The URL can be used to link to this page

6. Special Assessment Rolls CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council ' FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager ' DATE: September 24, 1990 SUBJ: Review Assessment Rolls and Updates if Required for: a. Downtown Redevelopment Project, Phase II b. North Side Parking Lot 1 The City Council acted to adopt the assessment roll for the above noted projects with the condition that staff would meet with the property owners and resolve differences. A meeting/correspondence 1 has occurred with the three property owners (Retail West, Riviera and the Dinner Theatre) . Staff will not say that the owners are happy, but we do not anticipate further appeals by any of the owners. No additional action is required.da 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 CITYOF 444 ,_ ....- cnAsnAssEN ,.,,..t,... 177. ..., „; .. ,.,, i ‘,.. , ,„ ¢..i 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 II(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 September 20, 1990 II Mr. M. Clement D. Springer, President II Weis Asset Management, Incorporated II 3601 Minnesota Drive, Suite 110 Minneapolis, MN 55435 Re: Special Assessments Against Parcel No. 25-1720010 II Dear Mr. Springer: This letter is to confirm our conversation of September 20, 1990 I regarding the pending assessments against the Chanhassen Retail LTD Partnership (PID No. 25-1720010) . As we discussed, based on the Housing and Redevelopment special assessment reduction program, II development still qualifies for $23 , 800 worth of additional assistance. Thus, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority will be assuming the special assessments for the parking lot improvements II estimated to be $23 , 800 . However, the partnership would then be responsible for the storm sewer assessment estimated to be $3 , 238. 00. I If you have any questions regarding the above proposal or if I have stated anything contrary to our discussion, please call me. If not, I will assume we are in agreement with the proposed assessment I roll . Sincerely, / I •-_7' \ 4/ i L t, \ L I ..____ / -Dodd Gerhart Assistant City Manager I TG:k I II .1-140. s44 Wo "0- TilinT PLANNI TRANSPORTATIONG N ENGINEERING URBAN DESIGN BM.INC. • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA 55415 • PHONE: 612/370-0700 FAX. 612/370-1378 I II September 19, 1990 I Mr. Gary Warren, PE City Engineer City of Chanhassen I 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 IRE: FINAL ASSESSMENTS CP 86-11B FRONTIER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (Bloomberg Companies) -' Dear Mr. Warren: At the September 10, 1990, City Council Meeting the assessment roll for the above referenced project was presented and adopted by the City Council . One objection was received from the Bloomberg Companies. IAlthough the written objection which was filed with the City stated a number of objections, the main concerns of Mr. Johnson, the Bloomberg representative, (as `' relayed to me) where the project costs and the distribution of the assessments. Enclosed is a copy of my letter addressed to Mr. Johnson, which identified and outlined the project costs and a split of the assessments between the parcels. At this time, I have no other information as to the concerns of the Bloomberg Companies. I informed them that if they have additional concerns or they would like to request further consideration, they should contact the City staff as soon as possible. _, We recommend that the assessment roll remain as adopted by the City Council on 4 September 10, 1990. When final certification is forwarded to Carver County the assessment to the Bloomberg Companies should be split as follows, unless we hear from them otherwise prior to certification: s s_ '- PARCEL 25-0130700 $ 37,811.25 PARCEL 25-0130500 94,560.68 s` TOTAL $ 132,371.93 AN AFFILIATE OF THE SENNETT.RINGROSE.WOLSFELD.JARVIS.INC.GROUP DAVID J BENNETT DONALD W.RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELD PETER E.JARVIS THOMAS F CARROLL CRAIG A.AMUNDSEN DONALD E.HUNT MARK G.SWENSON JOHN B-McNAMARA RICHARD 0 PILGRIM DALE N BECKMANN DENN!S J SUTLIFF JEFFREY L BENSON RALPH C.BLUM DAVID L GRAHAM GARY J.ERICKSON iMINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX TUCSON ST.PETERSBURG SAN DIEGO Mr. Gary Warren, PE September 19, 1990 Page 2 i If we can offer further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, BRW, INC. , Ca0s Gary A. Ehret, PE Project Manager , GAE/jal Enclosures I cc: (r. Don Ashworth, City of Chanhassen File 7-8703 1 1 I EW PLANNINN TRANSPORTATION . ENGINEERING URBAN DESIGN BRIM INC. • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55415 • PHONE: 612/370-0700 FAX: 612/370-1378 IISeptember 19, 1990 IIMr. Clayton Johnson Bloomberg Companies 11 545 West 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 IRE: FINAL ASSESSMENTS CP 86-11B •a. Dear Mr. Johnson: On Monday, September 10, 1990, the Chanhassen City Council met to consider assessments for the above referenced project. You raised some concerns regarding the assessments and their distribution to your property. _ The roll as presented to the City Council and adopted at their September 10, 1990, meeting had a total amount to be assessed of $132,371.93 to your property. The roll did not reflect a split between parcels 25-0130400, 25-0130500, and 25- 0130700. Upon final certification to Carver County on October 10, 1990, a split t of the assessments will be necessary. 1. The amount to be •assessed to your property for this project reflects assessment for three project costs. They are: _ 1) Storm Sewer - $ 7,466.44 -_ 2) Parking Lot Lighting - $26,946.89 3) Parking Lot Reconstruction - $97,958.60 TOTAL - $132,371.93 I:: The assessable amount includes all costs of construction as well as administrative and overhead costs. We have split the costs as outlined below between parcel numbers 25-0130500 and 25-0130700 based upon our estimate of actual cost incurred in each area. • III AN AFFILIATE OF THE BENNETT.RINGROSE.WOLSFELD,JARVIS.INC.,GROUP F111 DAVID J.SENNETT DONALD W RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELD PETER E.JAWVIS THOMAS E CARROLL CRAIG A.AMUNDSEN DONALD E.HUNT MARK G.SWENSON V JOHN B.MCNAMARA RICHARD D.PILGRIM DALE N.BECKMANN DENNIS J.SUTLIFF JEFFREY L.BENSON RALPH C.BLUM DAVID L.GRAHAM GARY J.ERICKSON r MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX TUCSON ST.PETERSBURG SAN DIEGO I Mr. Clayton Johnson - September 19, 1990 Page 2 25-0130500 PARCEL 25-0130700 PARCEL TOTAL ' 1) Storm Sewer $ 5,216.44 $ 2,250.00 $ 7,466.44 2) Parking Lot Lighting $20,966.89 $ 5,980.00 $26,946.89 3) Parking Lot Reconstruction $68,377.35 $29,581.25 $97,958.60 TOTALS $94,560.68 $37,811.25 $132,371.93 1 This is an estimated split based upon our field records and the actual project costs. It is not a split based upon area, front footage or an arbitrary guess. If this split presents difficulty to the Bloomberg Company's for some reason, and you would like us to review the split with you further, please notify the City prior to the October 10, 1990, certification date. 1 This letter will be forwarded to the City for their information and a summary presented to the City Council September 24, 1990. 1 Please inform City Staff of any additional concerns you may have as soon as possible. ' Sincerely, BRW C. Gary A. ret, PE Project Manager k_ GAE/lml Enclosures cc: Att.-E; Ashworth, City of Chanhassen Mr. Gary Warren, City of Chanhassen File 7-8703 1 I 1 �i CITYOF CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Gary Warren , City Engineer DATE: September 19, 1990 SUBJ: Adopt Final Assessment Roll for Lake Drive from Trunk 1 Highway 101 to CSAH 17; Improvement Project No. 88-22A ' On September 17 , 1990 , staff reviewed the assessment appeals presented for the Lake Drive Improvement Project No. 88-22A. Appeals to the assessment roll were received from various 1 parties . The appeals as requested were reviewed by staff and BRW as a part of the adjourned hearing. The attached September 19 , 1990 letter from BRW addresses the assessment methodology adjustments which seem appropriate at this time . The specific ' appeals and their recommended disposition are as follows: Parcel No. 25-1890050 Alscor Investors Joint Venture No. 2 (Opus ) 1 - Staff has reviewed the comments offered by Mr. Robert Worthington of Opus Corporation in his September 7, 1990 correspondence and have concluded that the assessments as 1 calculated are correct. To make any adjustments to this assessment would jeopardize the integrity of the assessment roll and therefore we are recommending no adjustment be made to the assessments for this parcel . It is my belief that the land 1 transaction contemplated for this parcel will resolve the assessment concern and I do not anticipate any further appeal by Opus Corporation. ' Parcel No. 25-0136200 Lutheran Church of the Living Christ - The $108,378 .53 assessment referenced in Mr. Haak' s letter includes two parcels which will exist when replatted. The proposed Outlot 1 A parcel which has an assessment value of $50 ,308. 86 is scheduled for acquisition by the City as noted in the City Manager 's comment to this report. If the Church would execute a purchase 1 agreement for this parcel as indicated in the feasibility study discussions, the net cost to the Church for the remaining • assessments on the proposed Lot 2 , Block 1 would equate to the $20,000 to $40 ,000 assessment range which Mr. Haak had indicated as acceptable in his letter. I find that the assessment 1 .' Don Ashworth September 19, 1990 Page 2 ' methodology used for calculating the assessment roll is consistent with City policy in this matter. ' Parcel No. 25-0134500 M. J. Ward - Staff met with representatives of the M. J. Ward property on September 18 , 1990 . As noted in the attached letter from BRW, this office has directed that a uniform assessment be utilized for the street assessment portion ' of the project. This is consistent with the feasibiltiy study philosophy, namely that the abutting property owners would pay the equivalent share of a 36-foot wide commercial roadway and not ' be burdened for any trunk highway improvements which were necessary on Market Boulevard. This approach seemed to address the concerns of the representatives from the M. J. Ward property and results in approximately a $51,000 reduction in the ' assessment for this parcel . The assessment total as noted in the attached revised assessment roll is therefore recommended to be adopted for this parcel . While this may not address all of the ' owner 's concerns, I believe it is sufficient such that no further objection is anticipated. ' Parcel No. 25-5650080 Jerome Carlson - Staff has reviewed this appeal and finds that to make any adjustment to the assessment roll would jeopardize the integrity of the roll and be arbitrary in nature since the costs incurred by the developer as a part of ' his previous site development would be inappropriate if incorporated into the costs of this project. We therefore concluded that the assessment as calculated for the parcel shall stand as presented in the preliminary assessment roll . This matter has been reviewed by the City Manager with the property owners and it is my understanding that no further appeal will be ' pursued by them. Parcel Nos . 25-1500060 , 25-1500080 and 25-1500090 B. C. Burdick - As noted by Mr. Burdick at the assessment hearing , this office ' reviewed the proposed assessments with him at an earlier date and verified for him that the assessments were appropriate for these parcels in light of no other storm sewer assessments being ' proposed for these parcels from either the downtown improvement project or the West 78th Street detachment project. As to the value of the assessment, this equates to approximately $.07 per square foot which is reasonable as compared to $ .11 to $.18 per square foot in other comparable assessments . It is therefore recommended that the assessments for these parcels be adopted as proposed. Parcel No. 25-1500070 Douglas Hansen - Although Mr. Hansen did not propose a formal appeal to the assessment, he did raise a question concerning the reasonableness of the storm sewer assessment. Similar to the Burdick parcels mentioned above, the Don Ashworth September 19 , 1990 Page 3 benefit for accommodating his storm water runoff in the system is ' sustainable and no adjustment to the methodology is therefore warranted. This has been reviewed with Mr. Hansen and it is my understanding that he will not be further appealing this matter . Adoption of the assessment as originally proposed is recommended. In conclusion, staff has responded to the appeals as noted above ' and the only adjustment to the assessment methodology which is recommended is to address the concern expressed by the M. J. Ward representatives for a consistent street assessment policy on ' Market Boulevard. In addition, there is a slight adjustment to the assessment footage for the Rosemount parcel which has resulted from this investigation which also impacts, to a small extent, the unit used for the watermain assessment. As noted in ' the BRW report attached herein, these methodology changes have been incorporated and the roll has been totally recalculated to reflect these changes . ' It is therefore recommended that the City Council close the assessment hearing and adopt the revised final assessment roll 1 dated September 19, 1990 attached to this staff report and authorize certification to the County. Further, in accordance with governing statutes, staff shall be directed to notify those parcels whose assessments have changed of the final adopted assessment. ktm ' Attachments: 1. Letter from BRW dated September 19 , 1990. 2 . Final revised assessment roll dated September ' 24 , 1990 . 3. Letters of appeal . c: Gary Ehret, BRW City Manager ' s Comment ' As noted at our last meeting, the primary delay in resolving this matter has been the platting process for the new property ownership ' for Roberts Automatic. Without question, both the church and Roberts benefitted from the modification and, accordingly, the delay was worthwhile. Similarly, there has been no change in the city position regarding the portion of the church property proposed ' to be purchased as a part of the project itself. This acquisition significantly reduces the special assessment amount back to the church while not hindering their future expansion plans. The only ' question remaining is one of acquisition price for the property. .1 However, previous discussions between staff and representatives of the church have been amicable and the amount discussed was similar ' to other land acquisitions in the area. This amount appeared to be acceptable to those representatives with whom we had met and would establish a net assessment amount within the overall cost factor ' presented in Mr. Haak's letter. Adoption of the assessment roll as presented is recommended with staff being instructed to finalize the acquisition with the church in accordance with the guidelines originally set by the Council as a part of the initial project hearings. tt__ iJPL 1 I . :; s ,?-r-: ss•F'`V'4,5 PLANNING 'ars. ;,_ - TRANSPORTATION Gi< , ^Y fir` r:. . ,; ,- c ENGINEERING I URBAN DESIGN BRW INC THRESHER SQUARE 700 1 HIRD STREET SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55415 °^ONE 6112 370-0700 FAX 612 370-1378 1 September 19, 1990 - , II IICity of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 IIATTN: Mr. Gary Warren, PE City Engineer IRE: TH 101 Realignment/Lake Drive City Project 88-22A 1 Final Assessment Roll (Modified) Dear Mr. Warren: 1 As directed by the City Council at their September 10, 1990, meeting, we have reviewed the assessment methodology, rates, and costs established for the final assessment roll for this project. We have had subsequent meetings with both II staff and some of the property owners to evaluate and respond to concerns which have been raised. II At this time, we are recommending that three adjustments to the assessment methodology be made. They are: II #1. The rate for street assessment will be a uniform rate for both Market Boulevard and Lake Drive. I #2. Additional front footage (167 feet) on the east side of the Rosemount pro- perty (west side of Market Boulevard) has been added to the assessment roll . II #3. The direct cost of the Market Boulevard entry drive to the Rosemount , Facility, which was built under this contract, will be assessed directly to Ithe Rosemount property. 1 . IIAN AFFILIATE OF THE BENNETT.RINGROSE.WOLSFELD.JARVIS.INC GROUP DAVID J.BENNETT DONALD W RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELD PETER E JARVIS THOMAS F.CARROLL CRAIG A AMUNDSEN DONALD E HUNT MARK G SWENSON I JOHN B.McNAMARA RICHARD D.PILGRIM DALE N BECKMANN DENNIS J SUTLIFF JEFFREY L BENSON RALPH C BLUM DAVID L GRAHAM GARY J ERICKSON MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX TUCSON ST.PETERSBURG SAN DIEGO 11 Mr. Gary Warren • September 19, 1990 Page 2 These adjustments to the roll effect the rate of assessment of the following: A. Water Main: Old rate = $30.99/Front Foot. New rate = $30.21/Front Foot. ' B. Street (Market Boulevard only) Old rate = $159.91/Front Foot. New rate = $100.25/Front Foot. C. Streetlighting ' Old rate = $17.57/Front Foot. New rate = $17.19/Front Foot. D. Landscaping Old rate = $14.12/Front Foot. New rate = $13.82/Front Foot. The rates for sanitary sewer and storm drainage are not affected by these ' changes and remain the same. These changes have been presented in part to representatives of the M. J. Ward property. ' In response to concerns raised at the public hearing by Mr. B.C. Burdick and Mr. Doug Hanson, who own property on the north side of TH 5 and are impacted by ' the storm drainage assessment, we offer the information presented in our September 1990 letter and the following: ' A. The assessment rate for storm sewer on this project was $.047/square foot. The storm system, which was constructed under this contract, can be considered a trunk system since most of the adjacent properties have constructed their own internal or private "lateral " systems at their own cost. ' B. The City of Chanhassen does not have an established trunk or lateral assessment rate or policy; therefore, each project and the resultant ' methodology and rates must stand on their own merit. It is our opi- nion that inclusion of the Instant Webb, B.C. Burdick and Doug Hanson properties maintains the integrity of the assessment roll based upon the trunk storm sewer assessment philosophy. I .1 Mr. Gary Warren September 19, 1990 Page 3 C. A rate of $.047/square foot for trunk storm sewer is, in our opinion, reasonable and consistent with rates of assessment in other com- munities for properties of similar zoning and land use. ' We understand that staff is working with the other property owners who raised concerns or objected to the assessment roll at the public hearing September 10, 1990, and that no additional changes to the roll , other than those described above, are proposed. We, therefore, recommend adoption of the revised assessment roll dated September 24, 1990, as included here when the City Council continues the public hearing on September 24, 1990. Sincerely, ' Gary A. Ehret, PE Project Manager GAE/ch Attachment I I I NMI _ ' 1.11.11ATEDIMENTSIIIIIIIERTYMM NM 1.111 IMO ME Me _ TH101 REALIGNMENT / LAKE DRIVE . CHANHASSEN CITY PROJECT 88-22 (REVISED) DATE 9/24/90 - . •SllftsitsssuSSIMSil iiirn isi st rnfriSaLtfiifiitiifseiL62iitile lOtE. .22....=:.a tfc2tssesYSaMO:fiS.s.s.zs33s2t32s Seee sIISSrs:x.:.e O:ea.s fs eeza ie 3isS23 2.2e 2ese:sz:a.eeeass:ae=:sc.sssss:.z:xeetr..a.1.2.2..2see Lis es sirs=2iiiss SANITARY SEWER MATERMAIN „ STORM DRAINAGE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS : : ,, -------- - -- - ::-- - ;: ;: TOTAL : PIN : : ';---- --- ----- OWNER/DESCRIPTION : LEGAL DESCRIPTION :: : LATERAL :SERVICE;; LATERAL :SERVICE:: , NUMBER : ADDRESS „ „ AMOUNT AMOUNT „ ASSESSMENT , : : AMOUNT :AMOUNT : : AMOUNT :AMOUNT :, „ PI : 25-1890010 :ROSEMOUNT. INC. :CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS:; :71584.11 0.00 :: : 62081.55 : 0.00 :; 82319.20 ;: 269739.30 :: $617,464.73 :ATTN: CONTROLLER :PARK. 2ND ADDITION 1' : 112001 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE :LOT 1, BLOCK 1 : 16041.51 69649.06 ; : :EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 : „ al 46000.00 ,II ■ : 25-2710010 :COUNTY 17 CHANHASSEN :CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS;: . : 7981.50 ; 0.00 ;: 6646.10 : 0.00 :: 7966.37 :: 73111.82 ;; $95,705.90 :200 WEST HWY 13 :PARK, 2ND ADDITION „ 44 " : :BURNSVILLE, MN 55337 :LOT 1, BLOCK 2 " : :(REPLATTED AS EMPAK „ " .. : :ADDITION. LOT 1. BLOCK 11:: •. •: 11 14 : 25-2710010 :COUNTY 17 CHANHASSEN :CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS:: 7856.79 : 0.00 ;, : 14470.59 : 0.00 :, : 12868.76 :, 62873.54 ;, $98.069.68 . :200 WEST HWY 13 :PARK, 2ND ADDITION ': I ,• 11 „ : :BURNSVILLE, MN 55337 :LOT 2. BLOCK 2 " :(REPLATTED AS EMPAK „ „ . : :: ADDITION, LOT I. BLOCK i).: 44 11 10 11 11 : 25-1890040 :ROBERTS AUTOMATIC :CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS:: : 7108.53 0.00 :: 17400.96 : 0.00 :; 11643.16 :: 75605.76 :: $111,758.41 : :PRODUCTS. INC. :PARK, 2ND ADDITION ,, •• " ! :4451 76TH ST. N. :LOT 3. BLOCK 2 " . :MINNEAPOLIS. MN 1543! :IREPLAITED AS CHAN. LKS. :: . " , : BUS. PARK, 6TH ADD., ,. ,. " 1 LOT 1, BLOCK 1) 14 " " : 25-1890050 :ALSCOR INVESTORS JOINT :CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS:: 0.00 0.00 :: 23412.75 ; 0.00 :: 6127.98 ;: 101726.50 :: $181.484.40 : :VENTURE NO. 2 :PARK. 2ND ADDITION 41 : ., 11 11 " : :4900 BREN ROAD EAST :LOT 1. BLOCK 3 : 4395.31 40821.86 ; :P.O. 801 150 ! •• ' :NINNEAPOLIS. MN 55440 ' : 25-1910030 :CITY OF CHANHASSEN N.R.A. :CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS:: 0.00 : 0.00 :: 0.00 0.00 :: 0.00 :: 113014,86 ;: $113,014.86 It :640 COULTER DRIVE :PARK. 3RD ADDITION , 11 " : :CHANHASSEN. MN 55I17 :OUTLOT B ': " : 25-0136200 :LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE :(REPLATTED AS CHANHASSEN :. 3180.13 : 0.00 :: 7695.00 : 0.00 :: 10417.57 :; 36428.13 :: $57,720.83 , :LIVING CHRIST : LAKES BUSINESS PARK. : ,• " "11 11 :P.O. BOX 340 : 6TH ADDITION. LOT 2. 1: •: •• el :CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 : BLOCK 1) SECT. 13 NOT ., " : : PLATTED AT THIS TIME :: " : 25-0136200 :LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE :(P.EPLATTED AS CHANHASSEN :' 0.00 0.00 :: 0063.00 0.00 :: 1429.86 :: 39378.00 :: $49,870.86 . :LIVING CHRIST : LAKES BUSINESS PARK, :: " . :P.O. BOX 340 : 6TH ADDITION. OUTLOT A) :''I •• •• •• . . CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 , SECT. 13 NOT PLATTED :: •, •• • • AT THIS TIME ,. m p h CO p CO r 1 .oa or N m p H ` M N N N - ` M CO 0 O N n • M w .. w M M M M •r M 11 ... r• 11 H O O O O O O I O O S O O N co o O O O O O O O O O O h 1 0 4 fJ m -. 11 O _ N M DI 4 M AD b G VI 0. co ur O N CO P H N u r4 .p H T Y V o M .... IH+ m r O .. N 1+ t 11 -. h M •■• III II N M II II II 11 I It M 11 G G O O O O O G g, O O G M O O O O O O G O G G O O O 11 O ■ G O O O O O O O O O O O h O II .Or O O O G O O O Co O O O N N O O O O G O Co O O O O II N P N • ... IF NI II M I II 11 N G Cu 0 O O 0 O Cu O O 0 O O U O p O O O 0 O O O O 0 O u O II O O O O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 O G G O O O O 0 O O O 0 II CD II • O O O O O O O O O O O O N It• Is■ 11 II 11 11 1 M M M N II M I H re u a u .n u 11-2 O O O O O 11 J J J J J J N m m m CO CO m r °z zz - z z .... N ... N N N Y N N /+ A N r N N N H H I p fC 1.0 Pt > K = ft L< O Y O )1 O ar O l..L O M J C U C U CC U V C U C J C J [t J C J C J M ¢ O 6 O Q O a O Q O ¢ Q ¢ C. C. N d J �. J d J d J L J d d d d d M �O m m m W m r Z Z i iC N ►i » a[ O De ` O YC O fC C M U U U - U •-• .V-. 4. n f..>•H A r H .r .m cm N'1 .y cm N H St CM d O m 0 0 0 J m d 6 NO4 Q 4 Q M C�1 G O D .-. D •••• r CC CC 02 CC CM M M • M P. por� n _ 6 p H G V,or y_ a ri f~f L W VSO Yf ti :2 Yom'! �- a 1r"1 !>' ✓0 ef H H H H M M ' C ^ yy Ifyyf�. W Q Vf ER h N7 N II'. Nl �~R M P. Z C = OD L 1., W Z y5O 4 O 4C W L_ Nf W IA W i_ la 1[ W L_ ►N W f[W CI CC• i 5 Z {gl O N 6 S Q Q G . O 1 pp. :5 N Cp. 1 7, O V1 . Q N O N ■: Q H Z I.•• i Ewa = .s. .g N N g E w a m 1W[ a g w r. E w .0.. Kai L. 6 1WC w s 1W[ O M P.9t h N O N LO V1 Pm I .q ¢ C. i 6 • ''' rrl 6 ^ w P. 6 Myi-� • N I�.WS1 • JN cd -. ..I J __ J J_- J (yJ,� -- • J��(."'... 1M1 N r0 Q O 0 Q u .O t? OD O E_ 5 8 i' W .O U •a Ca A U u N NW.I u .2 ►Ci W N td u AS NN M O td • t m V W 4 A V i i W A •'. = O .•a L W W NY W m .. W CO NF W m W O i W W N M.•SI • O Om O.O n m O INI C. ra 1.1 NY O .... .. ......�................. ......�... N1 C. N N N M CO N N MI IIIIII MI IIIIII NM MN • N INII • MI NM IIIM IIIII MI MN I e— M .-r�- G _. . Y/. / �) l J -1 . I31 U 1 ICAAp°A .0.,41 ' , .I �f 6 r k L.'•.-. , • --c r.a- tt r---r.O. IG --- �w.PID 25-1500,Q.80 W ?8T1, sT .. I J.1. " ' . )I, ' I `�1- M W T. -s ' i.\\41 .0,ST 8401.4. o R �`B.0 BUR ICK I — Da. t: -. c eJ PID P T AS•IGNED - PoD 2.-150Q090 P P�P�� •1 �.•.• , N I PC ' \ Z° PICNA 0•IVE ., '.... •-• • PC). PID 2.-1500070 P� ,` -�1 'Ill CO (1%. � � ' t m PID ' X100060��` soo LANE Rp1L N ' = y'Q Y ...• • 10°1 poN0 ROAD 1?/S-11 A i' EB `\ ..�—• : ::' �, . ,�•ID 25-56'0080 \ -� v \ER +EVELO' 0� v 2 t— t \ ,` ^��P°:„.....____o \\m PARK �� pR } — .r V• Ir ,(4 f« .::::::•::''#::;•D S,f .Y.T7l .• sS ; t.�✓t.T't : : d7+ i;► lL `. ..«,...•• :��/%l�//trl:• r: •t'•:: ..✓t•:.:..•o..,•.., ,� r - '1 1 4.•pgE' J A i :**:::::::':.:..;fre I:VP:T,...1.*..r1:.._':...k\:*. .::,,.:::00'r••:***:::•::::W.::::::::..:**.0..111:tar.A'.....•:i.:•...:..:..."....•::::"....:..•::..7:.'.'7,'':' ,4 1 1:72 \..__.,-_._...----.. / . ::::::::::•.:.,4,::.::.*"A.:;-..,::..?:*.:777 :1,;;.•:•:'::.•:: ,a;•, �.••1. s •9 S *.� r /• • w TLO'f B « :'�•:4 :440.6 Oro: <....• :: :,. , ( « _ I'• . P • Ti( OF CHANHASS, � �• .u• PID 25-1910,030 :::'.'.•: 0 `:: Ii�l,::,• ' _. ------------ — --- :: :.} ��1 , '•�1 •-....;4{+i+:A: fiIFv.,..,o., y •J. RD ; -�- - --- :..:.�•_-;;;;"..T.::; ':`,'.'. •." / PID 25-01 •00 '' -• 1, CITY O F .,1 • -•. I y • • �i/r ■ � � _, -- �/� CnANHASSE 'CHANMASSEN) _� �- � _ _ � LADE _ � I J Ni1 d to tau.tt•awl•P.O.SOX,t•u,.•tstt,r.,norA t0,) BUS,NE PARK• I SANITARY SEWER ASSESSMENTS LAKE SUSAN ,. ) ,.. ..,,. CITY PROJECT 88-22 `..-`•-. AUGUST 27, 1990 LEGEND • - ' REVISED SEPTEMBER 24, 1990 ASSESSMENT AREA I ,s = I" . . :_// , MN — I MI r MI MN NM • = ! OM MN N I MN I .= NM _f;'L-. G _-�...... r -A 'Q.-X. / .-�� _J -I , I5I v I ICn A *0017 e • C tl*--'—HA. NO.- 46---...__ .. llw 78tH si ..w 1 -'.`- d. j11 [ PID 25-1500,Q,80,. p Ind_ �N: � . ,,,y0 ' • ::, .:b� Bu¢r g,/`C-NTT� , .. PID 2.-1500090 NPµb t• s. P t.:.•.•:::::. \ PpP:' .•u:• PID 2.-1500070, /e -,,,�. �� ;,,r NO ' t ft:.: .... �C LINE RAIL YOAU rr�(; _'�' .—...:E t.:•-:.•:: I ` : PID ''`500060 —.P.;., ROAD x •7i:ti•: •: �,,, ' i ] .. --------1., .•pl`<}:25a$-6.40.:::::.:.::.: ••.•'•'•. \ �� / 3\ER iEVELO• Or D i Tip_________\ .,`•:••• :: •: •:..•. \ ` savn \ PARK '` �>Aof, .. .:::::-:1::•::twgtrAl:".,?::•:OF'..:•,. .'••.‘ 44: . ,t1i4 :11 \_....._,________...) ,. _____,_10,:,...___..4 t- :;: ...::PIt}..2�• •.., •:'• :•.... -— I• :::.• .:*::::::• .:.::•:::::::::••' :.,.;•1:89:004e: . .. . - ;,•t:,• .. .. • \ f�A o// ' •,J,/��• '•� •.':'.'. ..;i5:.:��•ty.:e�:,. Jr.. :� } .. 1• / p(yEA AK / �� /�lG 6��,�, �?!�'j�y n-:i.•:,•` .�3QlI�]Yai V.... _, 3 1 Low ) . L�-',..... . ....., .:.::::::::„.....,:::,:::: :::::::.....„..„, , . ...,..:..: . ,...•. •..... ... ,.:: 1 r.. .1.{iOSEM0•U•N.tl Ya f 1 �� ° Tin. ' '...}. ',use \ •UTLO'f B : `y.ti:Pig 25T�:$90a v! . >. \ ( //•• Tie OF CHANHASS‘ ...4�` .t..... �I �•P{D 25-1910030 .. — q, ;l U. • g i4'j u•I ' • �� ( osenaxr .echo PID 25-01 e: 4. ♦/ P 5; t...... „__________._---- . .,,,,, 4 . „...i- , �r �, �,. I:' ..517 CITY OF �'�`:.: •may. -_ • _,� bor ��■�■i a�■ 1�� - LHANHASSEN `�� _ �_._ _ �. `•\ II I�LA ES BUSINESS- sw COMMA PM•P.O.' .q•ow.•ss.[K..n[wu.nn ` PARK' •[I n1MO[ •� • STORM SEWER ASSESSMENTS yAKE SUSAN b. CITY PROJECT 88-22 AUGUST 27, 1990 LEGEND REVISED SEPTEMBER 24, 1990 .• ASSESSMENT AREA .'I- _ 'L""`"l•r .. i. MN MI NM MI MI 111011 IN NM — MI NM MI MN OM .1.1 IIIIII IIIII IIIIII VIII • /... 4,....x , / `'.... — L______1 -1 . 31 u 11 , • I. ::::::- tip CHACOA ADO : i : . . „, j.1 I ----- - ' G .2:::::.. .' \-. •• • I . . _A• •A • . *.--C37*-7•-•--Hy,r NO. •c .T.Pf:5-15000.80,. ,.....,.. w >sTri ST ,” . •—•--- . • - • ; HwY._ / r Am:;mg,•mAzmt•Am A..• . s - 7 ----N 'Cl' !dtiit.6,- 041 6 \II° : -6' 1414", .6.%°\c•F$1.15c4Ir3,YATL9E1S. --ii . , •:, , -. '1311)12.-150609C ,,:; ......., 4\ 2 ir•"----u ....G.sl...N.Al. \ AIII• s .---.- ' 4-4-•• Ni ,.....•.-::::::•;- \‘‘ ( ,'''''•..,.. ..,,,,.. •02‘ s's.?.•,,c MAMMA 11:111 ..-.. CD , P•cnat• .11.(..v.Ci.l:r.'of CORP lig% t, • PtCHA ORIvE .1 . . . ° • . ...... . . . ,c) PID 2.-1500070 , . _.weetole,„c,•,,,, .t! , .1 -- . \ oo. _ • ,., . ii■-• ,,p., •11, •• •••:•,,,a .‘40 , t „ , • . , , . , „Ns. go- • r 0 g!'.' ...____,... ,I.;...4)" •..., s(:),, . V.4 . . . :•••_!;-24`2Z. ' . , -.. '__yi:34,Q,_ . . PlD • - '-'q5_0_,„owo 0060'\\ .iik•-• 1 s I . ROAD r ---- Ip/STANT 4 EB .,&s.s.- . . __-•-- __-,.,. .,1%4.,■,t, .,/\ ER ' % ,j-,)23 1..• . , Plb 25-5670080 --\_.—1.) a EVELO" ENT If.(2'.:2 - , .._.-- ' - • ''•■ .„..., _...,__,,_ . N , •• N----,___J \9\ . - - -• • • , • 1- L .0-.- "i‘i, • . 1 :GH ----------) 1 . ---):-`7'.°-- ciF t ...E -NLAREA • , ROBERW. 'ALL .....--- \It PROMJC II A •••••..--- 0 .......:,...i........:::.i.iiiii. 171.?•••• --- __.---•• ...0-4 14. '--•-•:-. ----- 'S's 2 •4 PID 2§7:....::::::1::::::.:.•:.., . -i.;,. .. , ft, ., .- \ 2 Et.:DACC■TI : ---------'... . \ ( \ ...........i..„.:..................„._ _ , ;.ili ,..4,,, , .411...1.3....7....7..,;2„.. .,..:.•:,, ,,..t ..,. . . . ( i ... ‘ t.0.".X€A 2 AK ,----- , "41791 7 C i ip i et • \ ,...._....,...--____.--•••''.--' .1 or\-\,' .., 1 7:•,,, ,,,ty / OW .:::.- - •4, •:. .•:..:;41:..;:;;..".:::::::::::::::::::::::.":::::::6(fifitiVA••.:........-'•:.*:::::::::::.::::2::::.:...... •:,....,1:::*:::",:it"° i.::.: 1 •'''..-:•.....:.:-.....,..". .'er.,,,,,.:,___ 4. :'..: t /./ili • 1., .i i : .....:::•::* ': ,.....;-,`:. •:-.... I 4,\v'..-1.;:.-::::: :::'::".•:,:oe' • . . 1 ..`.. • . ....... .:.- '4:•11?.. -:.: ' 011■ t_....... ...,,,,,- :i.:::.--. ...„•.., ,,,'' \\ , , .,....--.-: '4A :•:.: !. :: Cr • . .,, ,• -.4,9-- 4," "• \ 1ROSEMOUNT .•:.:;.! .y.''t: :::.• k i., ---) ./4• -2.4.,•!.-- eae?.T-- . v.- •■■• . :.::.:.. ..:::• 4.ki -.:: • • .. •urLot B \ , ; PID 25-1890010 ... .. . . ... '....• ::.• -4 :.:.. \ ...r.f/ TY OF CHANHASS, . ...s 4- . :,•'`4.ki.>. *::::. ■-/ -.7.7"--41,. - P1025-1910030 , ) e`).‘).\* 1 , . - 97 . \ .....--1 i •:•-: 1, ;: . ,., / t . 1 •e-#/// ...• .... •itd,..„. r il: ; - / r. PROPCGEO •- — „.......2! s., 1..4 kl2,1e. - . . -Arj t• RD . 1- -, — -:---,-- _z . -••• - .,‘,/ / - PID 25-01 \•00 li , / —,9 / 1 ROSVACLINT ALM. , ,/, 4. el ----'4 ..• ..---'-'2■1-....._____------j-7.-, ..4. ....2.___.:UTLOT C k P ' 4' 1 / " I / .--------............. -_,;L:uttun /---. t"-----."2-",---. At, • I - OC) r'',.. li ...f '-' I. v.• ° O..) V, • •11 .‘7(' '----.--- '...`■..,-.- ',,,,, .... .,,.,,,,.,..,, .',,,,,,, .;.,,, % l ,040/.1/:• 21 ---_,, . -CHANHASSEN' ....-...,, - '_ ' .-j--.TT, -...., ."-"_T---..2_..: :-2:-•'••-•-....-, Ai •..,.... • I I .- Atio■ I 1/Or • CHANHASSEN - LAIiES ----__------------ ISUGINESS ... '•. I If \ ,. .., RIO COULTER MY(•P.O.•011 M•CimouptkUltn.cMPIISOTA..... I PARK' . . . • , `-• . 0.111M-11X0 1 , • I . , WATER MAIN ASSESSMENTS t_AKE 1 susA0 . ,f1 ,.. .,,, CITY PROJECT 88-22 i AUGUST 27, 1990 LEGEND REVISED SEPTEMBER 24, 1990 ..., ASSESSMENT AREA .111,111111. - •• ••• • -;". • •1------ :1 (FRONT FOOTAGE) 7/ r = NM • N MN — I — — — — — — — — •— 11111 _.___r�1- —...._ . /•.• !..X. / N. • I -1 U I ' , '7�L;�;. Ep) `—' I G ..:.fit ` [ �1 I V I 1 ICHe00A A0017r'I I1r•:ry .� 0 a� 'L /, .V.PID 25-15009.130.. w 71T ST ,HWY. —''--""r---"°. c —-- a 2 ' a S r� 1(�` IT- tl rxhGn Y St.uMii Q 0\ I X • i cCN 1 wn, -�� o ,,� :.0 BURDICK �r i ' e PID t T AS'IGNED 3 • RD 2 ••150609 GNP P• u.... .4* 00\'c\ ,20 1 I � PICHP ORIVE . - j - oo• ND 2•-1500070,; —ceig N 1 ` . \A ` LAKE RAIL [ :� r tE• `rr�i / m PID • -�1520060 soo t} }` _. �; r(stAgtr r EB �"° '-----'''`f .,\■. , ROAD i 1 3 ` 1, PID 25-56'0080 �, C. �� ER +EVELO• ENT YI. ;O� \ s POND R ir—j—litiko >v 1 . . .: `(_.....;'.\\-----' -�\ \\� PARK r�• [ I- ) . �� . J PaVn >.. _ ` 1 ROBERTo : OF : _ -444: .i■...o f: ! : . � P « .,.� •1.1 \rPRObUCTSI ..�.�yr :j. .-- HiIOGN 1VA;I --i� *` _ >\\ z , -PID 25•`' _i.v;�sK"°�;. �r� `'�"��•...� `r�. - \ f 2tQAOClflo j ,J \\ 'P.,1 89.0A4 i*•.... .. n' :•.. L • I \ Laae �r .\\ :1•. _ •••••••'. .. - I /..�. ••J _' r 'A 1 PREP �.CdRP %:to '.'$ 001 •t� ,`.0 �- — n wai... , i ./7 ) ��y MOUNT ,.1°.. a 1 or B 1% 55 1 PID 25-1890010 • . \\ ( f/ M 1.. :61 ''•:•:.....F CHANHASS . �� ,...,,AA. ..* �-. � � - PID 25-1910030 . a VV...' - f 0J 1 �i r '; „-.: I �y z•. . -. II ,'s: " / I P�� OPOSE�/ gi p ,i _! Ii; - p,TCR , ;- j/P ��D �j '�` x1 [,. „M. . I. R D . �- --------------�---- --- --------- , � PID 25 •01 • .00 •: Q � r I RosEnlouNr-e[.oe.,� / 1 e P _ -'-`>•------ �� n.oT c l P ' I � �/r Y 0 ' , ,t• t.. II :HEUE I /ice/i// ,�� _--- _ e I r 4�. ..f __ • , Poo, `' •------ . ..,.. 1,. -,,, (- ------- ::::,..,,,,, .I .„ z,CITY O F ��'-�_ - -— . • � 1 V • 6 C�■tN��SSEN CHANHASSLAKE��g — ate II /, \ litir i. BUS?NE 55 • ar.co„.Tun My!•P.O.aoa Z.r•owwv rsSn,ua+rtwiP,,,, PARK Mil nr.,[ao ROADWAYS / LIGHTING / LANDSCAPE ,cE SaN . I CITY PROJECT 88-22 1 • AUGUST 27, 1990 LEGEND _ REVISED SEPTEMBER 24, 1990 J'` ate` • ASSESSMENT AREA I (FRONT FOOTAGE) PI OPUS CORPORATION I/ ♦® DESIGNERS•CONTRACTORS•DEVELOPERS BOO Opus Center Mailing Address I 9900 Bren Road East P.O.Box 150 Minnetonka,Minnesota 55343 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55440 (612)936-4444 Fax(612)936-4529 1 September 7, 1990 II Mr. Gary Warren, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Chanhassen I 690 Coulter Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 4 Re: Improvement No. 88-22E,Parcel No. 25-1890050 IIDear Mr. Warren: I Opus Corporation and its development partner, ALSCOR Investors Joint Venture No. 2, would appreciate having the City Council delay its adoption of the final assessment figures for the afore-referenced improvement ' project as applicable to parcel no. 25-1890050 (Outlot A, Chanhassen Lakes '- Business Center) to allow us time to clarify how the proposed total assessment figure of $201,624.22 was calculated for this property. II Since the property in question is the last undeveloped property owned by ALSCOR in this vicinity, the assessed cost of the water, street, and storm sewer of the TH 101 Realignment/Lake Drive project (no. 88-22) has very IIimportant implications for its successful future marketing. One of our major concerns is whether or not the consultant took into consideration that half of the subject parcel is wetland. The City Staff I during its presentation to the Planning Commission on the Rosemount manufacturing facility south of this parcel indicated that because of that wetland condition, Outlot A (parcel no. 25-1890050) is probably I undevelopable. If this is true, then an adjustment should be made to the amount of the total assessment that is assigned to the subject parcel. will be at the Council meeting next Monday evening to personally state II our concern and answer any question you or the Council may have of me as the representative of Opus Corporation and ALSCOR on this matter. Thank you. ISincerely, I CITY OF CHA H SSE Robert A. Worthing i AICP tr.MPilcriP Executive Director • IGovernmental Affairs SEP 1 2 1990 cc: Don Ashworth, City Manager Gary Erbert, BRW ENGINEERING DEPT. III Affiliated Companies:Opus U.S.Corporation,Opus Architects and Engineers,Inc.,Opus North Corporation,Opus South Corporation,Opus Southwest Corporation, Normandale Properties Inc.,Opus Properties Inc. Chicago•Milwaukee•Minneapolis•Tampa•Pensacola•Phoenix•San Diego•Seattle • - The Lutheran Church ;'111 ...ae "� of the Living Christ I � 'I i' I IiI I; I a i �I �,, .. 1:115pM11i11ilillllli111 '=-��al' . . 820 Lake Drive • P.O. Box 340 • Chanhassen,Minnesota 55317 � : I '.Church Office • (612)934-5110 J f1.iIf..', ,_j `�' Norman J. Ruthenbeck,Pastor I Residence • 934-6880 Jill Hartman,DCE Residence • 937-9713 II II September 10, 1990 ' Mayor Don Chmiei City of Chanr.acsen 590 Coulter Drive . IChanhassen, MN 55317 Subject: Special Assessment - City Project 88-22 IParcel # 25-0136200 Dear Mayor Chmiel : IIn December, 1988, The Lutheran Church of the Living Christ here . in Chanhassen received a letter from the City of Chanhassen stating that we, the church, would be assessed approximately $170, 000 . 0:0 I for sewer, water and street improvements. When the new Rosemount facility was built just to the south of our building, we were shocked at the changes that would be made to the area as well as Ithe assessments we would have to bear. After many meetings between BRW, The Lutheran Church of the Living Christ and city staff, it is our feeling that everyone Involved ' was agreeaole to a total asses'ment of between twenty to forty thousand dollars. I The proposed sale of out lot A to the city by the church was discussed as another means to reduce our %Assessment but as of this date, we have not received any type of written offer to act upon . I Needless to say, we were again shocked wnen I received the special assessment notice. I BRW, the city staff, and the members of our church have worked long and hard to come up with a ballpark assessment figure that is agreeable to all of us. Has this work bean al I for naught? 'I certainly hope not. I I Mayor Chmiel Page two September 10, 1990 We do hereby officially and strongly protest the special assessment 88-22 for our parcel # 25-0136200 in the amount of $108, 378.53. ' Very truly yours, ' Robert A. Haak President RAH:mg i 1 1 11 1 II 1 September 10 , 1990 i 1 Mr. Donald Ashworth City Manager CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Street ' Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE TH101 REALIGNMENT - WARD PROPERTY ASSESSMENT 1 Dear Mr. Ashworth: 11 I am writing to contest the proposed assessment for the M.J. Ward property, parcel number 25-0134500, in the total amount of $186 , 975 . This assessment is for watermain lateral of $26 , 031 . 60 and street improvements of $160 , 944 . 00 . This proposed assessment is significantly greater than anticipated from the feasibility report. ' The property is not benefited to the extent of the proposed assessments. Our property is not served any better from the new TH101 than from the existing TH101 . This improvement of TH101 is for the benefit of all who will use the new TH101 , and at this time is exclusively serving the Rosemount facility. The costs associated with this 1 project are greater than of a standard city street due to the design and construction standards required for a state highway. It does not seem appropriate for our property to be 1 assessed in excess of the cost of a standard city street. We also believe that the water lateral assessment is premature. We do not receive the benefit of this improvement at this time. 1 I therefore request that this assessment not be levied on our property until actual benefit can be determined. ' ncerely yours, - 0del � 1 1 ' 1 1 September 10, 1990 Mr. Donald Ashworth City Manager ' CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Street Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 IRE TH101 REALIGNMENT - WARD PROPERTY ASSESSMENT ' Dear Mr. Ashworth: I am writing to contest the proposed assessment for the M.J. Ward property, parcel number 25-0134500 , in the total amount 1 of $186 , 975 . This assessment is for watermain lateral of $26 , 031 . 60 and street improvements of $160 , 944 .00. This proposed assessment is significantly greater than anticipated from the feasibility report. The property is not benefited to the extent of the proposed 1 assessments. Our property is not served any better from the new TH101 than from the existing TH101 . This improvement of TH101 is for the benefit of all who will use the new TH101 , and at this time is exclusively serving the Rosemount facility. The costs associated with this project are greater than- of a standard city street due to the design and construction standards required for a state ' highway. It does not seem appropriate for our property to be assessed in excess of the cost of a standard city street. We also believe that the water lateral assessment is premature. ' We do not receive the benefit of this improvement at this time. ' I therefore request that this assessment not be levied on our property until actual benefit can be determined. Sincere yy.rs fard r`�J 1 September 6, 1990 Mr. Don Ashworth ' City Clerk/Manager City Council CITY OF CHANHASSEN ' 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 ' RE: Objection to Proposed Assessment TH101 Realignment/Lake Drive Project No. 88-22A Parcel I.D. No. 25-5650080 Gentlemen: The undersigned affected property owners of Parcel No. 25-5650080 (being Lot 1, Block 3, Park Two, Carver County, Minnesota) hereby file with you their written objection to the proposed assessment of $17,362.61 against said parcel for the municipal improvement made in conjunction with 101 Realignment/Lake Drive Project No. 88-22k , It appears from an examination of the feasibility study, the construction and the assessment allocation, that this assessment is for storm sewer running from ' the south side of the railroad right-of-way adjacent to and south of our parcel to a settlement pond near Lake Susan, and was constructed to handle storm water from our parcel and the so-called Burdick property north of Highway 5. (The Burdick property being north of Highway 5, south of 78th Street and, generally, west of the east 1/2 of the plat of Burdick Park.) The feasibility study maps for this project were and are in error in that they show an open drainage swale through our parcel which drains the Burdick parcel, and this error was pointed out to the municipal engineer at the time of the feasibility hearing for this project. We pointed out that we were required by the City of Chanhassen, as part of the development of our property, to install 450 feet of 36 inch storm drain pipe through our parcel to drain the Burdick parcel, and we paid the entire cost ($36,450) of that improvement as well as ' gave the City easements therefore. This was explained as really the first phase of an overall drainage project necessary to properly provide drainage for the Burdick parcel and our property to the Lake Susan area. The present project (for which the assessment is being proposed) is really phase two of the overall project necessary to handle the storm water drainage from the two parcels referred to. We believe we are entitled to have the costs of phase one (paid by us) and two (proposed to be assessed at this hearing) combined, and that combined cost allocated over the area served by the combined system, and a credit given to us against the proposed assessment for the costs we already paid. We believe that credit would more than offset any proposed assessment against our parcel. RECEIVED ■ SEP 0 7 1990 ■ CM OF CHANHASSEN •r September 6, 1990 Mr. Don Ashworth • Page Two I As now proposed, we will be paying approximately 59% of the cost of the overall completed system, but we comprise only 28% of the drainage area, while the 72% balance of the served property will be paying only approximately 41% of the cost. This is not equitable. Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.061 et seq. permit the ' City Council to make adjustments and set assessments to make them equitable, and we request that the Council calculate and allocate the assessments as we suggest herein. ' According to the proposed assessment, we would pay a vastly disproportionate share of the overall project (approximately three times the cost on a served acreage basis as the other land served by the project). We are being improperly assessed in that the cost of the overall project has not properly been calculated in deter- mining our proportionate share of its cost. Yours ruly, J me Carls Fr Beddor, Jr.4k1a01.01 Mar 1 dddor / Fr- • •-ddor, III •-■111111r• dE::::: :2P-4/4-- n B-ddor ' avi Beddor 0-‘2Z:44L) Michelle Beddor cc/Daryl Fortier Lawrence B. Carlson I r I