The URL can be used to link to this page

4. Adoption of Lake Lucy Road Assessment Roll 4. I I CITYOF �r 1 " y 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM IITO: Don Ashworth, City Manager IIFROM: Gary Warren , City Enginee DATE: July 7, 1988 ' SUBJ: Adoption of Lake Lucy Road Final Assessment Roll File No. 85-19 I The public hearing for the Lake Lucy Road Assessment Hearing was held June 27, 1988 ( see minutes portion of packet for hearing minutes) . There were seven letters of objection received by the I Council at this public hearing. Staff has done field reviews of the concerns raised by the objecting parties. The attached staff memorandum addresses some of the concerns based on recent site reviews. In addition to these comments , I offer the following Ipoints of verification: 1. Reinhold Guthmiller - June 22 , 1988 Letter - See attached IJune 23 , 1988 City response letter. 2 . Larry and Kathy Kerber - June 26 , 1988 Letter - The attached I April 21 , 1986 City Council meeting minutes shed some light on the history of the 400 feet "tarred" roadway in front of the Kerber property. As stated therein , it appears that this road actually over the years was tarred and dust coated and I patched a number of times to the point where it actually took on the appearance of a paved surface. There still was con- siderable question as to the integrity of this roadway I including its base and some sections of the blacktop which had apparently started to warp since it was approximately 10 years old. The property apparently also received a modest I $600 per unit assessment which seems very reasonable for 10 years of use of the blacktop surface. It was therefore concluded that for all practical purposes the useful life of the roadway had been expended and the abutting properties had Ireceived full value for their assessment. 3 . James and Doris Mielke - June 24, 1988 Letter - The attached I staff memorandum addresses many of the issues in the Mielke letter. I personally have been involved in discussions with the Mielke' s to establish the curb cut on the west side of IIthe property to prevent drainage from entering and washing I ._ .,..r: ,.v:anti,4-sis:410 aiNs i.X . _t=va..... rageA Don Ashworth July 7 , 1988 I Page 2 out the Mielke driveway. I am frustrated to see that this curb cut has been filled in. Without the curb cut , I am not surprised to see that they are continuing to have drainage washout problems. Opening up of the cut will trap the majority of runoff before it hits the driveway. Concerning the western visibility for this driveway, a hidden I driveway sign has been installed as a part of the project to caution drivers in this area. The City has done fill and grading on the Mielke property to the tune of over $2,200. Likewise, additional gravel had been placed in the driveway area to provide a more gradual slope. This driveway was located in a tough visibility and access location even before Lake Lucy Road improvements . With the widening of the road the side slope could not be cut back any further without doing severe damage to the large stand of trees on the west side of the Mielke property. Additional gravel could be placed in the driveway section to provide a landing zone if directed by the Council which would assist in winter access to the roadway. 4. James and Jeanne Kraker - June 23 , 1988 Letter - Concerning the notice on the feasibility study, City records show that Mr. Merrill Steller was the owner of the property at the time of the feasibility study approval in May, 1986 , not May , 1987. Mr. Steller was properly notified at that time. The property was sold to the Krakers on November 1 , 1986 . Concerning the request to pay off the smaller assessment in item 4 of his letter , the actual final assessment roll com- bines these two assessments into one assessment. The preli- minary roll was split strictly to show how the individual assessments were calculated for Steller Court and Lake Lucy Road, respectively. The final roll , as noted on page 5 , shows one total assessment for the property, which will appear on his taxes if not paid within the 30 day grace period. 5 . Don Mezzenga (The Greenery) - June 27, 1988 Letter - Again, ' see staff report from Allan Larson for comment. Mr. Mezzenga ' s concerns are primarily that of deferred assessment which are addressed in the City Manager ' s memorandum on this topic. 6. Warren Phillips - June 27 , 1988 Letter - See staff memorandum from Allan Larson and July 7, 1988 memo from McCombs Frank Roos. I will personally see to it that Public Works follows up to address the concerns as noted in Allan Larson 's com- ments. Concerning other items brought up by Mr. Phillips at the public hearing , I am pursuing the addition of a light on the west end of Lake Lucy Road at County Road 117 and will be talking with the County concerning Mr. Phillips' other request for directional signs to be re-established on County Road 117 indicating the Lake Lucy Road intersection. 1 Don Ashworth July 7 , 1988 Page 3 7. Elizabeth Glaccum - June 27 , 1988 Letter - I have attached a preliminary assessment amortization schedule for the ' Council' s benefit to evaluate the financial impact specifi- cally to this property. This information was provided to Ms. Glaccum as requested the day of the public hearing. Again, the City Manager ' s memo concerning deferrment of assessments is pertinent to her concerns . Attached is a copy of a May 6 , 1985 complaint letter for old Lake ' Lucy Road. My review of the letters of objections lead me to conclude that ' no further adjustments to the assessment amounts are warranted. The City Manager has addressed the assessment deferral issue. I therefore would recommend that the attached final assessment roll ' for the Lake Lucy Road project dated July 11 , 1988 should be adopted and certified to the County for payment of taxes starting in 1989. Attachments ' 1. City Manager ' s memorandum dated July 11 , 1988 on assessment deferrals. 2. Allan Larson ' s memo dated July 6 , 1988. ' 3 . Guthmiller letter dated June 22 , 1988 . 4 . Guthmiller response dated June 23 , 1988. 5 . Kerber letter dated June 26 , 1988. 6. April 21 , 1986 Council minutes. 7 . Mielke letter dated June 24, 1988 . 8. Kraker letter dated June 23 , 1988 with 2 attachments . 9. Mezzenga (The Greenery) letter dated June 27 , 1988 . ' 10 . Phillips letter dated June 27, 1988. 11. McCombs Frank Roos memo dated July 7 , 1988 . 12 . Glaccum letter dated June 27, 1988. 13 . Assessment amortization schedule. 14 . Old Lake Lucy Road complaint letter dated May 6 , 1985 15 . Final Lake Lucy Road Assessment Roll date July 11 , 1988. CITY OF 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council 1 FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager DATE: July 11, 1988 SUBJ: Deferment Questions 1 Note: Recognizing the time delay in seeking written opinions, the following was read to both the City Attorney and City Auditor. Their respective recommendation to the questions posed are show below. Facts Lake Lucy Road was bonded and constructed in 1987. It was pro- posed to be approximately 20% assessed and 80% paid via state aid. The assessable bond payments were set in the: feasibility study, hearing ordering project, and bond sale documents to start in 1989 and end in 1997 (8 years - even principal) . Questions Should the City consider deferring any of the proposed assessments? Say for frontages over 400 feet? ' Attorney Response - Assessments must be uniform. Deferring a 420 ft. assessment 1 while not deferring a 380 ft. assessment would not be uniform. - Deferments can only be (state law) considered for unimproved lands ( no homes/improvements) . An exception would be for senior citizens/handicapped property owners demonstrating financial need (deferment accrues with interest until death or change in ownership) . City Manager (General Concurrence by Auditor) - Special deferments are not considered as an asset for audit purposes . Moody' s would see the underlying bonds (without some Mayor and City Council July 11, 1988 Page 2 ' other form of asset) as being an unfunded liability - not a good conclusion in a rating form. ' - Special deferments are difficult to keep track of as no easy means exist to tell if the owner died, property sold, etc. ' - The principal and interest payments on the bonds must be paid. If all or a portion of the assets to pay the bonds ( special assessments) are deferred, the City must use alternative financing or make general obligation levies, during the ' deferral period, to insure that the bonds can be paid. - The City faced a severe crisis because of deferred assessments ' associated with the Bonds of 1972/73 . The problem was one of knowing the impact of the deferments (not addressed until the late 1970 ' s ) and the significant interest accumulation costs . Returning to that type of situation cannot be recommended. pee/ CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Warren, City Engineer ' FROM: Allan Larson, Engineering Technician DATE: Jul 6 , 1988 DATE: July � SUBJ: Response to Letters of Objection to , Lake Lucy Road Assessments File No. 85-19 James Mielke Letter dated June 24, 1988 I have reviewed the water runoff this letter addresses. During 1 construction of Lake Lucy Road, a curb cut was placed on the west side of Mr. Mielke' s driveway as well as a drainage swale which was directed to a 12-inch culvert under his driveway. This was 1 constructed to prevent storm water from going down the driveway during a heavy storm causing the driveway to wash out. From my field inspection on June 29, 1988, the drainage swale has ' been filled by someone and small rocks have been placed at the curb cut . The drainage swale should be restored to prevent the washout problem. Don Mezzenga Letter (The Greenery) dated June 27, 1988 The grade of Lake Lucy Road was raised at the west end to meet Galpin Boulevard. Although the new grade exceeds the natural ground line in some , locations by 10 feet +, the roadway has a free area behind the curb of 3 to 4 feet before it goes into a side slope of 3 :1 . This design was approved by State Aid. , Warren Phillips Letter dated June 27, 1988 From my field review, the hole left from the removal of an ' electric pole that had not been filled still remained and could be easily filled by street maintenance staff with less than yard of material being required. 1 n.. . PtTTA -f MENT 42. Gary Warren ' July 6 , 1988 Page 2 ' As for the mailboxes and sign post , I see nothing wrong with the installation of the "metal" mailbox structure, however , the sign post has a concrete base extending above ground by 2 to 3 inches. ' This can also be fixed by the Street Maintenance staff by placing dirt around this pole at the same time they fill the electric pole hole. As for the side slopes being difficult maintain, a large portion of this area has already been maintained by mowing and the rest has been left in a natural state. r I I I I I I x '- - - _. .:id-,v.Y77rr; -,c=�:x:, -- 3s•aXutWc--.4,•=<j 2ri..>4#: .e;i-„`.:4+4e ei•3 1.1j M C II ITY OF CHANHASSEN E@RDED II Mr. Gary Warren, City Engr. JUN 2 21988 6-22-88 City Of Chanhassen II 690 Coulter Dr. ENGINEERING DEPT. Chanhassen, MN 55317 4 II Dear Mr. Warren, I am writing in objection to the proposed assessments I for the Lake Lucy Road Improvement Project No. 85-19 covering storm drainage and roadway construction. My Parcel No. is 25-0035100 and my proposed assessment is for $4945. 05. My II objections are as follows: 1. Of my 316 feet of frontage, I have approximately 22 feet which constitutes my driveway. The other 294 feet II fronts my wetlands area which goes back about 300 feet from the road. This is not buildable land and I have received no detailed formula showing how the assessment was arrived at, much less if I am being credited for wetlands acreage. II 2. This project, in my opinion, is benefitting A) a developer who sold his land, made a profit, and is not personally paying an assessment, B) anyone with a drivers' II licence and a car, C) anyone wishing to enjoy a recreational walkway and bikepath, and D) The City of Chanhassen whD has removed 80 acres from green acres status generating minimal I taxes to 20 single family lots generating substantially more taxes. I am not benefitting in the least from this project. Before the project, I could count the number of cars up and down the road on one hand and have two fingers left over. II Today the traffic is continuous. I liked my dirt road and my peace and quiet and this has been taken away from me. AND I MUST PAY FOR THIS ANNOYANCE? II I am a small farmer and I raise goats, sheep, hogs and have a few horses. I am not large enough to be able to participate in any of the governments farm subsidy programs and this assessment would be a burden to me and my family. II Assessing over 8, 10 or even 15 years would still be a burden and of no use to me as a tax write-off. 3. Since February of 1986 I have received no update on I how the Lake Lucy Road properties are being assessed and by what formula (as I stated previously) . The last I was informed of was that 45 of the properties were being II assessed at one rate and 3 properties (mine being one of which) were being assessed at twice that rate. Just what rates are the 48 properties being assessed? If someone were to hand you a bill for $4945. 05, wouldn' t you want an II itemization of the charges? ( 1 ) II ATTAC}}MENT4 • '.i: .X•• 'iii.'+�`. - J " ,, •.t, ,-3-. fe''..,- '?�] " .F.efar�3rJt s�:. v's 4"��'�t :i.; .-lC'•Jek.- f ty y'+' r f.:::>,,%; -- -�. :+1414AiAi►i�dC L 1 25�E?`t.,ifiZi- dfi5 t7..k#',?tw;.tailltils9n/i4.,sibsaft 4 ( 2 ) I I A few years ago my taxes went up as a result of the sewer project on the northeast corner of the city. I will never enjoy the use of that sewer project, but my neighbors in that area will and I have always been happy to help a I neighbor. A lot of folks in Chanhassen have that same "Help a Neighbor" spirit and that' s what makes us such a good strong community and a great place to live. Most everyone I in Chanhassen will someday enjoy the use of Lake Lucy Road and or Bikeways. Therefore, wouldn' t it be fair to ask our neighbors in the other areas of the city to "Help a Neighbor"? I 'll pay my share. I matter. Thank you for your time and consideration in this . I Sincerely, I /Reinhold of I Guthmiller 1801 West 67th Street IExcelsior, MN 55331 I I I I I I ,. .e,!' �. ��!'l.i fi 4+,.`��,»i'/. f.. 7. +'€'f, ' :: ,sh:s: ''"+7,. % ��,_fir. ; -as'l�i'f�y> r �itn+i '�r� F bh.nr:.lt;'f+"+ri'.'K«ra/�wx%�eat-:: � .�`" CITY OF ANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 June 23 , 1988 Mr. Reinhold Guthmiller 1801 West 67th Street Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Objection to Assessments for Lake Lucy Road Improvement Project No. 85-19 Dear Mr. Guthmiller: Pursuant to your letter dated June 22 , 1988 objecting to the assessments for Lake Lucy Road, I offer the following: To finance this project , a combination of special assessments and Minnesota State Aid Funds was used. Over 76% of the project costs were paid from the City' s Municipal State Aid Fund to recognize the benefit to the City as a whole. The assessment rates and policies used in preparation of the role are as follows: A. Phase 1 and 3 consisted of upgrading that portion of Lake Lucy Road from Lake Lucy Highlands Addition to County Road 17 , as well as Lake Lucy Lane from Lake Lucy Road to Pheasant Hills Addition. The rate of $11. 25 per front foot was used which is the equivalent cost of grading and overlaying the existing road with a 24-foot bituminous mat and two four-foot shoulders. The mat and shoulders used were a 5-ton residen- tial design or 3i inches thick. B. Phase 2 consisted of constructing a new alignment of Lake ' g e Lucy Road through the Lake Lucy Highlands plat to County Road 117 (Galpin Boulevard) . The rate of $22. 20 per front foot was used which is the cost for an equivalent new street in • the rural area. This rate is based on the standard Chanhassen 5-ton residential street design , 32 feet wide with bituminous curbs. C. Phase 4 consisted of constructing Steller Court off of Lake Lucy Road. The cost for Steller court will be totally assessed to the five lots abutting the cul-de-sac. These lots are also subject to an assessment for Lake Lucy Road, equivalent to one-half lot assessment for each corner lot. ' A-TTA(. ME"4 T __.? � x.F..,.f:•`..c.•, t.+r""++so:�e.}..Q!1bF+.e'_ t•4 . ..-:...ut:+.:¢..;:� .r• .v:-i:`:-.... :.:,:v.+n.•9:. ++":[ vct.4 II Mr. Reinhold Guthmiller IIJune 23, 1988 Page 2 IAs well as the street improvement, storm sewer construction is integral with the street construction and storm sewer costs are Iincluded in the street assessment. Lots abutting wetlands as identified on the Chanhassen Wetlands Map received a wetland credit for non-usable frontage. ICorner lots abutting existing roadways received a credit equal to one-half of the narrower of the two frontages. IYour Property Assessment I The feasibility study listed assessable frontage of 316 feet with a proposed assessment of $7,015 .20 for your property. During the development of the final assessment roll, applying the I policies stated above, your assessable frontage was reduced to 222. 75 feet. This incorporates a wetland credit of 93 .25 feet. This generates a total assessment of $4,945 .05 using a rate of I $22.20 per foot. This is a reduction of $2 ,070.15 from the feasibility estimate. I hope this answers your questions as to either the formula or Ipolicy used in developing this assessment. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call. ISincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN I Warren, P.E. City Engineer IGGW:ktm cc: Allan Larson, Inspector I I - e•a.4x _-i". '# i0tc :.. £taree.a?..at...s•wa.. ••ti.,ES':-,�;iv,•,t-� .,.. !�s's^Me3a .. ,' <r'y, June 26, 1988 Don Ashworth, We have recieved your letter en the Lake Lucy Road Improvement , No. 85-19, which levies an assessment against our property in the amount of $1,191.38. We object to this assessment. Prior to the new road construction our property was served with a blacktop road approximately , pp tely 6" thick. It had adequate base material. The shoulders were graded, seeded, and , easy to maintain. There was net one patch in the old blacktop surface before removal. The new road past our property is nothing more than a replacement of the old road. Our property recieved no benefit from this ' s pro3ect. We therefore ask that the entire assessment for our parcel, (#25-0021000), be waived. Thank You. Respectfully yo . s • CITY OF CHANHASSEN Ia /and Kathy Kerber MEE 6420 Powers Blvd. UL5 Chanhassen, Nn. 55317 JUN 27 1988 ENGINEERING-DEPT. I A-FrA-cHMGN-r *. 5 , h Council ( eeting, April 21�� 1 1 (C)S(.0 j i —35— ' roads was you really do have a conflict here. You are at the very edge of Municipal and Service area. You've got some areas developing within that area, some developing outside and you've got a lot of long time residents who want a rural atmosphere in this area. You definitely have a clash or a mixing of things that just don't go together. In the report we tried to come up with a method to go back and forth between paying for the improvement. We are proposing that Pheasant Hill get assessed for all the frontage, but also proposed the City realizes the need for cross connections of roadways for allowing Imultiple outlets for those who use Yosemite and other roads that people have a multitude of ways to go through a neighborhood. It's the entire reason or basis behind such a heavy state aid participation in even recommending the City participate the level of $468,000. A couple of details, as far as the cul de sac for the time being we have shown the easement going to the north and it would mean that we I might have to require additional right—of—way and that has been included in the report. Again, the proposal to extend the road is not to service any individual, but is trying to meet the City's respon— sibility to service the areas properly. These lots all back on the road and some of the lots on here Ihave no direct rent access. The major question here #15 here as the individual stated here, they could change their access to come off Crestview or come off Galpin. You have to go around this way to work. •I cannot deny, if the access comes out this way, and they should ever want to go downtown, they would have to come around come back this way. That's basically a detail of the parts you could get. Our I major intent was to service the properties while disconnecting this access which I felt was very important to the overall project. I'm going to take a chance here. Of course, I haven't been here that long. Mr. Harvey did bring up to me the point of paying something for assessments, or whatever. I went back and talked to Henry Rase, City Street Superintendent. He remembers walking the street with the County Engineer and asking the County Engineer whether the road was whether the base was sound and all I remember is the County Engineer nodding and walking away. This was basically tarred a number of times, he put it and the only thing I could come up with was that as it was dust coated or tarred, that the residents were asked to pay something for that surface. The only reason that the street kind of turned to blacktop • eventually that after so many applications of tar, that it got to the point that where the potholes were asphalt was put in and that's basically how the street got paved in the first place. To answer the question, there's about 400 feet in here as Mr. Kerber stated. I did go back after he I \< called to take a look at past assessments. We are recommending that the 36 foot section go all the way for conformity to Powers Boulevard. In going back to assessment roles, it did conform that the previous owner was assessed on this parcel some very long parcel was assessed on five sewer and water with no street frontage. Mr. Clark, right here, was assessed one unit with street frontage and the . I ( street frontage totals $600 per unit. Mr. Irboe was assessed a unit where he got no street frontage and Mrs. Jakes was assessed for two houses that are here. Again, for $600. In looking at it it was important for us to extend to 36 feet all the way just for conformity. Again, so that if the bikeways I or trailways were put in so that they would extend all the way. The existing blacktop is not that wide. Some sections of blacktop have started to warp and that is another reason why we thought it was a good to take care of the entire section. I guess the recommendation comes down to a position that the existing assessment of $600 is reasonable for 10 years of use of the blacktop section. And, so what is being I quoted is not unreasonable in terms of what was previously assessed as far as part of the project. Again, I'd like to note that this is a Feasibility Study. The reason that everybody got copies of it was because we knew this type of discussion would take place. In calling a public hearing, the . can Council can direct Staff to revise the study in any way, shape or form that it sees fit and when �� you do so for the public hearing. I think that it's important that the road get paved. I don't agree that we are trying to transfer the major portion on here again. I think $11.25 is very reasonable given that the existing rate in most subdivisions that we have been approving is anywhere from $25_ that it is for 90 foot lots and there is a big difference here. What we have attemptedato. do though would be $11 is that even a larger parcel on still have assessments fairly close to what even an early one urban lot has right now. They are between $2500 and $4000 a lot. And, that's about what �'' I we've got here. It's just the way it worked out. Again, I think that it's fairly reasonable. I won't attempt to downplay the residents-problems or believe that I am against them all because we are in a little bit of a different situation. I just can't answer that. Councilman Gevino: I just have one question. It seems to be a natural one. What about all the people who live on Yosemite and are really virtually land mark in terms of getting in and out of their property? • TrActl mesh . J ,4> sp,r . ,, ... ,•z.:,.,,,,-; rTy$vs 3d.r, JN.,4._1r 2:t w ..,.. ...�. %4., v�e.aa ..` 2r ;is•r e .. ..7.Y.gi:•t� 3t CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA SPECIAL ASSESSMENT NOTICE LAKE LUCY ROAD IMPROVEMENT NO. 85-19 The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider proposed assessments for Lake Lucy Road Improvement Project No. 85-19 , on June 27 , 1988 at 7: 30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 690 Coulter Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota. The project includes storm drainage and roadway construction. The area to be assessed includes abutting properties and those properties deriving bene- fit along Lake Lucy Road, Lake Lucy Lane and Steller Court. The total amount of the proposed assessment is $201 ,884. 91. Your assessment has been calculated in accordance with the City Council' s policy as follows: Property Owner: Thomas J. & Jeanne L. Kraker Address: 6441 White Dove Drive, Excelsior, MN 55331 Parcel No: 25-4070160 Proposed Assessment Against Your Property: $708 . 05 (Lake Lucy Road Assessment) Assessment may be paid in full without interest or other charges within thirty ( 30 ) days after the City Council adopts the assessment roll. 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 indi- cate 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 8 years with 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 Engineer . Written or 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. All objections to the assessment not received prior to or at the assessment hearing in the above manner are waived, unless failure to object prior to or at the assessment hearing is due to a S. reasonable cause. The Council may , upon such notice, consider any objection 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. turnL Ai°pP4``'af 170 PPS ! 'cS J lrvA-CL.y F30 j NQ I7 I t (OVER) I CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ISPECIAL ASSESSMENT NOTICE LAKE LUCY ROAD IIMPROVEMENT NO. 85-19 The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider proposed I assessments for Lake Lucy Road Improvement Project No. 85-19 , on June 27, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 690 Coulter Drive, Chanhassen , Minnesota. The project includes storm drainage and roadway construction. The area to be assessed I includes abutting properties and those properties deriving bene- fit along Lake Lucy Road, Lake Lucy Lane and Steller Court. The total amount of the proposed assessment is $201 ,884. 91 . Your I assessment has been calculated in accordance with the City Council' s policy as follows: Property Owner : Thomas J. & Jeanne L. Kraker I Address: 6441 White Dove Drive, Excelsior, MN 55331 Parcel No: 25-4070160 Proposed Assessment Against Your Property: $7, 969. 08 I (Steller Court Assessment) Assessment may be paid in full without interest or other charges within thirty ( 30 ) days after the City Council adopts the assessment roll. These payments may be made in person or may be Imailed to Chanhassen City Hall , 690 Coulter Drive, P. O. Box 147, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 , Attention: Treasurer . Please indi- cate the parcel number on your check. Partial prepayment of the Iassessment is not permitted. If you elect not to pay the full amount within thirty (30 ) days I after the hearing date , the assessment will be spread over 8 years with installments appearing on your real estate taxes beginning next year. Interest will be included at the rate of 9 Percent of the unpaid balance. I .. The proposed assessment roll is on file with the City Engineer . Written or oral objections to the proposed assessment by any Iproperty owner will be considered. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of any assessment adopted I 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. I All objections to the assessment not received prior to or at the assessment hearing in the above manner are waived, unless failure • to object prior to or at the assessment hearing is due to a -� reasonable cause. I The Council may, upon such notice, consider any objection to the amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned I meeting upon such further notice to the affected property owners as it deems advisable. I (OVER) -..s+M6:+Y1C ..x.44i6:-,Ff+:_< ..4141i+is2`t70ti4.n'a" "'�li s: .,..✓«. -d nti-. -r 44:1...,..Jr ..R.L-<:,lsif<ba_Z= k-•eras' .;«3r,�+:'•'•.� •Lx�' Vm CITY OF CNANNASSEN 1 OEM o PA-b6-T JUN 27 1988 , ENGINEERING DEPT. a 7 /9c? ?i icc 4! tocc tee)IW ,ksess/uauT- e. -)24) __ 0/J7 xix-w Lucr' 4ete 5 € Cm/2/ � E---DAE--Gitztew mil.).1 LrJcy /10.4e 5.e/2 AvD 7�0 /-c V fJ/�if],�2�7'�f ov,� ,�c�ss' �s .9-�d' s wR J (ate/= OP (D /2CQ /I7. , 2_, Z-vzi-/4 Aij icl-S g leder 2 vE )14--A-se zc Avt-2,c) fri6)6L964-ifitir.6 74-ssgamo, s46 (10 6/g_ /1- -, i6/t)e-e `1-E) fie. w ka 3 , wIIuT EE-WE- eou-k) Lts7- l A/t6a�r vES 7#i� �.� ,6,gliv 6 S t�ua�,v��✓� `7#y ,1-cv4T ec.4T w/1- 66/Az f#/z of Ze4-4 Lvcci Pc'ele -77Z/2e s � �-.� z 04, � ��s stir 7-4g. 411-0 6 .16' 4 a s Georg icAt-e, --MT 4 Not/- t-4S42 OF 144 Z-uci �f' coy l+_s aJ6,r�f�6L aJ €rD ra� 1*- acme) , /1eepeaaQeil y - _ 1 6941. 61.16c)940 6a- /(-4of2c. 'MIA) tot4 ) A /vim 7 I 24t2 / 7 ?4>LW if& 1-6/44--64 1 0() 09, /0 E. £ L1 U«rte 'p ��,a /Ul AL/QO j •aw Alo .lam 77e e_e7 fivicrnaoid rt_ovieZ 01-7/tezw,, , 1 cF- A/o r eo L. 14 )ce)fierz._, "ge)/(, 7)*/— cza4-71- 1 00-err- ti r 7 .G ;Pe)P7 9/� ,E�� s e,c G` /)IC e !/ 1 ,\fp 44-1 p e_en, 64i --As/Wri.egc, 1 O :: 4 toico &*,(i 4tu4 /1-ectZ 00c_z_e 7L7211-re 117Ue lo/2 e VA?e_ta. . T teye„4, z41-6-Ctee4.)a7 T-6/\ \A16-7-7' .)614-1 1 I I • `_. 'J,�?� .X21 t 5 �f K — "f'r?!'iC�_?N �+�s. ..Yal�,tMf:�r��iiik` '-*:"� �jti�fuliO_kFt•�?,. - �_'`!, :,'�� .��aais,�t]ilea�.,:!.a:�.-rasa=_ta��.^a�.•-a:v-_....urasani.:i�tii�tiiYifitiiq`ii.:i�sl�a�LY��s+�i'aaisf.-- - — r�o . 744.,... 1 014,,c4-e .9--2, i9v I 7zt . £ aL ., .av I are-L, EtZ/ ei ee-a--4-JA-0_41.t,u,L, , ItAA,(AAA _, _ ate .. dt. ;� 9k Nom Q,i- 0- r� No . i g 6t,--&-d-e_42- -t -17{,(4, 0)944-r-7_44 I 41-4,4j2,4 -J2,4,d 631 er -I'll- -744-7 j-141j (r i i/l(f, -A-;) a -- , A..4-4-4 d).-L- ,A,.(_ C/tAi(AiLc - -7 ---kaae 71 1 .(--ell, -fty e•CRAd - I I 1, wa�rA-1-6„ 4 ` ( 1 Si_ttut> A r tA,te -12.-cAi--LAA__eeit., , II z. i-fie u.ezQ ,N-01--a ,2.a.; 4_44 Li--- . sZ`4 1 . T,44 , 3 -- v,, # , le ,76`"`7, 1 / ' si_49,11 Tic 4,641,__e_ a.,(A.ra_Atte --64,, ,eA/Z-e_Le.Q4, I 4thziL4W1 , 014/ -,1.-,s,,,i, -i.,,Z .-1 4'ell-e- " • " 4' - - -' -•w---l' •5' j F' 774 74:77. 9 47 ,.-. ,'' . -,!■ri-ft.,';.ci'i7 ll ',.i'' - 1V .0 „ e< / 47 3 , CI? . .... , 1_,._ , . / I e : f 4)-24- At, (./ rr"-rfr 1 , ;4,p . r Cr-7 • . , 11 I 12 2-2-)t‘frtS A )124 c 41 i / I y? . 1 • P. p . p 7/11_ o f r-YVr 1 M ' 411 0 AO I / , i I . i ,/ • r / 1/n"-' i / , r --II? --121Y7 ?--rfy7/ et-2 1/ -, i I / _24 . a• --7.- >,-),--e-a. -47.796 .-- dly 19 I I i?-7177' 4- 107?-3-74 I 4 I. ,1-...-) ., -?-a_g_ro c , , ---2.---,12,r •,,,-, / . . ,; ,, I . i ":/; ::Y-Y1 V i . , I 2 I '-.)•7-)■—• .r"rpr _yv 7F-9--yz__ v-o-ryi / i . • 2 I a , . I 4 . , I I McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. I ®® Twin Cities St.Cloud 15050 23rd Ave.N. Telephone Engineers Plymouth,MN 612/476-6010 Planners 55441 Surveyors II MEMO I TO: Gary Warren, City Engineer 1 FROM: Jeffrey Roos, Project Engineer DATE: July 7, 1988 II SUBJECT: Surface Drainage Lake Lucy Road I MFRA #7810 At the assessment hearing, a concern was expressed by Warren Phillips ' regarding the impacts that this project had on the drainageway which meanders along the westerly portion of his property. He also implied that he would hold the City responsible for future problems, should they occur. II The project did not change the boundaries of the drainage area which flows into this drainageway. The drainage area comprised approximately 48 acres of II which 0.75 acres was roadway surface. The project increased the roadway surface from 0.75 acres to 0.90 acres, so in effect, only 0.3% of the drainage basin surface was changed. This does not significantly change the volumes of II runoff from rainfalls. The project also did not significantly affect the drainage patterns in that area. There was no work done outside the roadway, so the only change was to II direct the road surface drainage to road level gutters rather than roadside ditches. The majority of the drainage still ends up in the swale between the Phillips property and the Mielke property. I During the course of the project, we had two meetings with Mr. Phillips in which he expressed his view that by taking the drainage out of the ditches, II some flow reduction from absorbtion was lost. It was at these meetings that we agreed to install some curb cuts to try to redirect the gutter flows back into the ditches. At the hearing, Mr. Phillips also commented on the alternate drainage plan II we looked at during the plan preparation stage of this project. The feasibility report indicated that drainage improvements associated with the y II street would follow existing patterns. The construction plans were then prepared in accordance with the feasibility report. However, prior to submitting the plans to the City Council, we had a neighborhood meeting and . A Formerly McCombs-Knutson Associates,Inc. - -. ![' - - . . �rtJ'r sbC,i'�.n'P.C1hxiYilsLL:'4.)::... - .si"tNN+ _-.. ♦ fi _ -M 'QT `�ui1`YY,{��,L. � sr]S .c reviewed the lans with the P residents. The possibility of redirecting the drainage on the north side of Lake Lucy Road, west of Yosomite Avenue, was ' brought up. The drainage could be redirected, via piping or special ditches, to the drainage basin lying immediately west. That alternative was looked at and found to be too costly. It required 500 feet of storm sewer at depths up ' to 18 feet. I recall discussing it and saying it would be considered, but not guaranteeing it. Mr. Phillips and others also had concerns about some trapped pockets of water outside the roadway area and would have liked to seen those removed. Our response was that this was restricted to a roadway project and only drainage facilities directly associated with road needs could be considered. In summary, we do not discount the concerns regarding drainage, but we don't feel this project has increased the potential for problems resulting from runoff flows. The roadway drainage facilities have been designed to handle 20 year frequency storms. Major storms, such as the July 23rd storm, will still cause heavy flows and problems, but no more so now than before. A comprehensive drainage system for the entire basin would be best, and is ' something that could be considered in the future. i 1 I I June 27th, 1988 ' Chanhassen City Council % Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box ]147 Chanhassen, Mn. 55317 Attention: Treasurer or City Clerk References Lake Lucy Improvement No. 85-19 Assessment to Parcel No: 25-0022900 ' Dear Council members: I am a property owner at 1510 Lake Lucy Road, Chanhassen Minnesota. I have ' owned this property since 1965. I am not objecting to the assessment being presented at tonights meeting toward my property, I'm sure you are being fair. I would, however, like to make an4 appeal that my payments be ex- tended over a longer period of time. As they stand now after talking with Jean Mauverssen, treasurer, my payments would be almost $60.00 per month the first year, then alittle lower per year. The position I am in financ- ially right now in life, this would be hard to meet. Looking ahead with water assessments an hook up in next year or so then eventually sewer and hook up, I see myself finally being assessed out of Chanhhassen. Would you please consider my case to the payments of my individual assess- ment on this improvement to the road. It would be embarassing to me at an open meeting to explain this. I am not trying to get out of paying just because I am low income, just need it to be stretched out or waived until sale of property at a future date. - I am not 65 years of age or older, or retired or didabled. Therefor, I I ask the council there advice. Hoping to hear from you soon and that I did this right, I remain.. .. E 'abeth.Ann Glac m 11 Lake Lucy Road ' Excelsior, Minn. 55331 474-822 5 cc: eag file : Arkcomeer -- -•.x;wc�#;a�:�;.-c7iblH�'l.t...a�Xr�t.i•.,.:i.:,:�ra.�-r;.-.....�,:4:u:.p•::'ax•�-r:., .�.ui.w.:.m.:ss.� • 1 .6-..------ ] Betsy Glaccum I1510 Lake Lucy Road ASSESSMENT AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE IPIN 25-0022900 $2 ,656. 13 Principal 1 8 Years 9% Interest I (1) (2) ( 3) ( 4) PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL INTEREST IYEAR BALANCE PAYMENT PAYMENT TOTAL 1 $2 ,656 .13 $ 332. 02 $ 360 . 60 $692 .62 II2 $2 ,324. 11 $ 332. 02 $ 209. 17 $541 .19 3 $1 , 992. 09 $ 332. 02 $ 179. 29 $511 . 31 I4 $1 ,660. 07 $ 332 . 02 $ 149. 41 $481. 43 II5 $1 ,328. 05 $ 332. 02 $ 119 . 52 $451 .54 6 $ 996 . 03 $ 332. 02 $ 89 . 64 $421 .66 I7 $ 664. 01 $ 332. 02 $ 59 . 76 $391. 78 8 $ 331. 99 $ 331 . 99 $ 29. 88 $361 . 87 I $2 ,656 .13 I (1) Previous year 's principal balance less $332. 02 I ( 2) $2 ,656 .13 divided by 8 = $332 . 02 ( 3) Column 1 multiplied by . 09 I ( 4) Column 2 plus Column 3 = Column 4 I I I I :ids-i 'tA iY vA:..:,J� ^.dE-.:.r s: -+atititiiii a•;?tF=r3.�t < �^'��N�V � + o- a ..:Y«xHtr3f�:L:..r. - -��c1s"a' .at�.� 5`+' ,�Y e • .. . I C C I ___ I . I :___CLUL ., -/A k) . I I- _ . 0 ___,„_„..k7-1 Li ,4 AL: 0,° Roeci 1.,a.., 1A-cr I. , • C? , 2 .421a ) kujsz_.1 -O-62 ) • / . -, • , , / _ _[-T Lxi ,UG . _ _ _ _ _____ _____ . . - ---°Lk-1--- -7/-: . -----OAA4 -L-70-Ld (i)- --- C.2ecja_ 6:e -g) ' -.---DA-A5v-1--,--s-f-- — • • __C-kAA). . l/ e., _ de _ .. .. ___/_:0_,,t_fre.„1. 1 #- . - • • • -_--kazi_2_ 4St_i,2) - 1 # Zr- . • _ 1 —..---1 . 1 OA/Li ..L2-) i # • .___JA,..)_. CVVIR_A_z_:_te_____am-O-t<:L 6 , i • • ej„,,, ) , . vca Xn - ; • .A.0-d-6(70,6-1^-2/At4-7.--, •__ock .44,' • ■ _ / • ._ . ." . ... 1 • e,*, 'tLAJt 119-2_A&61-6/_. • _ _—_________ ______ _,C1A/C47H-A<2.), Ca/v\i‘e1/4,,OZ _.412-Q...■-A-ASZ-d --:„4*.v,z-fx A...A 2,,,,,:'*=tt 4.AJ%.).10FAIIAPPij414134.10;2415);ii4CilimcmCi4h4Sittit.t,,14,-.;.:44" ~ ^ i ; . t � --- .... -4-L.419 ___11A.Q.A_9_-(-------Th itf..<1.-..) AA-6--_____--'<2.,LaLle,--------- ___ZI_CtLec,o-t,- ___O-__, I � �------ �\~[~S%_.�_�� wp o0 .... ___A_____ciAit.„,---a4-. . - � � - - `e*'uw=x"z~^_~ _�«.�~u_/ � .^r ~•- '-- ~- ,_.-�'u� � -- �� i 1 = , ^ � � � ,411. ~ .� ,� _____ \ - Le' ~~ • - - f -~ 4 ^0 , ji °�_-t� --_ , �- . ~ * �_ - - -_-~ -~ -_ --e,„,,,L ~~ __ � IP i _-O.,- 7 -1s2.._ -w ^° ^ . ,- _-___-___'__-_-_--' I� . �� _- ��`�> � yl^ | �� ___-' -_~^^~~-"'�^/ ' _ Ll-/2-2-- a=-_ i /.. Cf7. "e IP; -..Z2._.Q...L. `-QA.q,-,.., jtS2_ A!..:eLt - -12,40-Q, GU-LAt it iro,/,___14_ ,/,.0----- - ' -~~==_-�-`-L ,� ._-' ---_ __ '--�-__ _-_______ '-- \ / __- _____ __'__ __ _ r-� -~' ) > e �/[� �� ° - ' PLEAS �--- / ( L--!l.�`L�--L-�/�- 7 ___.��/ / ��_ __ -�_- / - kAa.•^� J��r ' ' _- _/ _ ii: :/ _-_-_ __ - __ - -- - - 4 v , 1 -____________ __-- _ N _ __ --_------_ -- _ - __=�� _. � / -_ --- --- ---_- ___-_--_-_--_-_--_-----� '- - --- - __- -'-_'', - - ---- betc�;� zo --- -__- ___ | ___ _ ______ ~ - - __ _ __ ___ MAY - A 1985 - -- - --- 0QFCAum M� �SEN _----______ / - -'-'- - - 'L7 -/ -- oz- _ ~ � °-- ---_ _ _ -_ _ A �°4^�~ .� ' ~ , ��z=�� ___ _ ,�, . ,,��"�.�~,°^=°`��_�="=,'^� :^�`�x ��`,_ _ _ �� ,°��'� ��'z- A.,--7 -'--. ,' LAKE LUCY ROAD ASSESSMENT ROLL PAGE 5 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 85-19 'a JULY 11, 1988 RIGHT-OF-WAY PID #/NAME AND ADDRESS FRONT FOOTAGE RATE PER FOOT TOTAL ASSESSMENT CREDIT NET ASSESSED DESCRIPTION 25-4070160 59.78 $22.20 $ 1,327.12 $ 619.07 $ 708.05 LOT 3, BLOCK 2 (1675 STELLER COURT) Thomas J. & Jeanne L. LAKE LUCY HIGHLANDS Kraker LAKE LUCY ROAD ASSESSMENT 6441 White Dove Drive '; Excelsior, MN 55331 LOT PER LOT $ 7,969.08 $ 7,969.08 STELLER COURT ASSESSMENT $ 8,677.13 GRAND TOTAL 25-4071050 59.78 $22.20 $ 1,327.12 $ 619.07 $ 708.05 LOT 2, BLOCK 2 (1665 STELLER COURT) Daniel J. & Mary T. Shrader LAKE LUCY HIGHLANDS As 14433 Fairway Drive LAKE LUCY ROAD ASSESSMENT Eden Prairie, MN 55344 LOT PER LOT $ 7,969.08 $ 7,969.08 STELLER COURT ASSESSMENT $ 8,677.13 GRAND TOTAL 25-4070140 531.12 $22.20 $ 11,790.86 $ 3,095.37 $ 8,695.49 LOT 1, BLOCK 2 (1655 LAKE LUCY ROAD) Robert J. & Paula E. Buresh LAKE LUCY HIGHLANDS 5817 Hanson Road LAKE LUCY ROAD ASSESSMENT Edina, MN 55436 25-0032700 300.00 $11.25 $ 3,375.00 James & D. Mielke $ 3,375.00 1645 Lake Lucy Road Excelsior, MN 55331 25-0025600 375.00 $11.25 $ 4,218.75 $ 4,218.75 Warren & A. Phillips 1571 Lake Lucy Road A Excelsior, MN 55331 25-0025700 272.29 $11.25 $ 3,063.26 Robert R. & E. Christensen $ 3,063.26 1511 Lake Lucy Road Excelsior, MN 55331 25-0025800 360.00 $11.25 $ 4,050.00 $ 4,050.00 FOOTAGE ESTABLISHED IN Theodore R. Coey FEASIBILITY TO REFLECT 2 UNITS 1381 Lake Lucy Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 LAKE LUCY ROAD ASSESSMENT ROLL t PAGE 6 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 85-19 JULY 11, 1988 RIGHT-OF-WAY PID ii/NAME AND ADDRESS FRONT FOOTAGE RATE PER FOOT TOTAL ASSESSMENT CREDIT NET ASSESSED DESCRIPTION 25-0021600 360.00 $11.25 $ 4,050.00 $ 4,050.00 WETLAND CREDIT_311.04' Richard & B. Ortenblad TOTAL FRONTAGE=671.04' 1 1351 Lake Lucy Road Excelsior, MN 55331 i 25-0021100 330.00 $11.25 $ 3,712.50 $ 3,712.50 1 Richard C. Ersbo 1211 Lake Lucy Road .t Chanhassen, MN 55317 3 25-0021500 200.00 $11.25 $ 2,250.00 $ 2,250.00 John & Irene Clark 1215 Lake Lucy Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 fi 25-0021000 105.90 $11.25 $ 1,191.38 $ 1,191.38 CORNER LOT CREDIT=84.1' Lawrence & Kathleen Kerber TOTAL FRONTAGE=190' 6420 Powers Boulevard (6700 POWERS BOULEVARD) Chanhassen, MN 55317 , 25-0025810 180.08 $11.25 $ 2,025.90 $ 2,025.90 Brian N. & Nancy L. Tichy 1471 Lake Lucy Road Excelsior, MN 55331 25-0025820 180.08 $11.25 $ 2,025.90 $ 2,025.90 (1441 LAKE LUCY ROAD) Joseph J. & D. Gayle Morin 15820 South Eden Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 25-0030100 33.00 $11.25 $ 371.25 $ 371.25 Rosalee M. Dodd 200 First Federal Bldg. 320 North 4th Street Bismarck, ND 58501 25-0033100 180.00 $11.25 $ 2,025.00 $ 2,025.00 ACCESS CHARGE FOR NON-ABUTTING LOT David & S. Hughes ASSESS 1 UNIT 1780 Lake Lucy Road Excelsior, MN 55331 $ 229.359.24 $ 29.405.98 1.19.2,252a = MI MI MI IMII I MI IIIIII I IIMI MI MI MN = I I NM =