwoman Swenson: Again, clarification, the comp plan actually is only something II J that is being done in accordance with this agreement. r Barb Dacy: That is item #6. Councilwoman ve Swensnon: ft n t do e z we have rtdo n comply with e ne t, af II ompreensi pla, aehoning oiance or after th we o make and th is agreement the with the II Roger Knutson: The one and ten would be placed in the ground after you pass your zoning ordinance by May 1, 1987. It has to be done by then. You will be committing to do it when you sign this. II Mayor Hamilton: A motion is in order to approve or deny these items. We can take item six right along with this. I think we have discussed everything dealing with 6. II Item 6 that we are talking about is the comprehensive land use map and plan amendment to redesignate the 1990 MUSA boundary to the year 2000 boundary and to amend the comprehensive plan to provide for rural development densitites of one unit per ten II acres, which is exactly what we have been talking about because of this agreement with the Metropolitan Council. I don't know of anything else that needs to be discussed. I think we have covered all the ground that needs to be covered. Councilman Gevinq: This item was on the consent agenda of the Metropolitan Council II on February 27th approving of the comprehensive plan amendment for Chanhassen designation of the 2000 MUSA line. Is that correct? - II Barb Dacy: Yes. Councilman Geving: Why was this submitted to the Metropolitan Council for con- II sideration prior to tonight's meeting when we had an opportunity to vote on this. Roger Knutson: Under the states statutes on the amendatory land planning acts, the I way that it has to be done is it has to go to your Planning Commission. Your Planning Commission can make a recommendation, not final. Before you can act on it, its got to be approved by the Metropolitan Council. If the Metropolitan Council says I okay, then you can still say no. You don't have to vote yes tonight. Under the sta- tute, for whatever reason, that is the way it is set up. 1 Council Meeting, Marc 3, 1986 -17- Councilwoman Swenson: I have a question on one sentence here. "The City will con- tinue to participate in the development framework amendment process to insure that Chanhassen's growth protections are reasonable and insure that the City has the abi- lity to provide utility service to land areas within the MUSA ". What do you mean by that? Barb Dacy: The Metropolitan Council projects the year 1990 and the year 2000 popula- tion, households, and employment projections. As you know we have had, since the adoption of the original plan, continuing this agreement as to how fast Chanhassen ' will grow with in the existing MUSA area. They are predicting that our popultation will be significantly lower than what our own staff predictions are going to be, simultaneously, along with the population projections and land demand figures that . 1 the Metropolitan Council determines. Another requirement of the Lake Ann Agreement is that we have to update our sewer plan as well to determine our capacity, etc. During the six to eight months period when the Metropolitan Council is going to`hear the amendment process, we have to continue to participate and make sure that we are I insuring adequate sewer capacity and we are still trying to convince them to take another look at their population and employment projections for Chanhassen, which we \ believe are too low. Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the following: ' 1. The Lake Ann Interceptor Public Improvement Project as outlined by the City Engineer; 2. The Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement as recommended by the City ' Engineer; and 3. RESOLUTION #86 -12: The Comprehensive Land Use Map and Plan Amend- I ment to Redesignate the 1990 MUSA Boundary to the Year 2000 Boundary and to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to provide for Rural Development Densities of One Unit Per Ten Acres. ' Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Horn: I would like to point out one thing. If anybody doesn't know who their Metropolitan Council representative is or who their Senator or Representative is, I am sure staff would be happy to provide you with their number and I would encourage you to let them know how you feel about this issue. SUNNYBROOK DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: ' A. Preliminary Plat Approval; B. Request to Amend Section 17.02 of Zoning Ordinance 47 to Allow Conference Centers as a Permitted Use in the P-4 District; C. Wetland Alternation Permit; D. Site Plan Review. Mayor Hamilton: We tabled this issue a while back so that we could resolve some of the issues that were brought up at that particular time. So we have before us a pro- posal to change the P -4 zoning district to allow conference centers in that. IL Barb Dacy: The Council tabled action on the January 13th meeting so a homeowners association meeting could be conducted. That meeting was conducted on January 24, 1986. Subsequent to that meeting the applicant filed a zoning ordinance amendment request and that was considered by the Planning Commission. Since the Council tabling action on the 13th, another alignment has been developed also beyond the one 1 II NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT HEARING CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 1 NOTICE I` HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen City Council will I meet at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, August 12th, 1991, at the City Hall Council Chambers to pass upon the proposed assessment for the I Lake Ann Interceptor Improvement - City Project No. 87 -35 Abutting properties and those properties deriving benefit from this project are proposed to be-assessed. Specifically, properties to be assessed include: 1 Those properties between Lake Lucy Road on the North, T.H. No. 5 on the South, Hazeltine Boulevard (County I Road No. 41) on the West, and Powers Boulevard (County Road No. 17)on the East. Affected P.I.D. numhers are as follows: I 25- 0023100 25- 4070100 25- 5350020 25- 2050030 25- 0101600 25- 0023000 25- 4070110 25- 5350030 25- 2050040 25- 0100500 ' 25- 0022900 25- 4070120 25- 5350040 25- 2060010' 25- 0100800 25- 0022600 25- 4070130 25- 5350050 25- 2060020 25- 0100900 25- 0024000 25- 4070140 25- 5350060 25- 0092500 25- 0101000 I 25- 6850050 25- 4070150 25- 5350070 25- 0091800 25- 0101100 25- 0021600 25- 4070160 25- 5350080 25- 0092100 25- 0101200 25- 0025800 25- 4070170' 25- 0032700 25- 0092200 25- 0101210 25- 0025820 25- 4070180 25- 0032800 25- 0091500 25- 0101220 I 25- 0025810 25- 4070190 25- 0035100 25- 8860010 25- 0100600 25- 0025700 25- 4070200 25- 6930010 25- 8860020 25- 0100700 25- 0025600 25- 0032000 25- 6930020 25- 8860030 25- 0110200 , 25- 0025500 25- 7500010 25- 6930030 25- 8860040 25- 0110300 25- 0030100 25- 7500020 25- 6930040 25- 0090700 25- 0034830 25- 0033600 " 25- 7500030 25- 6900030 25- 6910010 1 25- 0033700 25- 7500040 25- 0034820 25- 6910020 25- 0033800 25- 7500050 25- 0040300 25- 6900010 25- 0033200 25- 6840010 25- 0034. .810 25- 6900020 25- 0033300 - 25- 0034200 25- 0034800 25- 0100200 I 25- 4070010 25- 0034400 25- 5590010 25- 0100400 25 25- 0034500 25- 5590020 25- 0100100 25- 4070030 25- 0034000 25- 0041210 25- 0101540 25- 4070040 25- 7960010 25- 0040500 25- 0101500 I 25- 4070050 25- 7960020 25- 0091200 25- 0101530 25- 4070060 25- 0034700 25- 0091300 25- 0101520 25- 4070070 25- 0034300 25- 0091100 25- 0101510 I 25- 4070080 25- 0034100 25- 2050010 25- 0101700 25- 4070090 25- 5350010 25- 2050020 25- 0101300 • 1 The proposed assessment is on file for inspection in the office of the City Engineer. The total project cost to be I assessed is $555,264.00. Written and oral objections will be considered at the meeting, but the Council may consider any 1 objections t t to the amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to the affected property owners as it deems- advisable. An owner may appeal an assessment to the District Court ' pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor City Clerk of the City of Chanhassen within thirty (30) days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the District Court within ten (10) days after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of any assessment adopted unless a WRITTEN • NOTICE signed by the affected property owner is filed with the City Clerk prior to the assessment hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing. Residents who are 65 years of_age or older, or retired by reason of permanent and total disability may apply to have payment of the assessment deferred. The application shall be made to the City Clerk within thirty (30) days after the adoption of the assessment roll by the City Council. Don Ashworth 1 City Clerk /Managet 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE A2.� 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) E4.6,6 -� 1 ss 1 COUNTY OF CARVER ) t ` a • , 1 I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on July 25 , 19 91 the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chan- 1 hassen, Minnesota that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Special Assessment for Lake Ann 1 Interceptor Sewer Project No. 87 -35 -1 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A ", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the 1 United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such 1 by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. 7k (1:,,,.. 1 Karen J. Engelhardt, Deputy Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25th day of July , 19 91 1 Notary Public 1 1 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ' SPECIAL ASSESSMENT NOTICE IMPROVEMENT NO: 87 -35 The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider proposed assessments for Improvement Project No. 87 -35 , on Monday , August 12th , 19 91 , at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 690 Coulter Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota. The area to be assessed includes those properties between Lake Lucy Road on the North, T.H. No. 5 the South, Hazeltine Boulevard (County Road No. 41) on the West, and Powers Boulevard (County Road No. 17)on the East. Your total amount of the proposed assessment is 5555,264.00. Your assessment has been calculated in accordance with the City Council's policy as follows: Property Owner: Sam and Nancy Mancino Address: 6620 Galpin Boulevard Excelsior, MN. 55331 111 Parcel No: 25- 5590020 Proposed Assessment Against Your Property as Described Below: Specific Improvements Amount Lake Ann Interceptor Project - $12,712.07 a Assessment may be paid in full without interest or other charges within thirty (30) days after the assessment hearing date. These payments may be made in person or may be mailed to Chanhassen ' City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317, Attention: Treasurer. Please indicate the parcel number on your check. Partial prepayment of the assessment is not ' permitted. If you elect not to pay the full amount within thirty (30) days after the hearing date, the assessment will be spread over 10 1 years with the installments appearing on your real estate taxes beginning next year. Interest will be included at the rate of 9 percent of the unpaid balance. The proposed assessment roll is on file with the City Clerk. Written and oral objections to the proposed assessment by any ' property owner will be considered. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of any assessment adopted unless a written objection signed by the affected property owner is filed with the City Clerk prior to the assessment hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing. 1 EXHIBIT A 1 1 1 MICHAEL G E KATHLEEN A SCHULTZ 1 2150 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 1 MICHAEL G E KATHLEEN A SCHULTZ 2150 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 1 JOHN E FRANCES DASSETT C/O VAL WIRTZ 19380 HWY 7 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 JO H N E FRANCES DASSETT C/O VAL WIRTZ 19380 HWY 7 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 JOHN E FRANCES DASSETT 1 C/O VAL WIRTZ 19380 HWY 7 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 JOHN & FRANCES DASSETT CIO VAL WIRTZ 19380 HWY 7 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 1 1 1 1 1 1 CHARLES C S C IRENE L Y SONG BERNARD C JR 6 S BENZ 7200 GALPIN RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 2061 • 65TH ST W - ' EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MARTIN C 6 BETH KUDER ' > DON E K KELLY 6831 GALPIN LAKE BLVD . =. EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 2081 65TH ST 1 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MARTIN C E BETH KUDER JAMES E E LINDA K RING II 6831 GALPIN LAKE BLVD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 6640 GALPIN BOULEVARD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EARL C GILBERT III I SAM J E NANCY K MANCINO 6901 GALPIN LAKE BLVD 1 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 6620 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MARY H MUEHLHAUSEN 1 1916 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 WAYNE E & JOYCE POPPE 1 DALE M HIEBERT 1950 CRESTVIEW DRIVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 6510 YOSEMITE AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MARY A ZEHRER PRINCE R NELSON I 1930 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 2121 AVENUE OF THE STARS C/0 BJR C S #1700 J) LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 II MERRILL C R STELLER ETAL i - s, I PRINCE R NELSON 1931 CRESTVIEW DR 2 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 2121 AVENUE OF THE STARS f% I C/0 BJR 6 S #1700 )i LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 II KRISTEN A STRUYK . vat — PRINCE R NELSON 1941 CRESTVIEW CIR II EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 2121 AVENUE OF THE STARS C/0 BJR E S #1700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 MARY H MUEHLHAUSEN CHARLES E IRENE SONG 1961 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 7200 GALPIN LAKE RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 • 1 MARK D E KATHRYN A SANDA ALAN K E KATHLEEN A PETERSON II , 1685 STELLER COURT 700 WEST VILLAGE RD II EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 APT 106 ) - CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ERIC M E NORMA B RIVKIN MERLE C DIANE STEINKRAUS C/0 PILLSBURY COMPANY ') 1695 STELLER COURT 1800 LAKE LUCY ROAD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 11) 1 S ALLEN L C BARBARA J FINSTAD -. 1 4 .. ' JERRY REUEL GILL E C ' CYNTHIA MILLER GILL 11 1701 STELLER CT 1760 LAKE LUCY RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Cr r JUDITH A DIRKS PATRICK V JOHNSON E - MARY C CORDELL 1205 W ASH 1730 LAKE LUCY LN 1r OLIVIA, MN 56277 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 GERALD F JABLINSKI PAUL S MCALLISTER I( 3 2020 65TH ST W 7510 ERIE AVENUE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT M E L PETERSON MARK E E CHANDA L RIDDERSEN I I 2040 w 65TH ST 1811 LAKE LUCY LANE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 16 F ti HENRY L E CAROL E WONG SCOTT W E KATHY A GAVIN 2080 WEST 65TH STREET - 1851 LAKE LUCY LN I EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 RICHARD E B ATHERTON ! MARK E TRACY WILLIAMS IF 2082 65TH ST W 1655 LAKE LUCY RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 I EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 R j WALTER J & D FENTON i BRUCE R E E REBECCA PLOWMAN - i 6500 GALPIN BLVD 1665 STELLER CT EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 WILLIAM C C J ASHENBACH CLARENCE L E PHYLLIS L HAILE 1 2041 65TH ST W 1675 STELLER CT EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 1 II ' TANNA L MOORE DOUGLAS C C THERESA J BENTZ 2800 STONE ARCH RD 7280 GALPIN BLVD I WAYZATA, MN 55391 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 ) DAVID C BELL INVESTMENT CO DARLEEN TURCOTTE I L ar ) 3915 HWY 7 5314 CITY WEST PKY MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 05314 1 It I) EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 ) CHARLES E C VIRGINIA GROSS -THEODORE F C MARLENE M BENTZ 0 1 ) 1 2703 CHES MAR FARM RD 7300 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 1 TANNA L MOORE DAVID A STOCKDALE C _ ANGA MCBRIDE STOCKDALE 1 I 2800 STONE ARCH RD .. 7210 GALPIN BLVD WAYZATA, MN 55391 f EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 I BRECK 0 C MARLIESE JOHNSON JOHN HENNESSY E 0 RENGERS 6621 GALPIN BLVD 7305 GALPIN LAKE RD 1 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 I STEVEN W C rENDY LAM BURESH THEODORE F C MARLENE M BENTZ 6651 GALPIN BOULEVARD 7300 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHRISTOPHER C SANDRA RAMSEY CITY OF CHANHASSEN I ( C/O CITY TREASURER 3 6681 GALPIN BOULEVARD 690 COULTER DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 1 PO BOX 147 I C 0 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 3 MARTIN G C KAREN M GUSTAFSON a RAYMOND R NOTERMANN I .s 6691 GALPIN BLVD 1450 ARBORETUM BLVD > • EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 ' CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1 JOHN F C MARIELLEN WALORON C a HERBERT F EWAl0 it AV 1 1900 LAKE LUCY ROAD 2700 CHES MAR FARM RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 I JOHN W C MELANIE L GORCZYCA GERALDINE EIKAAS E^ 1850 LAKE LUCY RD 2763 CHES FARM RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 t II - MICHAEL J GORRA PAUL R C ROXANNE J YOUNGQUIST II 1680 ARBORETUM DR 7105 HAZELTINE BLVD II CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MICHAEL J GORRA _ ./) DONALD L BETTY LOU ROY II 1680 ARBORETUM DR 7205 HAZELTINE BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 0% 1 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 i MICHAEL J GORRA DAVID R WEATHERS E ! 7 KAREN EDELMANN ' 1680 ARBORETUM DR 7235 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 _ - EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 1 LEANDER P L PATRICIA L KERBER DAVID R WEATHERS C KAREN EDELMANN I 1620 ARBORETUM BLVD 7235 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 DAVID E JULIANN LUSE WALTER A 6 M WHITEHILL II 1660 ARBORETUM BLVD 7250 HAZELTINE BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MICHAEL C C KLINGELHUTZ ROBERT C E PENELOPE ARNESON II 8601 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 6921 GALPIN BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EXCEL - SIOR, MN 55331 1 CONWAY T LARS MARVIN E S JUDITH A JANICKE II 4952 EMERSON AVE S 7021 GALPIN BLVD MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55409 �� EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 II BRETT A DAVIDSON PARTNERSHIP INV. INC. II 7291 GALPIN BLVD 730 2ND AVE SO. EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 SUITE 281 • 11 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 JOHN HENNESSY E MICHAEL J GORRA 0 RENGERS 7305 GALPIN LAKE RD 1680 ARBORETUM DR II EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID A STOCKDALE 6 MICHAEL J GORRA II ANGA MCBRIDE STOCKDALE 7210 GALPIN BLVD 1680 ARBORETUM DR II EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1, s II E JEROME C LINDA CARLSON MELVIN C J BABATZ II 6950 GALPIN LAKE RD 1650 LAKE LUCY RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 I DANIEL J C LINDA J MURPHY ! PAUL C LINDA WOLF ii 6651 HAZELTINE BLVD 2110 CRESTVIEW DR I EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Imp Iii REINHOLD C L GUTHMILLER , DANIEL C D NIKOLAI 1801 LAKE LUCY RD 6570 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 1 E JEROME C LINDA CARLSON BRUCE A C JEAN A MATTSON I 6950 GALPIN LAKE RD 2020 CRESTVIEW DRIVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 DENNIS R C BEVERLY JACOBSON M & CLARKE NICHOLSON JR I 6841 HAZELTINE BLVD 2051 CRESTVIEW DR - EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 1 WESTSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH INGVALD EIDEM 1455 PARK ROAD 2050 CRESTVIEW DR I CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 I DEAN C JACQUELINE SIMPSON ARNON 6 P REESE 7185 HAZELTINE BLVD 2080 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 :1 MICHAEL W C SUSAN L GILBERT STEVE R 6 SUZANNE W MILLER 1 7100 CHES MAR DR 2081 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 I I � 1 JOAN MARCIA WEGLER I BRIAN KLINGELHUTZ 6 D GESTACH S L-ELAND PAULSON I 7010 CHES —MAR DR 8407 GREAT PLAINS BLVD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHANHASSEN• MN 55317 1 WILLIAM 0 & 8 JOHNSON EDWARD M C MARY K RYAN 1 7060 CHES MAR DR 6730 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 1 II BRIAN N C NANCY L TICHY RICHARD C B ORTEN3LAD I 1471 LAKE LUCY RD 1351 LAKE LUCY RD II EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 JOSEPH J & D GAYLE MOR IN ALFRED C MAY HARVEY II 1441 LAKE LUCY ROAD 1430 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Of A II - MARK 0 C KATHRYN A SANDA 'ELIZABETH A GLACCUM 1 1685 STELLER COURT 1 1510 LAKE LUCy RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 i _ EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 ir KRISTEN A STRUYK ALFRED C MAY HARVEY 1941 CRESTVIEW CIR 1430 LAKE LUCY RD , EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 • • JAMES C D MIELKE TERRANCE C M O•BRIEN I 1645 LAKE LUCY RD 1420 LAKE LUCY RD II EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 GREENERY COMPANY ALMOND L C CAROLYN C KRUEGER I C/0 DON MEZZENGA 5816 DICKENS AVE 1600 LAKE LUCY RD MINNETONKA, MN 55345 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 IL JAMES C CECELIA PALMER STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Ili 1670 LAKE LUCY RD - 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 1 WACONIA, MN 55387 1 II - - -- -- - - -- CITY OF CHANHASSEN WARREN E A PHILLIPS C/0 CITY TREASURER ±1 ; 2 II 690 COULTER DR 1571 LAKE LUCY RD PO BOX 147 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 72 j) ALMOND L KRUEGER ROBERT R 6 E CHRISTENSEN II 1600 LAKE LUCY RD 1511 LAKE LUCY RD 1 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 - - EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MYRNA M JOHNSON THEODORE R COEY 1 1630 LAKE LUCY RD S 1381 LAKE LUCY RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 - CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN ' AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA ) Ce'tt")(1/e-t-Z1 COUNTY OF CARVER ) /to �e A6;4- II I Karen J. Engelhardt, g hardt, being first duly sworn, on oath ' deposes that she is and was on July 31 , 19 91 , the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chan- ' hassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed ' a copy of the attached notice of Correction to Special Assessment Notice for Lake Ann Interceptor Sewer Project No. 87 -35 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A ", by enclosing a copy ' of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the ' names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, ' and by other appropriate records. ' Karen J. Fngelh �rdt, Deputy Clerk Subscribed and sworn to (/ ' before me this 31st day of July , 1991 r. k?,t MA Alii4A—X11, 2 .43 Wald cr kc.c:Aa , AX KIM T. MEUN'ISSEN NOTARY PUPLIC • Pf:'4NESCTA <, 4'� CAPVEP COUNTY +i\' M,' r �, .. ;� (n Erp' ' '; 29 1922 ; CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 1 • SPECIAL ASSESSMENT NOTICE CORRECTIONS ' LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR SEWER PROJECT NO. 87 -35 Please be advised of three corrections to the Special Assessment Notice which you have recently received for the above - referenced project. The first correction relates to the issue of partial prepayment of the assessment. Partial prepayment of the assessment is permitted during the 30 -day period after the assessment has been levied and before it has been certified to the County. Therefore, the last sentence of the third paragraph on page 1 of your special assessment notice should read as follows: "Partial prepayment of the assessment is permitted during the 30 days after the assessment hearing date." ' The second correction occurs on line 8 of paragraph 1 involving the statement, "Your total amount of the proposed assessment is $555,264.00." The words "Your total" should be replaced with the words "The total project ". The third correction occurs on line 2 of paragraph 1 on page 2. ' The first word should read "at ", not "al ". Please be advised of these corrections. Don Ashworth City Clerk /Manager ' 1 1 .i II ROBERT & PENELOPE DAVID & ANGA THEODORE & MARLENE ARNESON STOCKDALE BENTZ 6921 GALPIN BLVD 292 RYAN AVE 7300 GALPIN BLVD 1 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ST PAUL MN 55102 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ' DARLENE TURCOTTE DOUGLAS & THERESA JOHN & RENGERS 4400 W ARM RD APT 127 BENTZ HENNESSY' SPRING PARK MN 55384 7280 GALPIN BLVD 7305 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHAEL J GORRA LEANDER & P KERBER DAVID & JULIANN LUSE II 1680 ARBORETUM BLVD 1620 ARBORETUM BLVD 14358 - GOLF VIE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 MICHAEL KLINGELHUTZ CONWAY LABS BRETT DAVIDSON 8601 GREAT PLAINS 4952 EMERSON AVE SO 7291 GALPIN BLVD II CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55409 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1 RAYMOND NOTERMANN DANIEL & LINDA MURPHY 1450 ARBORETUM BLVD 6651 HAZELTINE BLVD 1 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 JAMES & D MIELKE - THE GREENERY COMPANY REINHOLD & L II 1645 LAKE LUCY ROAD C/O DON MEZZENGA GUTHMILLER EXCELSIOR MN 55331 5816 DICKENS AVE 1801 W 67TH ST I MINNETONKA MN 55345 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MARTIN & BETH KUDER EARL C GILBERT III CARVER COUNTY II 6831 GALPIN BLVD 6901 GALPIN BLVD 600 E FOURTH ST EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHASKA MN 55318 - I PRINCE R NELSON JEROME & LINDA EDWARD & MARY RYAN 2121 AVE OF THE STARS CARLSON 6730 GALPIN BLVD 1 C/0 BJR & S STE 1700 6950 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LOS ANGELES CA .90067 • EXCELSIOR MN 55331 II BRIAN KLINGELHUTZ & JAMES & LINDA RING SAM & NANCY MANCINO D GESTACH 6640 GALPIN BLVD 6620 GALPIN BLVD 2031 TIMBERWOOD DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 II CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WESTSIDE BAPTIST DENNIS & BEVERLY JOAN WEGLER I CHURCH JACOBSON 7010 CHES MAR DRIVE - 1455 PARK ROAD 6841 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 I CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WILLIAM & B JOHNSON MICHAEL & SUSAN HERBERT F EWALD ' 7060 CHES MAR DR GILBERT 2700 CHES MAR FARM RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 7100 CHES MAR DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 II GERALDINE EIKAAS DAVID C BELL CHARLES & VIRGINIA II 2763 CHES MAR FARM RD INVESTMENT CO GROSS EXCELSIOR MN 55331 3915 HWY 7 • 2703 CHES MAR FARM RD MINNEAPOLIS MN 55416 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WALTER & M WHITEHILL DONALD & BETTY ROY DAVID WEATHERS & 7250 HAZELTINE BLVD 7205 HAZELTINE BLVD - KAREN EDELMANN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 7235 HAZELTINE BLVD II EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PAUL & ROSEANNE JOHN & FRANCES DEAN & JACQUELINE II YOUNGQUIST DASSETT SIMPSON 7105 HAZELTINE BLVD C/O VAL WIRTZ 7185 HAZELTINE BLVD I EXCELSIOR MN 55331 19380 HWY 7 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55S31 • CHARLES & IRENE SONG MARVIN & JUDITH PARTNERSHIP II 7200 GALPIN BLVD JANICKE INVESTMENT INC EXCELSIOR MN 55331 7021 GALPIN BLVD 730 2ND AVE SO EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STE 281 II MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 II SCOTT & KATHY GAVIN MARK & TRACY WILLIAMS BRUCE & REBECCA , 1851 LAKE LUCY LANE 1655 LAKE LUCY ROAD PLOWMAN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1665 STELLER COURT II EXCELSIOR MN 55331 I CLARENCE & PHYLLIS MARK & KATHRYN SANDA ERIC & NORMA RIVKIN HAILE 1685 STELLER COURT 1695 STELLER COURT 1675 STELLER COURT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 • ' EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ALLEN & BARBARA JUDITH DIRKS KRISTIN STRUYK I FINSTAD 1205 W ASH 1941 CRESTVIEW DRIVE 1701 STELLER COURT OLIVIA MN 56277 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 I WAYNE & JOYCE POPPE MARY ZEHRER MERRILL & R STELLER 1 1950 CRESTVIEW DRIVE 1930 CRESTVIEW DRIVE 1931 CRESTVIEW DRIVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1 KRISTA STRUYK MARY MUEHLHAUSEN BRUCE & JEAN MATTSON 1941 CRESTVIEW DRIVE 1961 CRESTVIEW DRIVE 2020 CRESTVIEW DRIVE • EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 I INGVALD EIDEN ARNON & P REESE PAUL & LINDA WOLF 2050 CRESTVIEW DR 2080 CRESTVIEW DR 2110 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1 MICHAEL & KATHLEEN STEVE & SUZANNE M & CLARKE NICHOLSON SCHULTZ MILLER 2051 CRESTIVEW DR I 2150 CRESTVIEW DR 2081 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331, EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1 DANIEL & D NIKOLAI GERALD JABLINSKI ROBERT & L PETERSON 6570 GALPIN BLVD 2020 W 65TH ST 2040 W 65TH ST • EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 I HENRY & CAROL WONG RICHARD & B ATHERTON WALTER & D FELTON 2080 W 65TH ST 2082 W 65TH ST 6500 GALPIN BLVD I EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 IF ILLIAm & J ASHENBACH BERNARD & S BENZ DON & K KELLY 2041 W 65TH ST 2061 W 65TH ST 2081 W 65TH ST EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1 1 1 TERRANCE & M OBRIEN ALFRED & MARY HARVEY ELIZABETH GLACCUM 1420 LAKE LUCY ROAD 1430 LAKE LUCY ROAD 1510 LAKE LUCY ROAD II EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ALMOND & CAROLYN DALE HIEBERT RICHARD AND B II KRUEGER 6510 YOSEMITE AVENUE ORTENBLAD 1600 LAKE LUCY ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1351 LAKE LUCY ROAD II EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 THEODORE COEY JOSEPH & GAYLE MORIN BRIAN & NANCY TICHY II 1381 LAKE LUCY ROAD 1441 LAKE.LUCY ROAD 1471 LAKE LUCY ROAD `EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MN WILDLIFE HERITAGE ROBERT & E WARREN & A PHILLIPS FOUNDATION I CHRISTENSEN 1571 LAKE LUCY ROAD C/O HIGH PRICE 1511 LAKE LUCY ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 5701 NORMANDALE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SUITE 308 I MINNEAPOLIS MN 55424 MARK & KATHY SANDA ALMOND & CAROLYN MYRNA M JOHNSON 1685 STELLER COURT KRUEGER 1630 LAKE LUCY ROAD I EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1600 LAKE LUCY ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CITY OF CHANHASSEN II MELVIN & J BABATZ JAMES & CECELIA PALMER -- 690 COULTER DRIVE 1650 LAKE LUCY ROAD 1670 LAKE LUCY ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ' EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BRECK & MARLIESE STEVE & WENDY CHRISTOPHER & SANDRA I JOHNSON LAMBURESH RAMSEY 6621 GALPIN BLVD 6651 GALPIN BLVD 6681 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1 MS MARY FERNHOLZ JOHN & MARIELLEN JOHN & MELANIE NORWEST MORTAGE INC WALDRON GORCZYCA I 1021 10TH AVE SE 1900 LAKE LUCY ROAD 1850 LAKE LUCY ROAD MINNEAPOLIS MN 55414 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 II - - - - - -- - - - i-& - - - - - ALAN & KATHLEEN MERLE & DIANE JERRY PETERSON STEINKRAUS CYNTHIA M GILL I 700 WEST VILLAGE ROAD 1800 LAKE LUCY ROAD 1760 LAKE LUCY ROAD APT 106 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PATRICK JOHNSON & PAUL MCALLISTER MARK & CHANDA ' MARY CORDELL 7510 ERIE AVE RIDDERSEN 1730 LAKE LUCY LANE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1811 LAKE LUCY LANE I EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 • - Wildlife Heritage Foundation, Inc. ' Suite 325 • 5701 Normandale Road • Minneapolis, MN 55424 • 612/925 -1923 1 July 29, 1991 yic RE C�V. y 5 199 i Don Ashworth ,JUL 'l City Clerk /Manager ' City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Dr P.O. Box 147 t Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Ashworth, 1 I was surprised to see that we are still listed as owners of the property at Lake Lucy. The last I heard from Carver County they were selling the land for taxes. 1 At any rate we do not have the money to support the property and have, in effect, abandoned it to the county.• Sincerely 1 Hugh C. Price 1 1 - no. 0 -5 - C o soo • Robert I. Christensen, President • Hugh C. Price, Vice- President • Laurence F. Koll, Secretary • James J. Mady, Treasurer 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA SPECIAL ASSESSMENT NOTICE IMPROVEMENT NO: 87 -35 The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider proposed assessments for Improvement Project No. 87 -35 , on Monday , August 12th , 19 91 , at 7:30 -p.m. in the Council Chambers at 690 Coulter Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota. The area to be assessed includes those properties between Lake Lucy Road on the North, T.H. No. 5 on the South, Hazeltine Boulevard (County Road No. 41) on the West, and Powers Boulevard (County Road No. 17) on the East. Your total amount of the proposed assessmdnt is $555,264.00. Your assessment has been calculated in accordance with the City Council's policy as follows: Property Owner: Minnesota Wildlife Heritage Foundation Address: c/o Hugh Price 5701 Normandale Road, Suite 308 Minneapolis, MN. 55424 Parcel No: 25- 0025500 '' Proposed Assessment Against Your Property as Described Below: 1 Specific Improvements Amount Lake Ann Interceptor Project $ 704.10 Assessment may be paid in full without interest or other charges ' within thirty (30) days after the assessment hearing date. These payments may be made in person or may be mailed to Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317, Attention: Treasurer. - Pleas.e indicate the parcel number on your check. Partial prepayment of the assessment is not permitted. ' If you elect not to pay the full amount within thirty (30) days after the hearing date, the assessment will be spread over 10 years with the installments appearing on your real estate taxes beginning next year. Interest will be included at the rate of 9 percent of the unpaid balance. The proposed assessment roll is on file with the City Clerk. Written and oral objections to the proposed assessment by any property owner will be considered. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of any assessment adopted unless a written objection signed by the affected property owner is filed with the City Clerk prior to the assessment hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing. • 1 t COf il COUNTY' AUDIT _)R v 's l_ nAnn ' r J HPr�I .ri :,: Dppuh. A .,'■t., 4% T , -� CARVER COUNTY COI�RTHOUSE ph,rr- :1�_` \ \ / 600 EAST FOURTH STREET I - `` CHASKA MINNESOTA 55318-2184 COUNTY Of CA QV Q II July 25, 1986 II Minnesota Wildlife Heritage Foundation, Inc. - c/o Hugh Price I 5701 Normandale Road Suite 307 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55424 II II Re: P.I.D. /l 25- 002 -5500 3.5 acres in Section 2, Township 116 North, Range 23 West II This is to inform you that the time for redemption of your delinquent lands I will expire on September 22, 1986. If delinquent taxes are not paid by the above date, the land will be forfeited II to the State of Minnesota and sold at public auction. If you have any questions please contact this office. II Yours truly, 4 JoAnn Hecklin I Deputy Auditor 1 1 I Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer - 2 1 • :it, -f '7Ianhassen :rie T MN E.:-S17 7: Vh_m :t May (Thncern: We t voice our objection to the proposed as- se:Is-lent for the Lake Ann Interceptor against our property f #25-C)025810) at 1471 Lake Lucy Road. For the following reasons we feel that the interceptor prs- ‘,fol:-17 no benefit to cur property: -t'le septic system we have been using is new ard functional -the Interceptor does not provide a ready means for us to hock up -due to the topography cf the land on cur parcel En alternative sewage system would be necessary 'D 4 t. rt the flcw cf sews-,e in's the eye -ve frel the benefit of this project fe not cfcaMv t the prsperty owncrs within the bc.unda.riee proposed, but rather to the city as whole was undertaken to imprsve the public sewage .s within the MUSA line and to provide for the increase .a teirg developed within the City cf Chanhassen. we .1ncerstand the necessity of future development in we also feel that an assessment related to a spe- c'f's a7es that derives no direct benefit is ineuitable. :Z• for your consideration of our arguments concern- ing this proposed assessment. Sincerely, 1 Brian and Nancy Tich- 11 R f � • R s _ 4. F 1I July 31, 1991 Mr. Don Ashworth, City Clerk /Manager Chanhassen 6ity Council P.O. Box 1147 Chanhassen, IV 55317 Dear Mr. Ashworth and Council Members, ' I appeal to the City of Chanhassen to remove our home property at 7250 Hazeltine Blvd., Excelsior, MN 55331, Parcel # 25-0092500 ' to be removed from the list of those assessed to pay for the Lake Ann Interceptor Project, Improvement No. 87 -35, because it is in- conceivable that a sewer line will ever be installed to serve our 1 property in any foreseeable future (30 -50 years, longer ?). Reasons that support this contention are: 1. Our property is bounded on the north side by Chesmar Farms, for which the City Council very recently approved a building ' project which in effect will reduce the present population density on that parcel. Logically this also reduces the need and probability of a sewage line to that property (and ' from there to ours). 2. Our property is bounded on the south and west sides by the Cara Fire Council land. The plan is that their property will "always" be used as it is now, and thus the possibility of the land ever being developed for housing is extremely remote. This contention is further supported by the fact that their land is not included on those to be assessed for the Lake Ann I Interceptor project. After more than 30 years of history of proven acceptable functioning of our septic system there is no reason to believe that it may fail to some irrepairable adequate condition in the future. Furthermore, accordinggto Allen Larson, the levy of $1,396.81 on our property was based on $5111.40 per buildable acre times 2.58 acres. That acreage figure is incorrect. The acreage on the tax roll for parcel #25.0092500 are only 1.83 acres. The buildable ' acres would be a significantly lower figure after subtracting the County Road No. 11 right -of -way and at least approximately 0.7 acres on the west side of the property that is too low and wet to build on. ' I cannot appear in person at the August 12, 1991 meeting because I must be in Illinois between August 1 and 18. Respectfully submitted istered Mail on July 31, 1991. Yours truly, f -./1W W. A. Whitehill 11 1 1 4 A ) '- \ \ u, , , ,,,, ,-\ , ) 0 ''?i '''i e. _. II .c (17 (- . ' \ 1., 4 II rt . - ;, \ - .'Yv •-tTLT >. a 'c ‘c__ ; CAL .12IL, /1 (,,_,,, A.,, ,L_ , . c, ;„.._ 1 1 ) RL..,:s \4 1 • ( 1.), - ,..iy-,L4zt l 1 I .1 DziLf. \ ,\■."1.- ..: '' 1 1 1 ' '■) - • ( ' ' -A \ill r (:-.. I\ r \ \--k--C-4- t' , ',:-.. - Lc A?--(= P'J\r-r- 1\--t, • j 1 , rutto'lL \ '\- -- --- \ -- r\Ci v. '\)-: :t... '-Q %. -- (iL) _e_,z_Az•%/1 L 0---4 ■ f it- 4-e-A"--- 1 '\-\-( a'>-e-- c -L) "lAA ,"`•( N I r Q, I .. _I _ ) .,{ 1 , r ,_ jAy c.-P, c ,., \-__J__ . CITY OF ViAPIASSE -- 0 AUG 0 5 1921 ,,Isl--o C-c- ' 4 • _ c.,r„ ,, c,s.,_. +.4..(2 1 ENLIREEPA"; DEPT. ..t Liu? 6 1 t k 0.-Z QL-Let-V--- "10 1.fi.-4 , Q0-4- -, At-cernQAA 0 t(AdSA-t"A A , • 1 , • ... - •. •• .- - t ...., Q /KaLuLt.,..4.s.e._- I - , a - m 1 -c: -r•rk- 1 -i 1 t5- * --2- '4L)-1;,,,,,,,,- a_y...,1._.. .,_ --- • fr---- I I m .- \-- C a- ck -.) ----0 3, o,...v4.. Lt co...,4,-,. A„... (---) . 1 ),---%.c .e ,) e-N--- Q--o ' o-4-L3 -- t, .... .. 1 cp....),..4.z.4.) - As-k-Q-2-A-- Ls-A.A.,--t..e_.Q te :..c.4 C-0-71.. I n-0 A , \...- 1 \ i' - _ t •1/4.- L 1 0 ,_ 1 *■--. f '-- - 11 1 -- :___.(_, C....j • t - ..\-it--1',)t.,* L Ar'r 1, ,•6.---;VU-;•--- CL,C„A.4_2_.CylA 4-1.--• 1 ‘ --- "t•-•tykAA,N . UP 4,2A44.C. id-Ce_ 1 a.,,,\ L,,,L-SLQ L.. j)1 4,4, tA -L 1 j _,A _.6 Lef -t.-- Q.- e jt ...- C .4 1 t—r. j-- f\., :7-cs-...) Cl_.--- -Q.46.,,-. Ink ‘■ 0 (i'LO •40-AAAA. a.)14,N-ce_P ( i 1 - : / k c„,fig,,,,,,,. - -j_ "...-6-i- /Vora...-e-us” \ SA. , 4- - C , --. /k\--0. . P 3.-v-A • i I „at CLUILWYLLia4 G 1 s 1 s-4 dCo„ 24e, i.c-d i CJ- II ky-k._ ..).../vi...6.4 \ - b„,t /z z.j A 4, ;i-tttn I 1 .,,,J,,,,._ „---, (.....,L), ■ci 00 AE_ Luc" ; 410 —Cho8C) 1 PROFES.SIONAL INSURANCE MARKETING 1381 LAKE LUCY ROAD • CHANHASSEN, MINN. 55317 • (612) 474 -1168 • FAX(612)474-7788 1 August 1, 1991 TO: City Clerk of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Dr P 0 Box 147 Chanhassen MN 55317 SUBJECT: Objections to Lake Ann Interceptor Assessment 1 This letter is my formal objection to the above assessment. I could, if I ever develop, use the sewer to the East of my property which is not part of the Lake Ann Interceptor. Since the Interceptor was built, sewer has become available acmes the street from me because of the Cury Farms development. Also it will be right next to me on the East when the present Lundgren Bros. Project is done. I also am over 600 feet from the road and and could not ever afford to connect to sewer and water even if it was available. There are other matters that are not right with the assessment. i #1 We were told at various meetings that the assessment would be assessed not until at least the year 2000 and then only if you were using it. Also if the assessement is 1 460 per acre they are not taking into account my wet lands and the unbuildable low lands. In conclusion I feel not only could I use the sewer to my East but I would Never have any usage of the Intercepter and the basis for assessment is wrong. 1 Thank You (, Ted R. Coey 1381 Lake Lucy RD Chanhassen, MN 55317 Cirr Parcel # 25- 0025800 as .i tit 4 UG O. 1997 =a, OT — O :: OF CH,'.: , 1 Lleri of Lhanhassen i.,90 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Mn. 55317 August 1, 1991 RE; LaJe Ann Interceptor Assessment Property owner: Martin and Beth Kuder 6831 Galpin Blvd. Efcelsior, Mn. Parcels ^`56933020 and 256930010 N� The original purpose for installing the Lake Ann Interceptor watl to relie^e an over burdened sewer system to the north of ths kroposed assessment area. Those users should be included in the assessed area. 1 don't recall any notice of intent to assess this property prior to the installation of the Lake Ann Interceptor. l he per acre assessment charge should not be levied against "unbuildable" aCres. Parcel 256930010 has appro:imatel two o+ unbui ldable wetland. M current septic system is fairly new, modern and in e.ce]lent condition. Use of the Lake Ann Interceptor for N� these properties is not in the foreseeable future. For these items I object to the assessed amount for the Lal.e Hnn interceptor. • Si l /97 N� CITY OF �� x�x � Ky� Kx��@��K� MINIM AUG Q - 1�[M nwbvJ .^'. N� �� DEPT. �� m&8 0�� • 1 •6730 Galpin Boulevar Excelsior, MN 55331 1 August 5, 1991 1 • City Clerk, City of Chanhassen I 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 I Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Parcel No: 25- 0034810 I 6730 Galpin Boulevard Dear Sir /Madame: I We were shocked by the letter we received from you regarding the impending assessment for the Lake Ann Interceptor Project. We have been active participants, attending meetings and special sessions regarding the comprehensive plan and many of the issues that'll arose during the planning process. When the Interceptor pipe was put in the ground, it was made quite cll. to us by the city council that the assessments would not be due and interest charges would not begin until our property was developed. Obviously that is not what you are proposing. it We strongly object to the current assessment and welcome further miscussion concerning this issue. S c ' % L T lewt- I. er-r4"--- R1 - n Mary mu a. r�q.zi�+wi` nom � K. Ryan r :r a rya � =r �Sa.�.sY:baa��, t r 1 :.. w AUG 66 1931 AUG 6 6 1991 1 CITY OF erig:iNhpSSE 1 Date 1 -2 - 9 1 To: 1 City Clerk, City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Dr. PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 -----, Property Owner: D 4r t t * Friltive%A, 1 v.coofrz II Address i(130 Ct Wt.rt Poi kwd.�' 65Iti l E . PrA;r: L. Ma 55394! Parcel No: 2 5- o J o t S2.0 _. I 1 Subject: Objection to Lake Ann Interceptor Assessment . Whereas, it is the City's policy in the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that lots developed recently with I newer septic systems "would not be unduly burdenedby new local utility lines and related assessments ", I Whereas, the availability and right to use an alternate drainfield site was also imposed by theCity in case the original drainfield site failed, Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that an original or alternate septic site could potentially harm I the environment, given the imposed stringent City standards, education and monitoring program to insure long term use and environmental protection, I Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that even if the septic system did fail and could potentially harm the environment, that hookup to the Lake Ann Interceptor would be necessary or the most publicly beneficial way to solve the problem, given the liklihood there will be alternative methods more environmentally and financially viable ready to correct problems in the future, I Whereas, it was understood from previous public meetings that in the event assessments might be r levied, that wouldn't occur at least until the year 2000, according to the original I Ake Ann Interceptor 1 agreement discussions, Whereas, the Lake Ann Interceptor levy amount seems incorrect, given the fact the registered survey 1 for this parcel shows S buildable acres and the levy amount was previously mentioned in various public meetings at about $460 per acre of buildable land ( S' , x $460 = $ 2 3 ere' ), Whereas, there is evidence of vehement public objection to this project by existing residents who feel 1 they would cot receive benefit from this project through the year 2000, or feel they would be forced to sell their homes due to a premature and unnecessary assessment burden, Therefore, (II, object to the assumption that we would receive benefit from this project and I object to the proposed Lake Ann Interceptor Project A ssessment. 1 Sincerely, CM ? �� d g r ( • I _- G0� � t7 [ E� " +i e C _ ■ Vit'�Ri 1 , property Owner(s) • AUG 0 ;; '3 3 i rp At i;"i °,a EE;tal::fi i'iN FPT 1 I , Date 'S' 1 To: City Clerk, City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Dr. PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Property Owner: Dar T« )i�s �Y coot Address (0q30 CA l,) Pc►t ii‘n */ 531 y � � Qeat.; c Nt b-' S53 ti4f 1 Parcel No: 2 S —_ o t O t 52-8 • Subject: Objection to Lake Ann Interceptor A ssessment , Whereas, it is the City's policy in the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that lots developed recently with newer septic systems "would not be unduly burdenedby new local utility lines and related assessments ", Whereas, the availability and right to use an alternate drainfield site was also imposed by the City in case the original drainfield site failed, Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that an original or alternate septic site could potentially harm the environment, given the imposed stringent City standards, education and monitoring program to insure long term use and environmental protection, • Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that even if the septic system did fail and could potentially harm the environment, that hookup to the Lake Ann Interceptor would be necessary or the most publicly beneficial way to solve the problem, given the liklihood there will be alternative methods more environmentally and financially viable ready to correct problems in the future, Whereas, it was understood from previous public meetings that in the event assessments might be levied, that wouldn't occur at least until the year 2000, according to the original I Ake Ann Interceptor agreement discussions, 1 Whereas, the Lake Ann Interceptor levy amount seems incorrect, given the fact the registered survey for this parcel shows 5 buildable acres and the levy amount was previously mentioned in various public meetings at about $460 per acre of buildable Iand ( 5 x $460 = $ 23Qa ), Whereas, there is evidence of vehement public objection to this project by existing residents who feel they would not receive benefit from this project through the year 2000, or feel they would be forced to sell their homes due to a premature and unnecessary assessment burden, Therefore, (I ;P object to the assumption that we would receive benefit from this project and object to the proposed Lake Ann Interceptor Project A ssessment. • Sincerely, ' WW .. V OF CH NHASSE Lr , property owner(s) AUG 0 5 1991 I E C EEt ING DEPT Date -2 -1 1 . To: City Clerk, City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Dr PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ,-�- Property Owner: . )C+r )e ^ i+{ 1 " 1 loior+,43 Address Cot-130 1^ i43L) ?ar 1%w - 453 lq fci.M Prc v L M.J 553 v y ' 2 - O l0l Parcel No:.._.,_ S 010(5 20 Subject: Objection to LakeAnn Interceptor A ssessment Whereas, it is the City's policy in the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that lots developed recently with newer septic systems "would not be unduly burdenedby new local utility lines and related assessments", ' Whereas, the availability and right to use an alternate drainfield site was also imposed by the City in case the original drainfield site failed, Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that an original or alternate septic site could potentially harm the environment, given the imposed stringent City standards, education and monitoring program to insure long term use and environmental protection, Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that even if the septic system did fail and could potentially harm the environment, that hookup to the Lake Ann Interceptor would be necessary or the most publicly beneficial way to solve the problem, given the liklihood there will be alternative methods ' more environmentally and financially viable ready to correct problems in the future, Whereas, it was understood from previous public meetings that in the event assessments might be levied, that wouldn't occur at least until the year 2000, according to the original Lake Ann Interceptor agreement discussions, Whereas, the Lake Ann Interceptor levy amount seems incorrect, given the fact the registered survey ' for this parcel shows 5 buildable acres and the levy amount was previously mentioned in various public meetings at about $460 per acre of buildable land ( 5 x $460 = $ 23 oa ), Whereas, there is evidence of vehement public objection to this project by existing residents who feel they would rot receive benefit from this project through the year 2000, or feel they would be forced to sell their homes due to a premature and unnecessary assessment burden, ' Therefore, (I object to the assumption that we would receive benefit from this project and object to the proposed Lake Ann Interceptor Project A ssessment. • 1 Sincerely, SSW ...71. 1 _ CITY OF CHM* SSE ' 2x tiii J/L �� ,p roperty owners) GS, �I��nrn p1JG 0 5 1991 1 ElIGINEF.RING DEPT. 1 Late ' -2-°tk 1 To: City Clerk, City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Dr. PO Box 147 • Chanhassen, MN 55317 I Property Owner: D a+ If 4'• l oo1{, • J i vo'n T„ --N � Address 6430 C14 Wes-i; co. Icwwn j4 53 )4 ( 1E014h Pee...I ;e . M+ 55 3 C N 1 Parcel No: 15 -. b 1 01 52,O _. Subject: Objection to LakeAnn Interceptor Assessment , Whereas, it is the City's policy in the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that lots developed recently with newer septic systems "would not be unduly burdenedby new local utility lines and related I assessments ', - . Whereas, the availability and right to use an alternate drainfield site was also imposed by the City in I case the original drainfield site failed, Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that an original or alternate septic site could potentially harm I the environment, given the imposed stringent City standards, education and monitoring program to insure long term use and environmental protection, Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that even if the septic system did fail and could potentially I harm the environment, that hookup to the Lake Ann Interceptor would be necessary or the most publicly beneficial way to solve the problem, given the liklihood there will be alternative methods more environmentally and financially viable ready to correct problems in the future, 1 Whereas, it was understood from previous public meetings that in the event assessments might be levied, that wouldn't occur at least until the year 2000, according to the original Lake Ann Interceptor 1 agreement discussions, Whereas, the Lake Ann Interceptor levy amount seems incorrect, given fact the registered survey for this parcel shows 5 buildable acres and the levy amount was previously mentioned in various I public meetings at about $460 per acre of buildable land (_ 5 x $460 = $ 2 3c ), Whereas, there is evidence of vehement public objection to this project by existing residents who feel I they would Rot receive benefit from this project through the year 2000, or feel they would be forced to sell their homes due to a premature and unnecessary assessment burden, Therefore, (I, fe ) object to the assumption that we would receive benefit from this pr�.y''� oject and object to the proposed Lake Ann Interceptor Project A ssessment. • Sincerely, ; , , ��i�taa it f' " '�'�� i y ZO Aii G . Q � . �991 '' , Property owners) ENGINE RING 'G DEPT 1 1 Date 2 ' To: 4.4 City Clerk, City of Chanhassen °�` t*; = r 690 Coulter Dr. PO Box 147 AUG `-' 1 1991 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ; ! ` n ; rk Property Owner: Egg C- 6) L4 LZS-Be T Address 6 / 0 1 G t PUN 8 Li/P. 1 Parcel No: g (1 3 00 30 Subject: Objection to Lake Ann Interceptor A ssessment Whereas, it is the City's policy in the Comprehensive Plan ensure that lots developed recently with ' newer septic systems "would not be unduly burdenedby new local utility lines and related assessments", Whereas, the availability and right to use an alternate drainfield site was also imposed by the City in case the original drainfield site failed, Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that an original or alternate septic site could potentially harm ' the environment, given the imposed stringent City standards, education and monitoring program to insure long term use and environmental protection, Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that even if the septic system did fail and could potentially harm the environment, that hookup to the Lake Ann Interceptor would be necessary or the most publicly beneficial way to solve the problem, given the liklihood there will be alternative methods more environmentally and financially viable ready to correct problems in the future, 1 Whereas, it was understood from previous public meetings that in the event assessments might be levied, that wouldn't occur at least until the year 2000, according to the original I Ake Ann Interceptor agreement discussions, Whereas, the Lake A nn Interceptor levy amount seems incorrect, given the fact the registered survey for this parcel shows buildable acres and the levy amount was previously mentioned in various public meetings at about $460 per acre of buildable land ( x $460 = $ ), Whereas, there is evidence of vehement public objection to this project by existing residents who feel they would nc t receive benefit from this pro through the year 2000, or feel they would be forced to sell their homes due to a premature and unnecessary- assessment burden, Therefore, (I,we) —L object to the assumption that we would receive benefit from this project and object to the proposed Lake Ann Interceptor Project A ssessment. ' Sincerely, - 1 ' , property owner(s) 1 1 Date AL--(C , 1 / 9/ To: City Clerk, City of Chanhassen 690 Co Dr. PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 �J , Property Owner: `r 7,2 A L E N E • Address 2,-300 G /4 L- P 1 A l J L U ,0, E ycC E G.5/ o / e 47/t SS 33/ , Parcel No: aJ _ Q l D 1 3 O Subject: Objection to Lake A nn Interceptor A ssessment ' Whereas, it is the City's policy in the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that lots developed recently with newer septic systems "would not be unduly burdenedby new local utility lines and related assessments", Whereas, the availability and right to use an alternate drainfield site was also imposed by the City in ' case the original drainfield site failed, Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that an original or alternate septic site could potentially harm the environment, given the imposed stringent City standards, education and monitoring program to insure long term use and environmental protection, Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that even if the septic system did fail and could potentially 1 harm the environment, that hookup to the Lake Ann Interceptor would be necessary or the most publicly beneficial way to solve the problem, given the liklihood there will be alternative methods more environmentally and financially viable ready to correct problems in the future, _ Whereas, it was understood from previous public meetings that in the event assessments might be levied, that wouldn't occur at least until the year 2000, according to the original Lake Ann Interceptor ' agreement discussions, Whereas, the Lake A nn Interceptor levy amount seems incorrect, given the fact the registered survey for this parcel shows buildable acres and the levy amount was previously mentioned in various public meetings at about $460 per acre of buildable land ( x $460 = $ ), Whereas, there is evidence of vehement public objection to this project by existing residents who feel they would not receive benefit from this project through the year 2000, or feel they would be forced to sell their homes due to a premature and unnecessary assessment burden, Therefore, (I,we) object to the assumption that we would receive benefit from this project and 1 object to the proposed Lake Ann Interceptor Project A ssessment. Sincerely, ' spiv, Ai! r.4tir4A,SEN 2 ' 1 4a E��C4 ' • - — -' , property owner(s) ! p,(,!p,Ftcr,Arir [rig iT;i~ ;tri 'i•- i ll AIL G. ? 0 5 21'' I Date /?(.tc,f /9 To: City Clerk, City of Chanhassen I 690 Coulter Dr. PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Property Owner:0 '' Mf A C- E,4'E IgE!L' T Z Address 730e GAL,P/.v 6 LUt9, EXGELs /a R / 41/L! 5 53 3/ I Parcel No: 45 - / 0 / '14 4 - 1 Subject: Objection to Lake A nn Interceptor Assessment Whereas, it is the City's policy in the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that lots developed recently with I newer septic systems "would not be unduly burdenedby new local utility lines and related assessments ", 1 Whereas, the availability and right to use an alternate drainfield site was also imposed by the City in case the original drainfield site failed, Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that an original or alternate septic site could potentially harm I the environment, given the imposed stringent City standards, education and monitoring program to insure long term use and environmental protection, I Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that even if the septic system did fail and could potentially harm the environment, that hookup to the Lake Ann Interceptor would be necessary or the most publicly beneficial way to solve the problem, given the liklihood there will be alternative methods I more environmentally and financially viable ready to correct problems in the future, Whereas, it was understood from previous public meetings that in the event assessments might be levied, that wouldn't occur at least until the year 2000, according to the original J ake Ann Interceptor 1 agreement discussions, Whereas, the Lake A nn Interceptor levy amount seems incorrect, given the fact the registered survey 1 for this parcel shows buildable acres and the levy amount was previously mentioned in various public meetings at about $460 per acre of buildable land ( x $460 = $ ), Whereas, there is evidence of vehement public objection to this project by existing residents who feel 1 they would not receive benefit from this project through the year 2000, of feel they would be forced to sell their homes due to a premature and unnecessary assessment burden, I Therefore, (I,we) object to the assumption that we would receive benefit from this project and object to the proposed Lake Ann Interceptor Project A ssessment. • 1 Sincerely, � ,e 1 •-i •, e....,/_____ , property owner(s) ; • ,1 z ; ;� , tti T 1 AUG 0 1 Llefl t3 v 1 Date 9i(X. / r 1 To: City Clerk, City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Dr. PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Property Owner: £ /C- ✓,C-iN Address to � 'T t—C, t- C7 C-,c C .c4itl r5'33i ' Parcel No: f - C-/C ?of - 0 Subject: Objection to Lake Ann Interceptor A ssessment , Whereas, it is the City's policy in the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that lots developed recently with newer septic systems "would not be unduly burdenedby new local Utility lines and related assessments ", Whereas, the availability and right to use an alternate drainfield site was also imposed by the City in case the original drainfield site failed, Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that an original or alternate septic site could potentially harm the environment, given the imposed stringent City standards, education and monitoring program to insure long term use and environmental protection, Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that even if the septic system did fail and could potentially harm the environment, that hookup to the Lake Ann Interceptor would be necessary or the most publicly beneficial way to solve the problem, given the liklihood there will be alternative methods more environmentally and financially viable ready to correct problems in the future, 1 Whereas, it was understood from previous public meetings that in the event assessments might be levied, that wouldn't occur at least until the year 2000, according to the original Lake Ann Interceptor agreement discussions, Whereas, the Lake Ann Interceptor levy amount seems incorrect, given the fact the registered survey for this parcel shows h 9 buildable acres and the levy amount was previously mentioned in various 1 public meetings at about $460 per acre of buildable land (/, 9 x $460 = $ f 7 ), Whereas, there is evidence of vehement public objection to this project by existing residents who feel they would not receive benefit from this project through the year 2000, or feel they would be forced - to sell their homes due to a premature and unnecessary assessment burden, Therefore, (I,we) k- object to the assumption that we would receive benefit from this project and object to the proposed Lake Ann Interceptor Project A ssessment. Sincerely, 1 41 • . a. . , property owner(s) RECEWED JUL 2 9 1991 CITY Or l:1-i'u nnz,tis 1 • 1 Date I City Clerk, City of Chanhassen „ ; 690 Coulter Dr. 5 PO Box 147 �' U ' - � °9 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (•!r, 0� t -. rii , ` r Property Owner: 7r 2 i; e.2.--v-1 ,_ • V5� L V II Address A SD , - .ur.� ;4° G % �c � 2.E SS3�'/ O Parcel No: d S - o 0 3,3 d' c*-e. I Subject: Objection to Lake Ann Interceptor Assessment _ . • • Whereas, it is the City's policy in the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that lots developed recently with I newer septic systems "would not be unduly burdenedby new local utility lines and related assessments ", I Whereas, the availability and right to use an alternate drainfield site was also imposed by the City in case the original drainfield site failed, Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that an original or alternate septic site could potentially harm I the environment, given the imposed stringent City standards, education and monitoring program to insure long term use and environmental protection, I Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that even if the septic system did fail and could potentially harm the environment, that hookup to the Lake Ann Interceptor would be necessary or the most publicly beneficial way to solve the problem, given the liklihood there will be alternative methods •' more environmentally and financially viable ready to correct problems in the future, Whereas, it was understood from previous public meetings that in the event assessments might be levied, that wouldn't occur at least until the year 2000, according to the original Lake Ann Interceptor 1 agreement discussions, Whereas, the Lake Ann Interceptor levy amount seems incorrect, given the fact the registered survey I for this parcel shows % buildable acres and the levy amount was previously mentioned in various public meetings at about $460 per acre of buildable land (2/&_,x $460 = $ ? 0 , No- , 6" 70 — _ f; ac.�v , 4 _•c ut4.4i - • Whereas, there is evidence of vehement public objection to this project by existing residents who feel 1 they wo not recei b fr this project through the J r 2000, or feel they would be forced to sell their homes due to a premature and unnecessary assessment burden, I Therefore, (I,we) 7 < object to the assumption that we would receive benefit from this project and object to the proposed Lake Ann Interceptor Project A ssessment. • 1 Sincerely, . V, at Ad.,3z-- . vez,c .'�j r , p owner(s) `'y fi x �:� r i gqt i �� Date — 3�-) — F/ 1 To: E �` City Clerk, City of Chanhassen AUG 0 2 1991 I 690 Coulter Dr. PO Box 147 C! Y Ur %:riA;\fF;Ascs r Chanhassen, MN 55317 I Property Owner: / Ter 1 ,-i7Ar/,I ess - IL) 12,t--c o ti Address c�,,2 / (-7-.96 # 'rim ,�.� C s - b,e ,,,-74.-- .5 j( 1 Parcel No: cg-C — C<D 20 0 /0 Subject: Objection to Lake A nn Interceptor A ssessment •. Whereas, it is the City's policy in the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that lots developed recently with newer septic systems "would not be unduly burdenedby new local utility lines and related I assessments ", . Whereas, the availability and right to use an alternate drainfield site was also imposed by the City in 1 case the original drainfield site failed, Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that an original or alternate septic site could potentially harm I the environment, given the imposed stringent City standards, education and monitoring program to insure long term use and environmental protection, Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that even if the septic system did fail and could potentially 1 harm the environment, that hookup to the Lake Ann Interceptor would be necessary or the most publicly beneficial way to solve the problem, given the Iiklihood there will be alternative methods more environmentally and financially viable ready to correct problems in the future, 1 Whereas, it was understood from previous public meetings that in the event assessments might be levied, that wouldn't occur at Least until the year 2000, according to the original T Ake Ann Interceptor agreement discussions, Whereas, the Lake Ann Interceptor levy amount seems incorrect, given the fact the registered survey for this parcel shows a buildable acres and the levy amount was previouk mentioned in various 1 public meetings at about $460 per acre of buildable land ( 02 x $460 = $ Ye r't ), Whereas, there is evidence of vehement public objection to this project by existing residents who feel I they would not receive benefit fram this project through the year 2000, or feel they would be forced to sell their homes due to a premature and unnecessary assessment burden, Therefore, (I we) 4/e object to the assumption that we would receive benefit from this project and I object to the proposed Lake Ann Interceptor Project A ssessment. Sincerely, / 11 ( _ , property owner(s) 1 /1 ,. 1 Date ?5 ' 3 — , / 1 To: Cit Clerk, City of Chanhassen 690 Co Dr. I PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 • 1 Property Owner: R0 be r e,-- .4_ R h,Io e 4/e n'sc 1 . Address lo 9 / (7i-Jp i K, &11).D. X-C. , .5 1 1 Parcel No: 1 Subject: Objection to Lake Ann Interceptor A ssessment Whereas, it is the City's policy in the Comprehensive Plano ensure that lots developed recently with I newer septic systems "would not be unduly burdenedby new local utility lines and related assessments ", Whereas, the availability and right to use an alternate drainfield site was also imposed by the City in 1 case the original drainfield site failed, Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that an original or alternate septic site could potentially harm I the environment, given the imposed stringent City standards, education and monitoring program to insure long term use and environmental protection, ' I Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that even if the septic system did fail and could potentially harm the environment, that hookup to the Lake Ann Interceptor would be necessary or the most publicly beneficial way to solve the problem, given the liklihood there will be alternative methods more environmentally and financially viable ready to correct problems in the future, 1 Whereas, it was understood from previous public meetings that in the event assessments might be levied, that wouldn't occur at least until the year 2000, according to the original Lake Ann Interceptor I agreement discussions, Whereas, the Lake Ann Interceptor levy amount seems incorrect, given the fact the registered survey 7 for this parcel shows t( buildable acres and the levy amount was previously mentioned in various public meetings at about $460 per acre of buildable land ( Y x $460 = $ /gi V 0 ), Whereas, there is evidence of vehement public objection to this project by existing residents who feel 1 they would not receive benefit from this project through the year 2000, or feel they would be forced to sell their homes due to a premature and unnecessary assessment burden, I Therefore, (I,we) object to the assumption that we would receive benefit from this project and object to the proposed Lake Ann Interceptor Project A ssessment. • CITY OF C t E 1 Sincerely, n i' , i' lLi1,�, C C -. ilAjjpv-----, AUG 0G 1 901 1 Sv� - • Ptu_r ; t raiit ¢ . I ! `.1 _) v=. , property owner(s) C t°_ V E -. 1 , (1 61991 • 1 Date .C6- S - ' i 1 To: City Clerk, City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Dr. PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 n Property Owner: Dn not r CL 4 t7L Lf h o Address 7A OS 1-40 t- e . ' : J LvCi Parcel No: S �'t l � f6 - 0 0 O i Subject: Objection to LakeAnn Interceptor Assessment 1 Whereas, it is the City's policy in the-Comprehensive Plan to ensure that lots developed recently with newer septic systems "would not be unduly burdenedby new local utility lines and related I assessments ", Whereas, the availability and right to use an alternate drainfield site was also imposed by the City in case the original drainfield site failed, Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that an original or alternate septic site could potentially harm the environment, given the imposed stringent City standards, education and monitoring program to I insure long term use and environmental protection, Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that even if the septic system did fail and could potentially I harm the environment, that hookup to the Lake Ann Interceptor would be necessary or the most publicly beneficial way to solve the problem, given the liklihood there will be alternative methods more environmentally and financially viable ready to correct problems in the future, . Whereas, it was understood from previous public meetings that in the event assessments might be I levied, that wouldn't occur at least until the year 2000, according to the original Lake Ann Interceptor agreement discussions, 1 Whereas, the Lake Ann Interceptor levy amount seems incorrect, given the fact the registered survey for this parcel shows buildable acres and the levy amount was previously mentioned in various 1 public meetings at about $460 per acre of buildable land (3/4 x $460 = $ ?4 c ), CL-Le Whereas, there is evidence of vehement public objection to this project by existing residents who feel they would not receive benefit from this project thrcugh the yeta 2000, or feel they would be forced . I to sell their homes due to a premature and unnecessary assessment burden, Therefore, (I,we) object to the assumption that we would receive benefit from this project and I object to the proposed Lake Ann Interceptor Project A ssessment. 's,' !r,r ..-t r : V E a Sincerely, • 0 "r ". ;J , r ;� , 1 Pt.:. - do,/ ia�.11 RUG 06 1991 E ll =FL�Ey Y�.i.�'.''l3 r 661 , property owners) 0 6 1991 I (, { t' c -- t:'€Ni't':iACCSCh, • 1 RECEiVED AUG 0 7 1991 l3Qq A skiwoo gTy OF CHANHASSEN I — _ 4-gkituried4 -------- 'at(' 1 ' 4 I a44€4044(AJZ • i I or / c2 - I CO32=500 Z-k.S 4- e At/ jee AO , I / 1.4 ee■eageetiji If&arZit _ _ frxie 1.ext.,732,92 a.1 V- io) A&sgocem.),__17,46,50_ - - Q7/471q 67)3 3Q 7-- ei 2— cuoc or---ateidme -1— _ lk). +0 - der? 4 -- AIMIMA T Date £io r / 1 To: City Clerk, City of Chanhassen R " t t B i': 690 Coulter Dr. - -- PO Box 147 AUG j 7 i991 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Property Owner: AM . � J t ., �„�LOG- 1 ��_ _ " - # I� /'.. S3 3 Address 1 D J i - I Parcel No: o� 5 _ - 40 '7O © 0 . Subject: Objection to Lake Ann Interceptor Assessment ' . Whereas, it is the City's policy in the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that lots developed recently with newer septic systems "would not be unduly burdenedby new local utility lines and related I assessments ", Whereas, the availability and right to use an alternate drainfield site was also imposed by the City in case the original drainfield site failed, 1 Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that an original or alternate septic site could potentially harm the environment, given the imposed stringent City standards, education and monitoring program to. ' I insure long term use and environmental protection, Whereas, there is no absolute certainty that even if the septic system did fail and could potentially I harm the environment, that hookup to the Lake Ann Interceptor would be necessary or the most publicly beneficial way to solve the problem, given the liklihood there will be alternative methods . more environmentally and financially viable ready to correct problems in the future, I Whereas, it was understood from previous public meetings that in the event assessments might be levied, that wouldn't occur at least until the year 2000, according to the Lake Ann Interceptor agreement discussions, _ 1 Whereas, the Lake Ann Interceptor levy amount seems incorrect, given the fact the registered survey for this parcel shows buildable acres and the levy amount was previously mentioned in various I . public meetings at about $460 per acre of buildable land ( x $460 = $ ), Whereas, there is evidence of vehement public objection to this project by existing residents who feel they would not receive benefit from this project through the year 2000, or feel they would be forced I to sell their homes due to a premature and unnecessary assessment burden, Therefore, (I,we) k)Zobject to the assumption that we would receive benefit from this project and ob'ect to the • oposed lake Ann Interce •tor Pro'ect A ssessmentl! I ' Sincerely, I ./L•••••/ X - / " 1 a / ftki 4 `%' / / - ›S�-r , property owner(s) 1 • City Clerk July 31, 1 991 City of Chanhassen 690 C ul t Dr. Chanhassen, Minn. ' Re: Special Assessment notice #87 -35 objection by Landowner. . City Clerk: ' This is to notify you that I am objecting to proposed Special Assessments ( #87 -35) on parcels: 25- 0100500, 25- 0100600, 25- 0100700,25- 0100800,and 25- 0100900. 11 I am also requesting: the following information: 1. Total area served by interceptor. 1 2. Total assessment area. ' 3. How assessed parcels were determined to be in asscss- ment area. 4. What property can honk up to interceptor in future and 1 how will they be assessed for usage. 5. Can Property outside assessment area hook up to inter- ceptor in future. (if so, at what cost). 6. Yhat is interceptor capacity. 1 7. What is current flow at this tine. (July 1991). 8. How assessment are computed per parcel. • 1 9. Why did Chanhassen pledge $555,264.00 for a Metro sewer line. 10. Will "Green Acres" or any other type of deferral be available: for any final assessment 11. Do you have a real estate appraisal to support the proposed assessement. I am requesting that the hearings be continued until these and other questions have been answered. Sincerel , M. dA Gorra 1680 Arboretum Blvd. 1 Chanhassen; Minn. 1 August 1, 1991 City Clerk of Chanhassen J, 690 Coulter Drive 8V /1:0064-14r P.C. Box 147 Chanhassen, En. 5 5317 c ' RE: Lake A Interceptor nterceptor A ssessment ��.21./ K Parcel No #25- 0022900 �J i 1 Property Owner: Elizabeth.Ann Glaccum • ,ev 9 1510 Lake Lucy Road Excelsior, Ian. 55331 '5 ATr: Mr. Don Ashworth, City Clerk Dear 1'r. Ashworth: In accordance with your declaration that appeals may be made (Improvement No. f7 -35) to the district court pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section #h29.0E1, I hereby present my appeal for the following reasons: I feel that with the already existing sewer line available to my ' prorerty, that this would be the most logical way for any sewer connec- tions from my property flowing eastward. I also feel that my property should not be considered in your plans for the interceptor. This is my letter of appeal for the assessment against my property at the above address. I feel this assessment will cause me great harm financially. I will be forced to sell my home because combined with the already road improvement assessment, water assessment, future hookup as well as all expenses necessary for the above connections. Please give your consideration to this appeal. Sincerely, , 4 4 ;,4C/R ' e‘-:-,1 Elizabeth Ann. Glaccum (474 -8225) EAG: file ' cc: Mayor Don Chmiel Charles Folch, City Eng. 1 „ ,- —Ai , .. ,-. - • . • „.... - _ .._..4.,, : . -,—_, , 4,..,,,,,. ,..-„, • i. •,,,,,,, _._ ,. , , 40‘..b=:. - D.54 <-• ' ' ` ' It . * , •.,* AI . . '''Wl' . . -;” .4 .' I, , , ''' 4,- -,_ ,,,---...,-. -;', -_-.:.•,, ' \- *f , .. l'i• _ ' • oc. )4, ,. i '. . a - -. 3 ..4:3,-;:wi-...,,--:,. ,,:iim ,s,..- ..., _,.„..-....)--- . „ (6 1 „ =4 -' '' ' 4 447.1" -7, - -•-•.: . . . ' . . ' I' . - • . '"" ' - : - 3-_ ti '' -x,!,...- ., ..,v• , . .. , , re • - . . '. • f 1 . . - 4..` • I N ... ' 1".. ' - ' ' ' ' .03, - % ,. • . - ' - 12 ' ./,:- . --, ; ' A : - ' i ,I,, • . , - ...-. - , - - 4 " . v sNii • : ' V ./ r t,,c,„ 3: • -, i' h i 1.• , p ' Ir. : ' it ''... , ',...t:°` I" ''''' -A...\: cz IX 17 ';_8 . ....2_74, s "'e 7 .!,., il l" ,f li , * y "..,..A z. ' )w. ......, • . .,..._ ,..,, 4,:. , , ,. ,.. .v.::....fv.s, ,Ii, .,., : : 7/ •i.1 - r-' 4 31 1tIt t• . 01 1/ \Va. .. • -V''''• ' . ' 1 ' 10 ' ' ''' ' '!'- ' • -- 4 :': 1 ; ,. /ii A 1 1Ifl 1/4 ,-,,ii..... . 4-.-: -.-- ., :iris. . --sw:-: - , s --, — \\\ 1 - 7 - 1 i ,.)- . ----. . , -: - 4;..,.," v,•,-,.,v4.1; ..• i .,.....4,..-. ,,,t,t,..1.\ ..,,,,,,,- ., 4 ,. :1 ; • ' t \ i'.4' - - -1, • . 7 i 4 / `A ‘ ,A_ S.S 114..: .• ' b...1 \ . • ' • ‘,- 4 P ET E IRSOW " f-k___ ''' -"' • -4 ` 41 /a- , . .4 \ ' i '••-*--' ; ..o. -. 2 \ I ' .:- ■ ';" „,../ • . s-. ;' '- ". 1 `N Vi- 44 . V ' - /....- 1 1,.. 3 Nt .;; No 10 4 ,----...' ."---"'..-- - ' - :-..-..:.. ---- - -- ---.......„..... - 4 1 . , ,,ot, 1 .2 N.,, z.. s -s -!...N.AS•_...: ‘‘..„*. ' , : ,'-/ „/ _,,-- & , _ ,',. ,,,. . .. ,..-- - ..„. .. ..--- - - . -,...-,.... ,..,.,..„.„-.,' ,..s. " , "-.7\ s , ''A•OKZ\ ''',..,.., . ,:•.,.. N.., , L ' , +A , ,,,-/e.' 1 ' -; - . ......,.../- '-_,... :=1. 1- 0 - jitrailliabli" - - • . '' r---;„ . . ' N .' ' * \gii. ' : s ., , . , i i -•?-; • , -,-. --.L....,,,,,,. ..,..,,,,....314,..... -..A.._ , .1 • ,,, _ - z .. i 1. 1 cf , 1 q ...,- ,. ... ' f 0 4 , . ... --, ,...." . , " , ' ; t - •••." - ...;:"..■ 4." , kit-, . .0 TO. 0 ' :''' 1 •"" t: # i ' Vryril AM. • 44611. "r 4' II , 4i)) % N 1 1 e 1 - .k; B ' - .4. ^.-..> . 4.et•CV Is ' ' ,,,'. ...-- • *. - ir 4 1........ . ',,, .. if I v.. - ,., - ,'...!---.— ,::,' .4t . .„? - '' I • f c, .. / •',.,, • ', ,1 ",,,7 . - I 46 `.. -- - ' • ' '. i,,,1 i r. „ : ' 1 1$ ' 7 ' s iNg - 1 i i , ' ,-... ,...N N. "A ; $ '1-, _ . • . - P -AN- ', '1" ,w-- -,- ...> - 1" 1 'L 471 ' 4' ' ' .. A ' . 1g , -'.. 1 I \ • t■ r rosaed Z ) \ : -, --.., ' /... . I'. 'c Li•-, . xv, . ' 4 . ,,, i , y, - `..„'" • 7-:: . . i ' 96 / 4, ii . , ‘ , • rI. '..1 -• x :, -.1.a._.-, • ••• t I il it:1! iir ' . .....,...- • ,..- ,--- . / i ., t . 1 „ : • - - , - -:- • . . ' ,,.- ,- , 4 ,-.••••-r,4 i- - .t;, ; 1 I • t, i ii ,. • iiipi., 4 ,,,,,-.2 ± ir - 4f/ ..'‘'?;•-ii.-.4-‘.--- 4.\;,..- -' \ .• ii ..„...,,., .• ,,,,i, /...,,, .....,,,-,_„, ,- r 1, A .:( .. te 14 . - , --.-1: - $ ,. , 4 4`,..-1.4, 0 „ ,..,„,,, *-- „ .., 4 ., ,. e., 44 r;, . 1:. i k : $ ' • .,',.., 1 ° •1; . • , 4 it 4, i ,,„ ,- it ,s1 ,), i ', .i.,Aks =,. ...",c- . )1 • , 4 '1. 1 7:; fr A ". ." '; / ?!.. . - 40,!.... 7 -4 . : 1- ..- .- 5 .i \V.\ ..'. c .fik.. • -' '4 ' '' 7 0 ;1114*:.-41..''':; ''') ' VVI ” ■ , #',,t ''' ,, - i.t 4 ' '' A'ai' ''.- '■t . % '",). .:. , 4 i t, .* ?, / , .,-,... ,x s 1 ••,,q 4A„,, 4 ,:, , .,e,• ' .i '' , r, ..- . ' s .." *46" .... --" .N. . N'' .4 :..; ` " 4 ' 5 ' ."'"?'"" -0 2.• ',.. ..,'' -... ..-r • '' ...- - . 5 ' % • 1 . 4 1 . /i ■ . 1 .e. .., 0,., .i..: fr : I., - - • '` . -' k ..4- -.' ' ? : . , Ay: ‘6 -,4- , ..k...10.- 4 -- Z ‘ ' - . ; t .1: ■ 1 1!‘4, .\ '', 1 ., , . 1 . /.;: :" 4 ...Al' Y ''' ' - . *- .- : '- -.- ' f., ( \ '''.• 'N 't,„ .. "'''.«'''''''''',..Z.`: •Ieli".._ 44 ' t )1 1c1 1 \ ..• - i.:. ''''"-.'"- ' '.' ..--- ; 1 .•`- PO' ' -4 41 , T!I'' , - , .. 1 -**** 1- - - - '; 1 ' 't k I N IN. : ‘,. %-" , 1` .. 7.4 / • 4 I 44,,....yi-%-n \'"----....,„ 4 ' -s., ,,,t , isi„,.., , , , ........,.. - v --,-,,. C'' t ‘,'",•' $. w '4 - z , r.' - - r .44k.- -, 4 t — --4 `1" ,,,- 777... , ,...- - _ , 0 , L ,i;.:, c. -<.,__----..., 7.......,... --:- - ,—,-st 1 1 • . , .. i , A ,t . V ctro, ti, ‘ - -...„11,14 .., ■ ‘ l g 0.....,3,„,44 , ‘,...... \----. ..k,; ..:, - --,,,,,. ' t;t:i - „' . . ..‘ . - 1 yeicts N ., _ 4. 7-1.' . j , ,-,....-.,' . . 447:e l ■ ( --. : li : : 4'V'hti.‘ " -::1 4‹ \ •... . _ :17 -,---, --..:- ''.'. ' . ;".. i 1 ! ..J.... f „,,„ jw.,,%• , ).•. „:;$ at- > - ,4 . ..■ * -t • / 4. '-',, : - ti . Is II' ' Ve :' tit t... "Ns y_,.. :4 ...W N . . r ...f.4 r'*ifig,trA 4 \-- - vc ,. .. • -,t•■• *5: ' + rif .A, ..40°—•,: -:.„, . • , , ., . - 0, " . .„ ,. -); _ • ., -,,,,-.. ..-. -........„, ' ,' 1:,••• ..-.." •"*. - 4 - ' /2 ,_ ... ...,, . r•-, . _ •!.• .,,., ... ,, , , .0 .-,, - . - . .1 ,. ....,,,,,, • .,,, 1 1,... , 4 ; 4 1 v ' /':y pa -, _ - .i. - 40 ..---,:',' . - .. e r * . ; '' If ri rvor ' t ,„ ' f ' :- 4 "'' ' ' " '' I.NS11110,10 -..: •-,, '''''•'' N - , _ . , 9 ''•..„.. . ' '. 4,;,,e' eag..."0 ' ' -: ''• ii: '"'• '', • ' • . *Lilt . , - •-• .. _.s."/ . y - ! oil ,e1.5;V . 'cs .. . i l' 2 ' .."•'• ' , - .... ..",----, : ' , 40 .,. _. .• • - • ., • , 11 .. . , t :: - --, . :- ,.. ,,, , I•ii, . ‘ ....-xv--'7 ----. - - / f, il - : r '. '• V ' . • - , ....rf 4% 4- . isi..‘ co ... , ‘ :4. ‘,..7 . ,,,/,. ,,,..... it.,. ; J: , ,..,,,,,, 1,1,, , 4 -_,- ,. ,, c - ',...;,. 1 : . • . . : , r Al Al‘ i-;, ' ' • o ''' s. • • M ' , , , i1,4, ' ;' , Il 4i 4 4 . ? • 4 4 1.1 , ,.. - 0 ..,„sq... ii IP , • • 10 s i , :4,•,.:4 . ‘,C;i , ,i. - -- - -1,.. " l i t ; /- .- -., 3. ''. -...-,:,.....i . 1 - . • :- ::/ 4 ''-':\' Iv A - ,.. ,,,‘ -,,kis•-V,h i •i0,;"1,'; , -. - - - - 4/4 /., :. • 6 ,,,. ill I ,1 ' .4. 14-7 I '. ',- e ff .r: ,...-;:ff S -,/ •• ,• i . ii e 11 •• . f P 'kl '''', . . ' .: ‘` l ii.: • • e l, i' ;'''.• ° 2' v . 4';', — `''' ''.. 4,71.' V , A:, 7r....,',,, 1 „ • ii 3,1 4 - V.,,.-, ,..v."--4 ,/,-, JO / 1 -P . ..-,_< ,.., - ... . i , :i ?.;," , ,,,- ....,,,,,,.- ,.,, ..__ . _..,. ••,-: • : 4 ' . '''' ' , "y di‘..,....„..;t0„:0-, ,f. ,,,,• 0 • _ . . 104,.. , . . . . ,,,zesTie-1- ''' c•,:lit" ..1.1 ..;•,4iat.4.-f,/,;.1,-."--..ow,-,6;* „... .4... .... .. . •,:. ..,... _ .._ ...17 . ,,-„. A . xi..-t- -.10.••:-.,... , , , •••••• .., r \J " • ' r ilifi + _.' ,-;.. . -,.,.? r. ,,K. - : - 44. •:. ••• ; ,,f7- , ,-, zikagc:i.t -w. 1 _-_, - hi- , - - . : , - le , .`0 0 e .; i ,- .-..„„ • .. • . #•'%* - w. • . 0 : . w .., . . . rut — ...„ ,..- , -1 .. 44, - s , ,.. • ` ! 1 k . po,,... . , ,....... , ,.. .... . .... '.. ' . • - 41r ."1.° C ..w ‘' ", • ' .,•%. ..,. ,..0 ,, ,:.. QC. N6,' 1 f 4,1 7 ' '•• ■•• 1F,,,,:: ,-_-. ,' - ‘ .- , - . , Fos - -. ,,. ..,, : • . ... - ....,- - , - .-7.- • . .. . I - ,.- j .- - :-..-..■.: - ..--- - -7- - • . •.. , _•„. e . , - "t■L ' •> +'. `.- t 1 e• e , - ‘ , - - Yli - w •... 4 k.:, % ,\4,. - 4 1 4 s . . Ai - - '', ........ - .„.. ,, -- •,.,, ,...,..-...„. • ... . ,_ . ._...... - _ . _-14 • . gt.v., - ...4.,.-:.4- -. - --F ,, ----- ,, ,---- - - As;.. 3313. 1 .0. ; ,,,. ,41,..0.2,-- , - , ..4 0 it; • TA i-s,.zi,-s-lk,,z.„.t . ..... 4,r• .v •- - .. ., . .,..• CH.41411 - . - -■ --,44- 44. .. * v . ' ■ V') , q 7.75 - - HEN :„7 , -. ..,„ 4. • -' . , . : Cr" 4 • 3 - ''' 2 ' ' ...A". ; -t voq• . - -- - -.LAKE L 7 2 z / 0/9 - 23 , ,--• J T. .t......c......c.,...._4w;4 •••*•,.......___ . ... 4.. . 0 C. _, 2 • C -%:".-2 /f • • , • " : .. / 0 .i 2 . 6 3 J . . . e •/ „, I I,f)0 ftce:P/e: 4-- , • 1 . -- 1 • 1 - "r10 .1 • 4 r ••••• 7,f, $4 , -A. - F 9 '' ' , ,1/4, ) , ...,,,,, i „va ,,,,,,,,... ,.. , ...t w its:',e\N&\"'.';': -, „..'":''' i,: r ! tt 4 ' ''.' 'e , ,.* ;: 0' 4 ff r s 4' ,, '''' i;." ,,4, , 1 KID i , 4 ,... 4 , ..!. , , 461 , 6 - ••• ' ,,,,.. ,,: • , .1t! \ ‘:t tlt:oklirA‘tV,T, I„ ' , 4«.,.' ,' I ,,,,,, r, .',, . ( ?,'.;1.:,,,c',„,, ' '". '. ,i , ..• ' ii-' .,- ..' C'; ' '1 / ..`,,fr. '• 2 -.. . ••• ... Z,F) , 04w •, 0 . 1),, ;Ng IAPAIOnt,‘ ;„ . , \ Ct‘ ', , , , , ;" L' ij . . 1 4 .40''' .4 , ' 0 14 - i : 'fI l 'ii,11 $)11,4 * 'I $411 ■4 : ,‘__ ,., .i,. ., -., ,1,0111. ;;15/47 ,, 6 ■, ''. .' ' ''. s ' ' ''. • '4• , , 1/4%'',•^ ,• 1/4 "' . ' .:::' .....A.,.,...,'". „till t '' i 4,\zi 1/4 1,.,,iti, „!yf •1 60 • ';',, '''',Pi'•'4.: V At , TAr'40MA 4 4 '' (4 IL' ''' 4:1. t Ak41-4 E 'NA '-'-- .\.' ' '' ' 'c" ,.. , A 6 k ,v, Yf/ ,51,' 4',4".t, , ( , ,,, /S . ,. •t .. 1 ' ■ '4 • .,,,, , , ,,, -p i ,,, , \ :,,,,,..-.\ ; , 1 1..6 ' — ' - , .\:. ..,,' " ; At' S\....!'" ,'4:1 :,. - _ 1/C4 \ I e TRAIL . 11) Y- . 4144 '•'• 4l i'''- 1 - ,16 Stot'' 'A1 4 1 i ; % .;.0'.• ' • '' 'F'''' \,., ; '•,',',.V •-4if ?-'i i•F; ;'''' '','' ' ..1 '' i ,: ;',i ,... - " 1 4042 ...... , t , ..;,....;.• 0 „„, .,....: ..,,,,, .. ,, ,, „ 1 „ t . f, , :i ..., , . '';‘• . ,„,.„:,,,,:(,,,,,,,if,, •-" :4 ',•;:".,' .4t.,,,...,.,; -, , „, 1 4.. - rEicoN : • 4-, 4:111111111111141!"11.13"rallilli";1111. - :/,'• , i ' : 7, t 11 • ' A .. .. ,..,....-.. - 0. 1 k '''4 ""' 7 - 0 L 1 G ' . ,. , ciirAktfLAtiE , , f,. ,t - " ,I '*. 4 \''''' ..\\ ' Ir ) '''P'Ale4 • , It • ' ' .414, ii ...4: 't, 4 Ili 1'4' 1, ' "IA , . - Qtg-)kt.'" '4,r,, t''''• `..‘'...1' 'Si r 4i , ••••4 ,, '''kNv.! 't if -- ' 11 , A .4.„,, r . s ,,,- ,,. --,,....,4.,,, itL'isc,4;4• • .1.:„„' NI ' ' '' T ‘I -I PH LAS AN T --. ft, , 1 %.7.,„„', 1 :Y.1/4 ,, . INf l : ,:i'l , „; , -7, .., qt lt,,I.'4 je. , <#100.:44. , ;4 4. 4,6 40; ,,r1 7 , • 4, ;,, „;11,,I .,,, \tv,, . i _ ( 7. --., •,* MAPI 14 ihk 1 '..• li' . U^' • • 1 ' •-•/ f mxet #';.. .0., Nk r!-. ' ‘to ' \ \A!. r ,..,,, ___ * L .‘" ''••,.; 6 6 HILL air •_ I : ,f ---,. . , *s 4: ; 0.:„:1.t.4 ,..:',..,:....44t;: .•, ''',* , ''1,' \,''). .4 - ' ......" c'''',7---,7 ,,..7, ' '. - '.,-...4 - ‘k ',,,,,, - 2D ADDITIV4 \ 444 t, \11 rix , r ..... F A • Wites.N.:' ...4. ...,..,,,..... „i:4..,•;;.-1....:-..? „„,,,,,,,,* ,:,,,' , ,,,,,,*,:!),,,,'.., ... r ' ..". J. 0,-- , , , 4. L r . , .,, . „,-.-,,...., ■;!.. \ i ' '70. : 1 ;.„'• ' h" ' It' ' ■,,,,' i r4,011 s•'4 I ' •:.-7 . , 4. ',,,4P• ::4' '•••:''.':!' ., -,„ \ i 1 .!, .; 4"4**-""r 4A . t 3 :4" 4 0S - ' '"; • r _iin. . , N, `i‘ ' t41 N 0 ' 103031 ..-: ...:,,,,.‘ '... "‘- ' 4-'‘ ' : .- - .,-4.: ' 7..=.,..."A'.'4"1-:: : „‘,;,•-• 4 t , ,,,„: 1 A , , ' ::' , „:• '. ,, ,, ,,..i t ; ,.. , . ' ' , - - "... ?-114* : ; , , ,.=, ''..',;:„:.,.",, ::. ','''''''',,'"': "'" ,....\ii .":„,\\\. , .„,' 4. ,,.. iit 1,•,'‘ • 414 /11V.' iii., ,', t • - ,-.,,,, :.,,, i. ...,., ;0.,, ,,„ . 9 ‘ - fe,i ft, ,,,,, ,-. 4 , m ." 4 „.40 4 . $ ft, ,, ,,,,, , - , '',,..,.,',- -. , .._' ,. -- ,- =•*-14 ,- ..1::: , ,',,' , ,,,,c,.,;,„ ,,, ,.''‘ . i."-, \-)., ..) , • t s „"k- , -.. '::: ..,,,,,- ,..-, - ,‘,..;,,,,- \ , , 1, i i .1 /..10 ' ... . ''' 1G ',... f, ..,,.. - -; i .:E1 7 : 3 ::; ' - 4 a '-‘.`\,\•. gsf ill ' It‹ '('•*, -.s• ,..c -. 1.. 4 ' ,- . - ..: ,: E 4 k' l : \‘':::■,,,,,, ,' : ...?„,.../111/.1 :k ,... o ilyiII,:,„.17* ..,),‘;;;••• ' t .,-; ,,..,-- . 4 . 6..a . .........-- . ,..,„.•-••,....,, ,,,..„ sz,2%••••„ -‘,.• -.. %,"•,, cf .1 , ,i).` ,,„. • 1 " ''' i''',.: , ‘,.:4:.,iii:I;;, 2 rly k ik, • - .• al,... .!' • . W/f4F;; fill. "•-• ", ,,,, i - rwir:., , • , ...:,T, -. 11, I . c‘rre . ,",•"' - ' 6/1"waliK".1 1 PIO "`'',. `ZSKI :NI, .. ' VA\ \ \\ / .1.ft ..,' 10, „. ,,,,li, ..,,, .,„ 1, lot, ' _ ti. I .\-. -J' ' '''' ' ,. 'C /.--- ' L. ' . ,',,,--` 'io•''', lir. - ,I - ' ' ' •\, - ''-' --- '' .:'./,'. ,:,,,, ':'.... ''. l' \‘' '• / ''''''' •••I`fr• • , ' , i4•44r , i'\- 7 -=-'' '' AP ..;# ,,, , ,, !`,4 „,,,,,,6•0 , i 44:100`.. ..,,,' • '4. ' '''- . 1 Mift" t ' ‘'-' \\' '''''. ''': ' ' ..., : : , ':•40'; '':'fiti--; 1 . , •'' „,.'''',,;; • '''' .'" 41 r : , , . t ,r- ', ....0,0 . - Iv :'''''4 :''' iii; ' p ;i .: I ' : - , .4 - ‘, V -•N % 1••■•., : - ;„4, , ..•' 4 • - .'''., 1 . - .ri,Ilv, A''' i:•44-.4',:1. . , 4 `01 4 •' , " , `, 4 ';$ i.....; „,....',.;-; ,„,/,`-‘:,.;,...;...;, _ • , ' , -..,,,-,‘ .•, i,,,_ .., .4 -., -11 , ,.i „ It t,i . ; ,,-7 1.s.:) ,, , , Ikk:-,,. -_,- •,1•4' • ,• 4, ,L2 4 :: ,, ',„, At,;?....', : •,,,, 7; ,,,;,, si .. , , .. ' - ,, ., _ „, ' :' t '.., ••.',.. ta % ,to ic% . --;-- ,,, 44.,,,,!;11 ::.:•-ir '; ," 7, n', 44 ,.'44 ,,.„- - - --- - ,....''et... ; A.,....-' ...,,,,,,,,..4.4".s.'t • '. 4 , z .1 !...,,,,Ir.....,„. , . ...' ,I 1 \ v,) , ,,4. , „...tit• ., :wei, Leo 4 ','1fi' IaAr ., : "7' '',,t ,4 ,41 1 \\ a., ';- '''''' -. . ' . kil ' ''' r fi'T " '. - ." :"' il '°: 1 M '''' li** ''Z' . A tiii.4e14 f'' :41: ' 41 Ar,V.,.' ,3,;.: ,„,., .,,,!(",,,,,k .. 4 0,... 3. , .,0 I • ,,, s ., : sr ,,' '', v, ••• ,r• 17 ,,epi q.,4 i 11 ;6' r..' g f --,i ,-,. ',,,, ii L''''.. ,r--t -,,A$ to), ;,:r '..: iitl,srdAc.' • - ,, -•.V , it.'"6- v • - 4. , •?:4 0 ..._ ••• 4 -4,4.1 - 10"1 v0 4 4 '.1 .11.''' ,''', :A. •-■ ‘ ''‘ ,.. ' , ,- ;:g tt lii . li' '. : s '■ fi t.. . - -'.. i r .. ‘'. t1/4 , V, t: q ',:, .fif•-• A4 4,' /1 ii-: ''''.'4'•;, ,-,•■,,,,' e' g •-'4,,I 0" - ; ..4 9.• ). \ ! ,,,.t.. A , ,;,.,% ., N, t . , 4 14 ,,,,,,,,„.., -,:. -., 0 ; 1;1,i., ,n„, ,,,,,,, ,,„:"■,,,,,,.„,, ,,, „4,, , ,,„...,,, 4 : 41‘,4 , 1 *•••:, kfat:,,,, b ,‘% 1$•'-‘,,',„,,. ,4,:',•°,1•;, f„,'2,19„ '.,+r,ii 1 -,.. . ir ., R ,‘ 0 ifL • '%', ' .' . ."..f z. , ' , ■ :. ''." !'" ';'' , .. ' , ' tn ' . 4,74 41 !',* „ctirfo 0,..,.'i:`,',,,Itt.'4'4tir.,:",t'igi,,t4'''..,-)4',4e,',1'?.*tta'rli'4'lrif 'r!'ck :i !.., • !: ,i- 1 •••,,,f.koglod, 'to. ,it'1 ...:--',.:,.. 4 't" oik+7 k, i I k' • Z ,", \,■• : 1 lh, ' ' •• i - ,, - f. ;•'.:,' .,`,,, % 5' : .4" ''':'-; •,,, ' " let;',. . ip' . . , :,, : ' -,,l '''''t 4.1 °., & , , ' „ ' ' -,..t4"*.i. r i ril ..; : 4:fi ii4;,:*,:t... -!,;,.<'..„ •ti '' i "' ' %,,,•,,,,,, " Ar ' ;,,..: * ' _ lc. eil,„ , -•,, , :lip -.....- ''' g- '1 'r,k 4...,:,,'N .4ftpr : 44i ,t, ,r..si,;, )4 ,,.'!, ,,i; . q4;1• 74 -." . ''..- ,,•., 44,„ ..." ,-2,j.:- `•4' ..- •- • '' s't. i'X•'',.. ,- S',„**is".; - ., 10- 44,:_giC 7.444 441t , s's '''''' * r"" ' , . : :It „A r,;;L:J, I 4 i ' ' ...? 4146„ it. i , ' \ 4 ‘ 4". '' " w' ' s ''"Vo. ,,,,•,' . a 4. - ,1r, %,..<:=. - 1141: S. t.•- "'"'' . 74, ""-------,.. - .5,- -- .F..,„--\ ! 1.0.- e .I ‘ al t ...,,,lr,i,' ) k t I Z . ;:j . . , ::' '' A • , ;:: • ,, "• .. ,,,, 33 - voi . it /7: '''-*/ "ii, ' *141 /44°- ' ''. - 4E $14 ' 7 "': . '"'A.:';` .'`` --^" • -'-ig- - _ .., - .1 ..,.. ,•, ,, :,',, -,:-.-'17,:.:,,,, et )..,, 4 fAia) ' • 1. ,,'. '.ft' ' 4, ,,,„, ..) i . 0 .alft l , *-migy .,,-,:,„ ' ,,, ,.,. . - 4•1 ,..,40,:i .,..*,,•- .. %;,..4 - :! ---',S !,,,,,, • - • -•i - i *,.. *w. LT • ki..* i . M s ' ' :4•4' ik . r 4 P 1,,s(v,,, - 4 , ,,:,.1%; .!,,,; ,-,!. , ,, L 7', iti 440 l i-4 , 1 k -, ...,,,„. 4. , -:, 4 ". .,.:,;,:":".•• ‘ * C.r.' 1 1 1 ( A. A44 4 +IN ‘',,t , • \.1 - Z.4: ' 4 4: ci t: ..,.,..,' N. e, ..' , J, Ise:- . 1; 14;; 1 .---;. ! . ....„.; 4, 1,, ,, .*".4Z1*$,I. , ..;;;; -'',.., ' .;; . 4 '. : .. 4, , ,k .i. ''''' . ' . Plc ,..) ■ ., 4 , f k i.' .*". A ''''' '''1 4* . :''''' ' e N - '..gtily4 ; 1 L i:441° ' ,„..te,,,_ ' ''' ,ikt= gi t, • =— „..00. , ‘.' , ' ."!",- N., . • , ., . . , ,i , , ;.,,, i • . '',, , ‘„ ii -... :"-es - ,,,,,o,1, , . - , _ . n, , -,- ..- - „It*. --„,,... 1-5,... ••;,.._, . ! ...,., t,.-4..., i p , ..., " ' "lill' 4 0,i,. ItlY l /4" .r:'. K 8 /,; R. 6 : -.4: ' ' '''fr' ''. . -i. ? ":''..i' 47 "-', 4 ,;', ''`N,,.\ ' I. , :" - STOAT ON „ ,,, , ,,, . .,, -0 ,,,, .„,,•;.,:: , , ,, :.,;- • ,.., ,pv.:.•% . ,..,.. ,,, r t os t4 „ li )it.' 41, ..7 0 . WI ok.' • '? 4:4.4 .1' ' 4 .<,.. ” if ' , 1 4 ' ' ,i, .,,, OH ,t , ,o ' ,06:1 040,0,: gaii ,, ''i: . ';: t ro7" '' ' ii 4t, 7 ,,I, A , i, , , ; - ;11,10 4 +.„.,,,,,fro., "•°'' . ;;;: k. „ - : ,,,,, , ,k4s. .?0 , " ' '.■ ' *' ' '`. . ' . \ i er . 10; ... .' ,1 4` , 44 ff:do; • ,„/ 1'9' ,,, -'' *.i T h : 14"/-d V.. . (4''''''' .. ' '4141'.. 7 . ' ''''"V''''.4.FIT:'' ' :'**. 44r ' ' `, rilkiiii$VIl ' '''";),-- . 4 . ' '''' ,....-- ,''' . ''...4 P'• t'Irv, , # .0k. , .1; ..,,......',,.., 4 1 ' '4' ii' a i . 7-- ' 4i- .f . . .....2-(2- lotto:4 A , . , e , E, ' ,.;,) i4,,,, • - . e, , I; i e.. 1 '4 or0q.;: ,(. .,—;, ,4;''. '; A., .. „, , 4,-, . •:, . ' i.,, 3'.‘ ,,,,,, -;:i.: : ''',:" 4,' „ „ g t . : ' -40104 j* •-,, ..F'‘. .1e, i.,,.. r-ei, io i tc %f. ,-: ----d- :4. :.' , ,..?\: t*,.‘ 4 : k <: 1 ' \ - 4 . 1 °I1 ., . ., • , 1 r- -'1 ' • .1 4 i'i. . p,..1 ••,.. -. ,,,,,e,-,;', ..),..1, -*'..,. 0. ' ',m , ,. 14 4 i k ,,;:',:.2 :. 4i,, ' 12100 7 AI 4" , \ / ' ' ' ).":' ' '',t ■:'1 1 S.' ' 11' '' .9..,: I ' .. `. ......... '.''' ''' '1 . 4r e )% ** '' ' ' ' :1 1;24%4 ,...__. , .'" 't';' **; V ' ; ' ,' • 1 le ' , 1,,,. ,;.;;,,L' t •-• 1 .:,,4,t4;.t.: 4,1 ". . AP; / •'. ,„. ...„. ...,,, -• ,..,,,,4 ' y . ' ,1 r.' f'ii10 ? - Iti,i,, pv,..„..,:. ., ,„„...,-,,,„. .,,,,,,,,,,, ••,10 1 1 r • r 1,...1', in -, 64 . ,;;;.:7 ., !..". jp, +,:ii v, , or , ,. r . .1Liiii. ///- Z ' ilk,' ' ,r z 1 :- ''.• '-' " •V't 41. 4. 1 ; t :' gt '..,.. / N .‘ , ..*40."'_..-..00 : ,,' '' - 6 4 Y ,.,, ,t1L-iti7444.., . . /' 1 ,:, ''-'', ••, 'iv.',i'tf ' ,°t 'P'k.i•I'„, i t . ,.._ ..,..rfao , i " ', tit : .1 ,,, . ••: Alo ? ,,,„ • „ Ii , 4,..P4,,, , e ' 4 ,,,., 1 ',IP, '1 . , ;:' • '. - ',,: ,- .. I , ; . :'• -- ,.., ' ; • .',. ..., 4... ,... 5,"• ;,, , ... 1.4:i. . . ..,.....„ , No , , 4 ,4 -i•-■• ...,,........ -4., ^ A re.- . ‘,....„... ,. 4") °' '\ 1 ,,, C .1 4 I, zeitgjiiri • i , ,,....". „ '', ' , - 4 ,'':' 1, ,., ‘ At , • \ ''",, • 404 16., 3 "10 %, :.' , ' -xl! .. - ,,, r l '''' , \t-- s --' - ...., 4. 'I Ns 44".1"' - - 4 I 4 - ' , ,,:1,,,,, — "\ , ,, 4"... jj„ r I i, :41101/4*..‘ , 0 is__, _ ....1 , ,, c . - , , A ,,,, • ,.. r•,,,,, ...' '- ' ' 7 .....,4 4 - f„<", , 1 4. 3 ,014, 4 .. . ,,,, , „.:,,,,..,,, . ,,010.. i,, -, " NO . * 1 % ' "'lly ....,. - r - A . : '''*'-: ' • • 33 35 !•,"' --' IA '1 • rn ''?4,111P--, 1: f V , c HARING. • ' ' \ ' tf) ' I . _ , „ ...,, :-... .1%- ,.... /, /P ■ S. , . •..,..,%i, 4.9_ fr) , „ • 44, .r . . , .- ---1 . , 2-,,, = .o.9.2.3 i 31 , 1 ,6,,,. • _ - ...LAKE -- - LUCY- — /0.7..4" , „ .00 so nom im . mil E . nu NE / /1 £ 11111?“1 ME 1.11 EMI MEI M 1.11 IMO MI MI INN