The URL can be used to link to this page

2852 Sibley Hills DrINSPECTION RECORD CITY OF EAGAN PERMIT TYPE: 3830 Pilot Knob Road Permit Number: Eagan, Minnesota 55123 Date Issued: (612) 681-4675 SITE ADDRESS: 101. 000" N 1 i I {. h; 0 0 0 #PPLICANT: II:I f o Nit LS UR I'rrt t i.f PI Mrrirs 1 IN'r INC 1'+r?`t1 2Nit (612) 894--414H PERMIT SUBTYPE: REMARKS? RCCI:IPF A TYPE OF WORK: t Fl'AIk Irl f i {' i I rrN i,l R1)0F IMCI Permit No. Permit Holder Dab Telephone S" PLUMBING HVAC ELECTRIC ELECTRIC Inspection Dab Insp. Comments Footings I Foundation Framing Roofing Rough Plbg- Rough Htg. Isul. Fireplace Final Mg. Orsat Test Final Plbg. Plbg. Inspector - Notlty Plumber Const. Meter EngrJPlan Bldg. Final Deck Ftg. Deck Final Well Pr. Map. J I CITY OF EAGAN Remarks Addition Post Addn. #2 Lot 2 Blk 1 Parcel - NOW Owner 2,0166CZ 2 -' 1I- MIKIINN Street 2852 Sibley Hi11s?T. state Eagan,MN 55121 nl il"O,i Improvement Date Amount Annual Years Payment Receipt Date STREET SURF. /7's 1273 1223.16 129.31 1 646.61 A003883 -15-77 STREET RESTOR. GRADING SAN SEW TRUNK `/G 1968 100.00 3.33 0 66.70 A003883 -15-77 SEWER LATERAL L 1272 1 1 107.91 2 1510.70 A003883 -15-77 WATERMAIN WATER LATERAL 1972 20 WATER AREA STORM SEW TRK STORM SEW LAT CURB & GUTTER SIDEWALK STREET LIGHT WATER CONN. 26O OO 2959 11-13-70 BUILDING PER. SAC 200.00 2959 11-13-70 PARK ,f r EAGAN TOWNSHIP BUILDING PERMIT Owner ?-? ? - Address (present) . 05.-L-. S!blG ..... 9;11s.... Px.!........... c Builder ............................ - --------------------------- -•--................... --- Address ...... N° 995 Eagan Township Town Hall ,3 Date 1 ?, 6 Stories To Be U sed For Front Depth Height Est. Cost Permit Fee Remarks -- - - ?? 3 1 ,tOw v4 I LOCATION Street, Road r other Description of Location Lot Block Addition or Tract ( l1 fi t r' k L- ? /0 5aso VAO 00 P,*St .2 h4 "P) This permit does not authorize the use 'of streets, roads, alleys or sidewalks nor does it give the owner or his agent the right to create any situation which is a nuisance or which presents a hazard to the health, safety. convenience and general welfare to anyone in the community. THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISE WHILE THE WORK IS IN PROGRESS. This is to certify, that ................................................................has permission to erect a.............................................................. upon the above described premise subject to the provisions of the Building Ordinance for Eagan Township adopted April 11, 1955. .......................... ................................................................ Per ....---.......*1-4t? ......i p Chairman of Tnwn Board Building In actor V .? - ?,>?-T 'r)- TOW OF EAGAN 3795 Pilot Knob Road St. Paul, Minn. 55111 PE MT NO.: 63 The Board of Supervisors hereby grants to Lt_iew ?e? _ _ of Rosemt? ?aE?r1umbing Permit for: (Owner)- _ nonzld reatu? , at S#§1e5- Lane pursuant to application dated _. Fee Paid: 20.00 Dated this 1_ day of 197-Q-- Building Inspector k FU 2005 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION City Of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan MN 55122 Telephone # 651-675-5675 FAX # 651-675-5694 I20 New Construction Requirements Remodel/Repair Requirements Office Use OnN 3 registered site surveys shoving sq. ft. of lot, sq. ft. of house; and all roofed areas 2 copies of plan Cart of Survey Recd _Y _N (20% maximum lot coverage allowed) 1setofEnergy Calculations forheated additions Tree :PlesPlan Reed _Y _N 2 copies of plan showing beam & window sizes; poured found design, etc. 1 site survey for additions & decks Tree Pres Required _Y _N 1 set of Energy Calculations AddNon - indkete if onade septic system On-site Septic System _Y _N 3 copies of Tree Preservation Plan Slot platted after 711193 Rim Joist Dated Options selection sheaf (buildings with 3 orless units) ,r Date / b / -05 r'J0 Construction Cost r( I,` ? 0 Site Address ? ?, / \ \ M 11) r-Unit/Ste # l'? Description of Work V N N V 0 W Multi-Family Bldg - Y Y N Fireplace(s) -Z 0 - 1 Property Owner ^ C?% k0 1 d \/ Telephone # UJ I) 1 S L? a. ? G Contractor (yam ( ( Ci / ??f/y O V I S Address ?O f ?/D?'??a y, Xl r City State _1\11\'t&1 Zip f U Telephone # (ej I) 1!5?f 6 e y q4 COMPLETE THIS AREA ONLY IF CONSTRUCTING A NEW BUILDING - Minnesota Rules 7670 Category I _ Minnesota Rules 7672 Energy Code Category . Residential Ventilation Category 1 Worksheet • New Energy Code Worksheet (J submission type) Submitted Submitted • Energy Envelope Calculations Submitted Have you previously constructed a building in Eagan with a similar plan? _ Y _ N If so, 25% plan review fee applies. Licensed Plumber Mechanical Contractor Sewer/Water Contractor Telephone # ( Telephone # ( Telephone # ( I hereby apply for a Resident3x)Buila`tng Permi d acknowledge that the information is complete and accurate; that the work will be in confori al e with ordinances and codes of the City of Eagan and the State of MN Statutes; I understand this is not a errant, b t only an application for a permit, and work is not to start without a permit; that the work will be in acco*ce with the approved plan in the case of work which requires a review and approval of plans. Applicant's Printed Name Applicant's Signature OFFICE USE ONLY Sub Types ? 01 Foundation ? 07 05-plex ? 13 16-plex ? 20 Pool ? 30 Accessory Bldg ? 02 SF Dwelling ? 08 06-plex ? 16 Fireplace ? 21 Porch (3-sea.) ? 31 Ext. Alt - Multi ? 03 01 of _ plex ? 09 07-plex ? 17, Garage ? 22 Porch/Addn. (4-sea.) ? 33 Ext. Alt - SF ? 04 02-plex ? 10 08-plex ? 18 Deck ? 23 Porch (screen/gazebo) ? 36 Multi Misc. ? 05 03-plex ? 11 10-plex ? 19 Lower Level ? 24 Storm Damage ? 06 04-plex ? 12 12-plex Plbg_Y or_ N ? 25 Miscellaneous Work Types ? 31 New ? 35 Int Improvement ? 38 Demolish Interior ? 44 Siding ? 32 Addition ? 36 Move Building ? 42 Demolish Foundation ? 45 Fire Repair ? 33 Alteration ? 37 Demolish Building' ? 43 Reroof ? 46 Windows/Doors ? 34 Replacement 'Demolition (Entire Bldg) - Give PCA handout to applicant Valuation Occupancy MCES System Census Code Zoning City Water SAC Units Stories Booster Pump # of Units Sq. Ft. PRV # of Bldgs Length Fire Sprinklered Type of Const Width REQUIRED INSPECTIONS _ Footings (new bldg) _ Final/C.O. Footings (deck) _ Final/No C.O. Footings (addition) _ Plumbing _ Foundation _ HVAC _ Drain Tile Other Roof - Ice & Water _ Final _ Pool _ Figs _ Air/Gas Tests _ Final Framing Siding _ Stucco - Stone - Brick Fireplace _ R.I. -Air Test _ -Final - Windows Insulation _ Retaining Wall Approved By: Base Fee Surcharge Plan Review MC/ES SAC City SAC Utility Connection Charge S&W Permit & Surcharge Treatment Plant License Search Copies Other Total Building Inspector PERMIT CITY OF EAGAN 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55123 (612) 681-4675 PERMIT TYPE: 8 [1 1.. O I N G Permit Number: 0 2 0 21 Date Issued: 0 1. ? 1.2 J 9 3 SITE ADDRESS: 2852 S I B L E Y N7:LLS DR L.OT! 0002 8-OCK? 49000 POST 2N0 P.I.N-: 1.0-58501-020-00 DESCRIPTION: RE-RO0FING Building Permit Type. 6uilding''Work Type Si- (MIS(.) REPAIR r r J REMARKS: RECEIPT It FEE SUMMARY, VAI,.UATSON Base Fe F" Surcharge Total Fee $64.00 $55.50 $3,000 CONTRACTOR: -- A p p l i c a n t - ST. L z COWNER: ROBERTS RES REMODELING INC 18944118 0006885 L.,DUBISAVL7EVIC BRANKD 4456 CJNNAMON RIDGE TR, 2852 SIBL.EY h7LL.3 OR E A G A N MN 551.22 E A G AN MN 553,22 16.1.21 S94-4.7.45 (612)454-571.9 1 hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the information is correct and agree tq compLy with all applicable State of Mn. Statutes and City of Eagan Urdinances. /' I? 7161 ! APPLI ANT/PERMITEE SIGNATURE ISSUE eY: IGNAT R1 E INSPECTION RECORD CITY OF EAGAN PERMIT TYPE: B u z L D I N G 3830 Pilot Knob Road Permit Number: 0 2 0 21.9 Eagan, Minnesota 55123 Date Issued: 631 (12 J 9 3 (612) 681-4675 SITE ADDRESS: pPLICANT: LOT; 0002 BLOCK: 000 2,852 SIBLEY HILLS DR ROBERTS RES REMODELTNG INC P0S'f 2ND (612) 894-4148 PERMIT SUBTYPE: SF (MISC.) REMARKS: RECEIPT # TYPE OF WORK: REPAIR DESCRIPTION RE-ROOFING REACTIVATE _ PERMIT P 10"9 CITY OF EAGAN egg ?? 1993 BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION 681-4675 SINGLE & MULTI-FAMILY 2 sets of plans, 3 registered site surveys, 1 copy of energy calcs. COMMERCIAL 2 sets of architectural & structural plans, 1 set of specifications, 1 copy of energy talcs. Penalty applies: 1) when permit is typed, but not picked up by last working day of month in which request is made, 2) address is changed or 3) lot change is requested once permit is issued. Date i 1iz/ l l Valuation of worla. 36aa Site Address: - 62e j94 nM STREET SUITE # Tenant Name: (commercial only) LOT z I BLACK _U_ SDBD. ? P.I.D. N Descri tion of work: C - Zoo FIN The applicant is: ? Owner Contractor ? Other (Describe) Name L--rc,B.So, uL7-ev a r-Q. kb Phone Property LAST FIRST Owner Address ?8sc S?Zt STREET STE # city Dn States Zip SS`2Z Company R>lu'rr, Phone e9(1' VP Contractor Address S0`-sG c .-a"ao Q.-JSe 702•L License # Exp. City 61054 State A. Zip Company Phone Architect/ Engineer Name Registration # Address City State Zip Sewer & water licensed plumber Processing time for sewer & water permits is two days once area has been approved. I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the information is correct and agree to comply with all applicable State of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances. Signature of Applicant: D&Z OFFICE USE ONLY BUILDING PERMIT TYPE t ? 01 Foundation ? 06 Duplex ? 11 Apt./Lodging 4L kse egt,.Q,jnish ? 02 SF Dwg. ? 07 4-Plex ? 12 Multi. Misc. ?b 17 Swim Pool ? 03 SF Addition ? 08 8-Plex ? 13 Garage/Accessory ? 18 Comm./Ind. ? 04 SF Porch ? 09 12-Plex ? 14 Fireplace ? 19 Comm./Ind. Misc. ? 05 SF Misc. ? 10 Multi. Add11. ? 15 Deck ? 20 Public Facility ? 21 Miscellaneous WORK TYPE ? 31 New ? 33 Alterations ? 35 Tenant Finish ? 37 Demolish ? 32 Addition ? 34 Repair ? 36 Move GENERAL INFORMATION Const. (Actual) (Allowable) UBC Occupancy Zoning # of Stories Length Depth APPROVALS Planning Engineering REQUIRED INSPECTIONS ? Site ? Wallboard Basement sq. ft. 1st F1. sq. ft. 2nd F1. sq. ft. Sq. Ft. total Footprint Sq. ft. On-site well On-site sewage Building Variance ? Footing ? Final MWCC System City Water PRV Required Booster Pump Fire Sprinkler Census Code SAC Code Assessments ? Framing ? Insulation ? Draintile ? Fireplace Permit Fee Surcharge Plan Review License MWCC SAC City SAC Water Conn. Water Meter Acct. Deposit S/W Permit S/W Surcharge Treatment Pl. Road Unit Park Ded. Trails Ded. Copies Other Total: vatmtim: SAC % SAC Units MEMO TO: THOMAS L HEDGES, CITY FROM: THOMAS A COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: DECEMBER 11, 1989 SUBJECT: PROJ 543R, SIBLEY HILLS RD/SKYLINE RD (STREETS 6 UTILITIES) ESMT ACQUISITION/ASSESSMENT NEGOTIATION LOT 2, BLOCK 1, POST 2ND ADDN (ROBERT MURRAY) I have reviewed a memo from City Attorney Jim Sheldon to yourself regarding the proposed negotiated settlement for the easement acquisition of the above-referenced project. It is my understanding that the City Attorney has offered to exchange the flowage easement acquisition for an abatement of street related assessments ($1,775), but still maintaining that the trunk area storm sewer assessment should remain as proposed ($1,573). On this date, I reviewed the situation with Jim Sheldon and informed him of the problems the City has incurred in the past with "trading" easements for assessments. The problem lies in the fact that the assessment obligation never gets recorded against the property and future historical financial obligation researches could turn up a finding that the property had never paid an assessment for a previous improvement unless the individual doing the research knew enough to check the conditions of any and all easements that may have been acquired from this property owner. We have found it to be more accurate to settle on the easement acquisition for a specified dollar amount (which could/would be based on any proposed assessment amount) but would be paid to the property owner in a timely manner. The property owner could then determine whet)ier he would like to have the special assessment certified against his property tax rolls or he could use the money to pay off the assessment providing maximum flexibility for the property owner. This also eliminates the potential for deleting certain assessments in their entirety and reducing other assessments in exchange for the easements which creates confusion in the preparation of the final assessment roll. In regards to the amount of the settlement, the City has relied on the recommendation of the City appraiser as to the value of the easement to be acquired. Certainly the cost of pursuing the easement acquisition through condemnation can be taken into consideration in adjusting the value of compensation for final settlement. However, if Jim Sheldon's estimate of approximately $1,200 in commissioner fees for each property is accurate, I would think we should pursue some type of "group action", if there is such a thing, to minimize the commissioners' costs. I would hope that they would be able to evaluate more than one piece of property per day as I feel $1,200 per property for a commissioner evaluation is unreasonable. However, this is something that Jim Sheldon is very knowledgeable in and should be left to his discretion and advisement. Another thought to consider is the fact that the easement acquisitions are costs that should be added to the total project costs which are then allocated to all benefiting property owners on a front foot basis. If r Page 2 we trade an easement for an assessment, would the City end up picking up the financial obligation of the reduced assessable footage or would all of the other property owners share in paying for Mr. Murray's assessment obligation. I would think it would be easier to explain to the property owners the change in the proposed final assessment amount based on cost to acquire an easement rather than the deletion of a specific property owner from the assessment allocation formula. If you would like to discuss and/or review this issue in further detail, please let me know. ?y Director'of Public Works TAC/jj cc: Mike Foertsch, Assistant City Engineer Jim Sheldon, City Attorney M E M O R A N D U M TO: FROM: DATE: Tom Hedges Jim Sheldon December 1, 1989 RE: Bob Murray (Project No Our File No 543R Assessments) 206-7888 nT 2 i /I ccK / J' '1)S /- -'v""A Tom: I spoke today with Bob Murray. I spoke with him yesterday also and in accordance with Ray Connolly's letter of November 10, 1989, told him that the proposed assessment for storm trunk was $1,573.00 and that the proposed assessment for streets and street storm sewer was $1,775.00, approximately. Based on Ray Connolly's letter, I offered to exchange the streets and storm sewer lateral assessment ($1,775.00) for the easements and required him to pay the storm trunk sewer ($1,573.00). He said he thought he had already paid a storm trunk sewer assessment. My information from the City indicates that he paid a sanitary sewer trunk assessment of $100.00 in 1967, a sewer and water lateral assessment in 1971 and a street assessment in 1972. Mr. Murray felt he didn't need a storm trunk. We had that general discussion about the need for trunks and that type of thing. He then asked if all of his neighbors fought the storm trunk issue and won, would he get the $1,573.00 back. I said no, that it was a settlement and that it was final. He also indicated that he would have to withhold one and one-half or two times the amount of the assessment if he sold his house (apparently scheduled to close the end of December). I told him the City would allow him to pay the assessment now and remove the pending assessment from the roll. He once again reiterated that he would like to trade both assessment for the easements. He said that he had 300 or 400 feet of easement and he was the only one in the neighborhood that had the easement. It's simply a dollar and cents matter. He said that that differentiated him from his neighbors since he had an easement to trade. I told him that my position was that we should follow the appraiser's recommendation. However, I did say to him that he had a right to a response from you as the Chief Administrator of the City. I told him 4 that I would review the matter with you and give you my recommendation that we follow Ray Connolly's letter. I did state, however, that while you usually follow my advice, you don't always. No doubt we will have the benefit issue challenged (probably via John Klein as appraiser) from the Post Addition people. In addition, the court appointed commissioners (3 each) charge $100.00 per day plus mileage for each condemnation. They manage to get in a minimum of four days for each piece of property, which means that the condemnation costs for the commissioners alone is $1,200.00. Thus, the cost of the condemnation for the easement will eat up the assessment. In addition, we will have to pay for the easement, whatever value that is. As I see it, it's really an issue of how you want to spend your money and what the effect of this will be, if any, on the remaining neighbors up there. Perhaps we can discuss this on Tuesday. I told Mr. Murray that I would touch base with him by the end of the week but may not necessarily have any kind of a decision by then. JFS/djk EAGAN TOWNSHIP 3795 Pilot Knob Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55111 Telephone 454-5242 PERMIT FOR SEWER SERVICE CONNECTION DATE: Nnvemhnr 110 1970 NUMBER 658 D7Ar `has- ?)- OWNER: nnnAid L_ Ceatnev Address 2852 Sibley Lane. St. Paul 55118 PLUMBER Weierke Trenching TYPE OF PIPE cast iron DESCRIPTION OF BUILDING Industrial Commercial Residential Multiple Dwelling No. of units xxxx Location of Connections: Connection Charge 200.00 pd 11/13/70 Account deposit 15.00 pd 11/13/70 Permit Fee 10.00 pd 11/13/70 Street Repairs Total Inspected by: Date Remarks: By Chief Inspector In consideration of the issue and delivery to me of the above permit, I hereby agree to do the proposed work in accordance with the rules and regulations of Eagan Township, Dakota County Minnesota By ?• Weier Trenching d Excavating Rosemount, Minn. 55068 Please notify when ready for.inspection and connection and before any portion of the work is covered. EAGAN TOWNSHIP 3795 Pilot Knob Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55111 Telephone 454-5242 PERMIT FOR WATER SERVICE CONNECTION Date: November 13, 1970 Billing Name•Donald L. Coatney Owner: Plumber: Weierke Trenching d Excavating Number: 499 =) - pn'S r =-? Site Address: 2852 Sibley Lane, St. Paul 55118 Billing Address Meter Size 5/8" Connection Chg. 260.00_p 11/13/70 Account deposit 15.00 11/13/70 Meter No.21150905 permit Fee 10.00 pd 11/13/70 Meter Reading` Meter Dep. Meter Sealed: Yes_ IAdd'1 Chg. NO Total Chg. Building is a: Residence 7xx Multiple No. Commercial Industrial Other inspected by Date Remarks: $25.00 RGINSPECTiON FcL FOR IMPROPERLY INSTALLED iViETCES. Hy: Chief Inspector In consideration of the issue and delivery to me of the above permit, I hereby agree to do the proposed work in accordance with the rules and regulations of Eagan Township, Dakota County, Minnesota. 1 By: _ ierke Trenching d Excavating Please notify the above office when ready for inspection and connection. I . , 2M dty of Cagan 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD THOMAS EGAN m3yw MINNESOTA 55122-1897 EAGAN , PHONE: (612) 454-8100 DAVID K. GUSTAFSCNJ FAX (612) 454-8363 PAMELA McCREA TIM PAWLENTY January 30, 1990 RE WACCHTER THEO DO r I THOMAS HEDGES City AdminGtrata EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE ROBERT & MARILYN MURRAY City Clerk RR 2, BOX 53B CANNON FALLS MN 55009 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Murray: I received a letter on January 29 that is dated January 24, raising questions about the process regarding an easement and special assessments that were proposed against property you owned at 2852 Sibley Hills Drive. The letter also requested payment by the City for the easement and difference in interest rate you apparently lost on your mortgage. Mr. Gene Vanoverbeke, our Director of Finance and City Clerk, met with you on Friday, January 19, and these concerns were raised. I did follow through with our City Attorney's office to better learn what occurred regarding the easement document around your closing date. First, I would like to address the amount of time that transpired in an effort to resolve your special assessment issue. Bob first contacted me in August, 1989 regarding a pending assessment amount that would appear on your property considering your desire to sell the property. There was discussion as to the feasibility of applying the value of an easement to void the future assessment. Recognizing the need for an easement, I referred this matter to the City Attorney's office on September 7, 1989 and asked that he coordinate an appraisal and handle all correspondence and communications with you. The City Attorney's office did request an appraisal by Ray Connelly and Associates and the results of that appraisal were returned to the City Attorney on November 10, 1989. The next step was for the City Attorney to prepare a memo outlining a proposed agreement. The memo was forwarded to the city on December 1st to my attention. This item was then referred to the Director of Public Works for his review and returned for signature and processing by the City Attorney's office during late December, early January. Apparently, there was a dialogue and various meetings that you were involved in with the City Attorney's office leading up to the January 16 ratification by the City Council of the agreement. I was not involved in any of the discussions or meetings and asked Joe Early to prepare an account of what transpired to better under- stand the series of meetings and what happened around your closing. For a copy of Mr. Early's response, refer to the enclosure. THE LONE OAK TREE ...THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer LETTER TO ROBERT & MARILYN MURRAY JANUARY 30, 1990 PAGE TWO Hopefully, this information will help clarify this matter for you. Given the facts and circumstances as outlined, I do not believe the City is liable for the costs you referenced in previous conversations and letters. Sincerely, Thomas L. Hedges -- City Administrator Enclosure TLH/vmd FEB 0B 190 01j:db MFib January 24, 1990 Mr. Tom Hedges Eagan City Administrator 3830 Pilot Knob Road P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, MN 55121 C RE: Robert Murray Easement/Assessment Agreement Our File No.: 206-7888 Dear Tom: U?4 YUc This letter will recap the various conversations and meetings between the Murrays and myself that led to the execution of the easement agreement. The easement/assessment agreement benefited both parties. The City acquired an easement at market value as evidenced by Ray Connelly's appraisal. The Murrays were allowed to pre-pay their assessments. This pre-payment allowed them to sell their home without escrowing one and a half to two times the amount of the pending assessments. Our office was informed by the Murrays that their house was closing on January 10, 1990 and the agreement would have to be executed by that time. On the morning of January 10, the Murrays came into our office and executed the agreement and issued a check to the City postdated January 16, 1990. We provided a letter to the Murrays stating that the assessments were pre-paid pending approval of the agreement by the City Council at their January 16 meeting. The Murrays informed me that morning that their closing had been rescheduled. The City council approved the agreement on January 16. The Murrays' closing was held on January 17. 1 received a call on January 17 from the closing company. The closer stated that the buyers of the Murray property were upset that the easement was over the property. The buyers had wanted to build a deck and a bridge over the stream and were not told of the easement prior to purchase. At Mr. Murrays' Mr. Tom Hedges January 24, 1990 Page Two urging, I met with both parties and explained the purpose of the easement. The buyers were upset at the Murrays for not telling them about the easement and threatened to cancel the sale. Mr. Murray then requested that the City renegotiate the easement with the buyers and allow them to pre-pay their assessments. On January 18, I spoke to the buyers' attorney. He stated that the buyers were not aware of the easement when they offered to buy the home and that therefore the value of the easement should be deducted from the purchase price. Mr. Murray called me later and said tthe he matter had been resolved, that the Murrays would pay the buyers easement price and thanked me for my efforts. Tn conclusion, it seems the problems were caused not by any delay on the part of the City but rather because the buyers were not aware of the easement over the property until the day of closing. There was ample time to inform the buyers of the this pending easement acquisition. The agreement was signed by theMurrays and forwarded to the closing company one week prior to closing. Negotiations between the buyers and sellers could have taken place long before final Council approval on January 16, 1990. Please contact me with any further questions or concerns regarding this matter. Sincerely, SEVERSON, WILCOX & SHELDON, P.A. Joseph P. Barley JPE/djk II61 u JAN 2 919A0 ?I I II O a ?' ? 9 ?U ?? 0 cz,a?a.?1a n?i e r c4 c c? ( o*/ -.C.I,L,L- it 't? a l aAvl- .1 CL ` e J&4 0 Qc < ?? ?,'?Gc1st Q. a a a? aQ?Ka?2?Q r dzd eA, 2 o c c? ?Q A, ,a eQ P,? Jam{ w._Q O-CUL a4_ 97 ? ? !0-4d ctti, u) AtLQA-4- A , nLQ a cul--4R ??? y . ? ?-6/1' 2t r V 1 F?c -? Q 'QL Q!( f ? ne e-n- RI? v s3 t o2?a. /h/,A S oo W aagan 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122-1897 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 FAX: (612) 454-8363 August 12, 1991 THOMAS EGAN Mayor DAVID K. GUSTAFSON PAMELA AkCREA TIM PAWLENTV THEODORE WACHTER Council Members THOMAS HEDGES CRy Administrate EUGENE VAN OVERSEKE Co Clerk ROBERT G & MARILYN MURRAY RT 2, BOX 53B CANNON FALLS MN 55009 Re: Project 543R, Skyline Road Lot 2, Post Addition No. 2 special Assessment Rebate (streets & utilities) Request Dear Mr. & Mrs. Murray: On July 23, I received a letter from you requesting the City of Eagan to rebate approximately $1,000 of your previously prepaid special assessments for the above-referenced project due to the fact that the final assessment figures were lower than what you had agreed to prepay in an agreement dated January 10, 1990. In addition to your claim of approximately $1,000, you further requested the City to refund the additional $1,775 of the total assessment prepaid under the January 10, 1990, agreement. You had requested a response by the City of Eagan by Friday, July 26. I apologize that I could not meet your response time frame, but, evidently, there has been a considerable amount of discussion and correspondence regarding this issue dating back to October 6, 1988. It took longer than anticipated to collect all this background information in order to provide a proper response to your request. During this research, it was discovered that on January 24, 1990, you had previously requested Mr. Tom Hedges, City Administrator, to reimburse the $1,775 prepayment. On January 24, Mr. Hedges responded providing background information as to why the City would not be able to comply with your request. In my recent telephone conversations with you, you indicated that you thought that you should be reimbursed for the amount that the final assessments for this project came in under the amount you prepaid the City. Information in our file indicated that our City Attorney, Mr. Jim Sheldon, spoke with you on November 30 and December 1 of 1989 regarding this issue. A memo from Mr. Sheldon to Mr. Hedges on December 1 relayed the conversation wherein you THE LONE OAK TREE.. .THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer MR & MRS MURRAY PAGE 2 "asked if all of his neighbors fought the storm trunk issue and won, would he get the $1,573 back. I said no, that it was a settlement and that it was final". In reviewing the ponding and flowage easement documents as well as the agreement pertaining to the prepayment of special assessments (both dated January 10, 1990), I can find no indication wherein there was any commitment or understanding that there would be an adjustment (both ways?) if the final assessments differed from the amount of the prepayments. After reviewing all this background information and speaking to the various individuals involved, I cannot find any information that would collaborate your understanding or provide justification for the City to make an adjustment to a previous agreement. I'm sorry that we are not able to comply with your request and hope that this letter provides you with the reasons why. Sincerely, Zoma. -e -tea Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/jj cc: Thomas L. Hedges, City Administrator Jim Sheldon, City Attorney RECEIVED J U L 2 3 5991 G? 0 a3? /9 9 Lv Ta, Posr 4do No ;Z 7Zt ,w y ?- /,04, - ?Zr. - Los. coo a v-1 f {?. 1'N,naa,? a? a, ? o "tae' 4d*- f I fli1n ?D 1%,P 0A A ADPr n no?rlD? f?P I TAI CAIL? ?4?4 4 I 2 5y3 Page 15/CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES October 6, 1988 Marv Coast had concerns regarding access, assessments, and the grade. Bob Murray, 2852 Sibley Hills, stated the airport noise was a problem and he felt he would receive no benefits from the project. He did not understand the high rates and felt the burden should be put on the developers. Mayor Ellison stated that he understood there could be no assessments if there was no benefit to the property owners. Mr. Sheldon stated he was correct. Dick Lagrue, 2910 Sibley Hills, stated he felt the streets should remain open. Warren Anderson, 1565 Rustic, stated he had to pay the cost and that everyone else should also. He felt the grade was too steep. Councilmember Egan questioned if there was a chance to use a north access. Mr. Willingbring stated the south access would reduce the cost. He stated MnDOT would contribute to the project and so it may be possible to expand it to the north in lieu of the south. Mr. Colbert stated MnDOT doesn't care whether it is a north or south access but they would only allow one access. Elaine Greer, 1928 Skyline, stated her property would receive no benefit from the project and she felt the project was unfair. Ann Stausser, 1568 Rustic, had concerns regarding access and safety. She questioned MnDOT's committment and stated she felt the assessments were too high as she would receive no benefit. Richard Glass, 1570 Russell, stated he was opposed to the project as it was unnecessary and felt the cost did not equal the benefit. He further stated even the developer did not want the project and he felt the proposal was not well thought out. Councilmember Egan asked for a clarification of the costs. Mr. Colbert explained the costs to the Council. Gordon Oldrey, 2882 Sibley Hills, questioned the ownership of an area and also questioned the sewer assessments and the steep grade. He stated he had concerns regarding safety. He questioned the size of the Prettyman lot. Fred DeLosch, Auge Road, questioned what would happen to Auge Road. Mr. Colbert stated it would remain the same with this project. Councilmember Wachter had questions regarding Parcel 020-56. Mr. Colbert stated the parcel would be assessed. Mr. Wachter stated he felt the problem regarding the two accesses must be solved. He questioned if the south access could be closed and keep the north AL" .-f,? aZA PA? P/ Orr 2021 Fast Hennepin Avenue ?Schelen Minneapolis, MN 55413 Engineers Ma Mayeron& 612-331-8660 Surveyors Associates, Inc. FAX 331-3806 Planners PARCEL NO.: 10-58501-020-00 OWNER: Robert G. and Marylynn Murray 2852 Sibley Hills Drive Eagan, MN 55121 DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENT: Easement NO. 89-20R A permanent easement for ponding and flowage purposes over, under and across that part of Lot 2, POST ADDITION NO. TWO, according to the recorded plat thereof on file in the Office of the County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota, which lies within 15.00 feet each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point in the east line of said Lot 2 distant 100.00 feet south of the northeast corner of said Lot 2; thence northeasterly 148.66 feet to a point in the northerly line of said Lot 2 distant 110.00 feet west of the northeast corner thereof and said centerline there terminating. Together with a permanent easement for ponding and flowage purposes over, under and across the east 20.00 feet of said Lot 2 which lies southwesterly of said above described centerline. Said permanent easement contains 4,505 square feet more or less. NOTE: No boundary survey work was performed as to the precise location of this tract. INEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURV Y, PLAN, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYMEORUNDERMYDIRECTSUP ISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGIS- " 9 LANDS YORUND H WS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. /z% 0. EDWARD AMES REG. NO. 11394 DATE DANIEL R. MCGIBBON REG. NO. 19883 DATE AVENUE i /-------------?-1 / to-sl T?p LP_ 245.45 -- - -- \F` ° \ ?2• 10-40100-030-Ot '?'? ?` F7 \ 6 ?\ZN 3 ' ' '0F 5h \\ ? ?• - 90 - -ryr •p 13b. 31 PERMAN NT EASE FOR P NOING d SGALE O? W U 4 D: W H W l'l u _o ir m 110.00 1 2 NT 9_ LOWAGE N-OO 10-58501-89-22 Y 10-58501-030-00 4 10-8 /l-6;Fl6/-?'Z4? ?d of 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55122-1897 PHONE: (612) 454-8130 PAX', 1612) 454-8363 September 7, 1989 BOB MURRAY 2852 SIBLEY HILLS DR EAGAN MN 55121 Re: Pending Assessment for ProieCt 543R Dear Mr. Murray: MC ELLISON Maya. THOMAS EGAN DAVID K. GUSTAFSON PAMELA McCREA THEODORE WACHTER Caaacd MemtxR THOMAS HEDGES Gy Adm"shatos EUGENE VAN OVERREKE GN C ek I apologize for my delay in responding to questions you raised at our meeting on August 21. After reviewing your concerns with the City Attorney's office, it was my opinion that your property should be reviewed by the City's appraiser to determine whether the improvements proposed in Project 543R will in fact benefit your property. If it is determined that there is a benefit to your property as proposed by the pending assessment, we will sit down and explain reasons for the assessments in a future meeting. If it is determined that there is no benefit to your property, I will recommend to the City Council that your parcel be removed from further consideration for assessment under this proposed project. As soon as the appraiser has completed his review, you will be contacted. Sincerely, Thomas L. Hedges\ City Administrator TLH/kf THE LONE OAK TREE ...THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RAY CONNELLY REALTY Brokerage and Appraisals (612) 890-2130 November 10, 1989 James F. Sheldon Severson, Wilcox & Sheldon, P.A. 7300 West 147th Street P.O. Box 24329 Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 Re: Bob Murray Property 2852 Sibley Hills Drive, Eagan, MN 55121 Dear Jim: I have viewed the subject property the week of November 6, 1989, and sat down with Mrs. Murray. I got her feelings on the pending of assessment on project 543R. It is my opinion that it would be a fair exchange to take off the street and storm assessment in exchange for them giving the City of Eagan an easement to the drainage way that runs through the back and side of their lot. As far as the trunk storm sewer assessment is concerned, It is my opinion that it is a benefit to all property owners to share equally in storm sewer cost. If you wish further information, please contact me. Sincerely, Ra?Connelly RC:clm 12904 Nicollet Avenue • Burnsville, MN 55337 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Tom Hedges FROM: Jim Sheldon DATE: December 1, 1989 RE: Bob Murray (Project No. 543R Assessments) Our File No.: 206-7888 7- 2 Tom: I spoke today with Bob Murray. I spoke with him yesterday also and in accordance with Ray Connolly's letter of November 10, 1989, told him that the proposed assessment for storm trunk was $1,573.00 and that the proposed assessment for streets and street storm sewer was $1,775.00, approximately. Based on Ray Connolly's letter, I offered to exchange the streets and storm sewer lateral assessment ($1,775.00) for the easements and required him to pay the storm trunk sewer ($1,573.00). He said he thought he had already paid a storm trunk sewer assessment. My information from the City indicates that he paid a sanitary sewer trunk assessment of $100.00 in 1967, a sewer and water lateral assessment in 1971 and a street assessment in 1972. Mr. Murray felt he didn't need a storm trunk. We had that general discussion about the need for trunks and that type of thing. He then asked if all of his neighbors fought the storm trunk issue and won, would he get the $1,573.00 back. I said no, that it was a settlement and that it was final. He also indicated that he would have to withhold one and one-half or two times the amount of the assessment if he sold his house (apparently scheduled to close the end of December). I told him the City would allow him to pay the assessment now and remove the pending assessment from the roll. He once again reiterated that he would like to trade both assessment for the easements. He said that he had 300 or 400 feet of easement and he was the only one in the neighborhood that had the easement. It's simply a dollar and cents matter. He said that that differentiated him from his neighbors since he had an easement to .~ade. told him that my position was that we should follow the appraiser's commendation. However, I did say to him that he had a right to a r.sponse from you as the Chief Administrator of the City. I told him that I would review the matter with you and give you my recommendation that we follow Ray Connolly's letter. I did state, however, that while you usually follow my advice, you don't always. No doubt we will have the benefit issue challenged (probably via John Klein as appraiser) from the Post Addition people. In addition, the court appointed commissioners (3 each) charge $100.00 per day plus mileage for each condemnation. They manage to get in a minimum of four days for each piece of property, which means that the condemnation costs for the commissioners alone is $1,200.00. Thus, the cost of the condemnation for the easement will eat up the assessment. In addition, we will have to pay for the easement, whatever value that is. As I see it, it's really an issue of how you want to spend your money and what the effect of this will be, if any, on the remaining neighbors up there. Perhaps we can discuss this on Tuesday. I told Mr. Murray that I would touch base with him by the end of the week but may not necessarily have any kind of a decision by then. JFS/djk MEMO TO: THOMAS L HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: THOMAS A COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: DECEMBER 11, 1989 SUBJECT: PROJ 543R, SIBLEY HILLS RD/SKYLINE RD (STREETS 6 UTILITIES) ESMT ACQUISITION/ASSESSMENT NEGOTIATION LOT 2, BLOCK It POST 2ND ADDN (ROBERT MURRAY) I have reviewed a memo from City Attorney Jim Sheldon to yourself regarding the proposed negotiated settlement for the easement acquisition of the above-referenced project. It is my understanding that the City Attorney has offered to exchange the flowage easement acquisition for an abatement of street related assessments ($1,775), but still maintaining that the trunk area storm sewer assessment should remain as proposed ($1,573). On this date, I reviewed the situation with Jim Sheldon and informed him of the problems the City has incurred in the past with "trading" easements for assessments. The problem lies in the fact that the assessment obligation never gets recorded against the property and future historical financial obligation researches could turn up a finding that the property had never paid an assessment for a previous improvement unless the individual doing the research knew enough to check the conditions of any and all easements that may have been acquired from this property owner. We have found it to be more accurate to settle on the easement acquisition for a specified dollar amount (which could/would be based on any proposed assessment amount) but would be paid to the property owner in a timely manner. The property owner could then determine whether he would like to have the special assessment certified against his property tax rolls or he could use the money to pay off the assessment providing maximum flexibility for the property owner. This also eliminates the potential for deleting certain assessments in their entirety and reducing other assessments in exchange for the easements which creates confusion in the preparation of the final assessment roll. In regards to the amount of the settlement, the City has relied on the recommendation of the City appraiser as to the value of the easement to be acquired. Certainly the cost of pursuing the easement acquisition through condemnation can be taken into consideration in adjusting the value of compensation for final settlement. However, if Jim Sheldon's estimate of approximately $1,200 in commissioner fees for each property is accurate, I would think we should pursue some type of "group action", if there is such a thing, to minimize the commissioners' costs. I would hope that they would be able to evaluate more than one piece of property per day as I feel $1,200 per property for a commissioner evaluation is unreasonable. However, this is something that Jim Sheldon is very knowledgeable in and should be left to his discretion and advisement. Another thought. to consider is the fact that the easement acquisitions are costs that s:,_ild be added to the total project costs which are then allocated to all benefiting property owners on a front foot basis. If Page 2 we trade an easement for an assessment, would the City end up picking up the financial obligation of the reduced assessable footage or would all of the other property owners share in paying for Mr. Murray's assessment obligation. I would think it would be easier to explain to the property owners the change in the proposed final assessment amount based on cost to acquire an easement rather than the deletion of a specific property owner from the assessment allocation formula. If you would like to discuss and/or review this issue in further detail, please let me know. ?y Directo of Public Works TAC/jj cc: Mike Foertsch, Assistant City Engineer Jim Sheldon, City Attorney 926132 PONDING AND FLOWAGE EASEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH EAGAN CITY PROJECT #543R 0 THIS UTILITY EASEMENT, made this ? day ofkhLusbknd 19A between ROBERT G. MURRAY and LYNN MURRA and wife, herein referred to as "Landowner" and the C OF EAGAN, a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City". W I T N E S S E T H: That the Landowner, in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant and convey unto the City, its successors and assigns, a permanent easement for ponding and flowage purposes, over, across and under the following described premises, situated within Dakota County, Minnesota, to-wit: A permanent easement for ponding and flowage purposes over, under and across that part of Lot 2, POST ADDITION NO. TWO, according to the recorded plat there of on file in the office of the County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota, which lies within 15.00 feet each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point in the distant 100.00 feet south of Lot 2; thence northeasterly northerly line of said Lot 2 the northeast corner thereof terminating. east line of said Lot 2 the northeast corner of said 148.66 feet to a point in the distant 110.00 feet west of and said centerline there Together with a permanent easement for ponding and flowage purposes over, under and across the east 20.00 feet of said Lot 2 which lies southwesterly of said above described centerline. Said permanent easement contains 4,505 square feet more or less. See also Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. The grant of the foregoing permanent easement for ponding and flowage purposes includes the right of the City, its contractors, agents and servants to direct storm water flowage into and through the easement premises. Landowner is prohibited from diverting or blocking the pondi:•n and flowage through the easement premises. And the Landowner, its heirs and assigns, does covenant with the City, its successors and assigns, that it is the Landowner of the premises aforesaid and has good right to grant and convey the easement herein to the City. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Landowner has caused this easement to be executed as of the day and year first above written. 4w4'- ROBERT G. AY MARYL URRAY STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF bAKo A ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /0"r day of 1989, by ROBERT G. MURRAY and MARYLYNN MURRAY, husban and wife. v,.,'.AAAAAAMAAAAAAAq.+.r NC.ARY _ NY Free 3.1994 rVW? V"VVVc':'i J': Vv'b VJV',hWy fJb V RN APPROVED AS TO FORM: yivyAzrorney'sLAffice APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: N ar Public 1944 rllj?'? IV- Public Works D ar ent " Date. ben•9o i AVENUE 1 0 /Z-- YS / I 245.45 10-40100-030-01.. I (\y„ 3 I LL \ y110.00 PERMAN NT EASE NT 9_20 FOR P NOING d LOWAGE 10-58501-020-00? 2u/ 89-22 \ / 10-58501-030-00 Z Exhibit A W U Q cc W i- -3 W i W c? 0 m 10-814 a ?? THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: MCMENOMY & SEVERSON, P.A. 7300 West 147th Street P.O. Box 24329 Apple Valley, MN 55124 (612) 432-3136 JPE i AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH EAGAN CITY PROJECT #543R This agreement, made this 104 day of January, 1990, between ROBERT G. MURRAY and MARYLYNN A. MURRAY, husband and wife, (hereinafter referred to as "Landowners") and the CITY OF EAGAN, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of r Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as "City"). W I T N E 8 8 E T H: WHEREAS, the City has requested the Landowners to grant a permanent easement for ponding and flowage purposes on Landowners' property; and WHEREAS, City and Landowners desire to enter into an agreement for the granting of a permanent easement and for the pre-payment of special assessments. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of One Dollar and no/100 ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency whereof is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. The Landowners agree to execute the ponding and flowage easement attached as Exhibit "A" in exchange for payment by the City in the amount of One Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy-five and no/100 Dollars ($1,775.00). 2. Landowners agree to pre-pay the City the special assessments to be levied against Landowners' property for City Project #543R in the following amounts: i a. Street and storm sewer lateral assessments $ 1,775.00 b. Storm trunk sewer assessments $ 1,573.00 TOTAL a. and b. equals $ 3,348.00 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hand on the day and year first above written. EAGAN : Thomas A. Egan Its: Mayor , ATTEST: By: A. J. VanOverbeke Its City Clerk LANDOWNERS: Az'?44, ?'x ? - Robert G. Murray Mary n A. Murray APPROVED AS TO FORM: C' orney's of f-ice d: /-el-`Y® APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ioM CCIE9 /-7 -cat 44, P? ? Public Works a artmen Dated: I'R• 9G STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA ss. On this ?G day of January, 1990, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared THOMAS A. EGAN and E. J. VanOVERBEKE to me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn, each did say that they are respectively the Mayor and Clerk of the City of Eagan, the municipality named in the foregoing instrument, a by authority acknowledged municipality. nd that the seal affixed on behalf of said municipality of its city council and said Mayor and Clerk said instrument to be the free act and deed of said ?MNMNN/MfNJINNN1?Of I...::_SOTA 7A COU:J'fY `??:.-' 7,f; i....... .,...n E.p f.J 9. t:93 y?? JIINON:?f?STATE OF MINNESOTA ) T^A ) ss. COUNTY OF .t)AIL07 ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this iv"'l day of January, 1990, by ROBERT G. MURRAY and MARYLYNN A. MURRAY, husband and wife. ¦ fiiS JOSEPH P. EARLEY c i r NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA OANOTA COUNTY NOt y bllc My Comm. Expires Aug. 3, 1994 ¦vwv?wwVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVA- Page 12/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL January 16, 1990 8. Lots 7, 8 and 9 shall be r*6hdWiered to Lots it 2 and 3. Egan, Wachter, Gustafson and Pawlenty voted in favor; McCrea was absent. CONTRACT 88-241LEBIMGTOIi j?p:XiEBB$9IR/CEAMGS ORDER NO. 4 Egan moved, Gustafson seconded., tho;:;motion to approve Change Order No. 4 to Contract 88-24'>;: E?xih4i6n Avenue Reservoir) and authorize the Mayor and City--.':::t e?k'ti: w"'O:* to all related documents. Egan, Gustafson and Pawlenty voted in"favor; Wachter voted against; McCrea was absent. PROJECT 543R/KURRAY EASMU MT Gustafson moved, Wachter;:;:.:seconded, the motion to approve an agreement with Robert Murray :.?tg.,....grant a permanent easement in connection with Project No. 54'3.::*:>Egan, Wachter, Gustafson and . Pawlenty voted in favor; McCrea wns ab.stint CENC= Wachter moved, Egan secoidQ;'the motion to approve the checklist dated December 31, 1989 in the amount of $684,096.80, the checklist dated January 15, 1990 in the amount of $509,684.62 and the checklist dated January 16, 1990 in the amount of $391,588.53. Egan, Wachter, Gustafson and Pawlenty voted in favor; McCrea was absent. EYECUTIV$'`2 8.8. The City Council adjourned 0A regu]ar meeting to an executive session to consider attorney/cliift prIVileged information at 2:40 a.m. The executive session was adjout-ed a?:.3:00 a.m. CITY OF EAGAN E. J. Vaht*erbeke, City Clerk ?IMIo?1 A l JAN 2 9 W i l f ?A4?-?Jk-'?? CA- l ftA oj,2?t -- -- Cl- -???_? 49 ?4df 71wk )n-o 7A A?t r ?'S?- rtb ea 'u uv;e. IIH January 24, 1990 Mr. Tom Hedges Eagan City Administrator 3830 pilot Knob Road p.O. Sox 21199 Eagan, MN 55121 C RE: Robert Murray Easement/Assessment Agreement our File No.: 206-7888 Dear Tom: Viv I V? This letter will recap the various conversations and meetings between the Murrays and myself that led to the execution of the easement agreement. The easement/assessment agreement benefited both parties. The City acquired an easement at market value as evidenced by Ray Connelly's appraisal. The Murrays were allowed to pre-pay their assessments. This pre-payment allowed them to sell their home without escrowing one and a half to two times the amount of the pending assessments. Our office was informed by the Murrays that their house was closing on January 10, 1990 and the agreement would have to be executed by that time. on the morning of January 10, the Murrays came into our office and executed the agreement and issued a check to the City post-dated January 16, 1990. We provided a letter to the Murrays stating that the assessments were pre-paid pending approval of the agreement by the City Council at their January 16 meeting. The Murrays informed me that morning that their closing had been rescheduled. The city council approved the agreement on January 16. The Hurrays' closing was held on January 17. I received a call on January 17 from the closing company. The closer stated that the buyers of the Murray property were upset that the easement was over the property. The buyers had wanted to build a deck and a bridge over the stream and were not told of the easement prior to purchase. At Mr. Murrays' Mr. Tom Hedges January 24, 1990 Page Two urging, I met with both parties and explained the purpose of the easement. The buyers were upset at the Murrays for not telling them about the easement and threatened to cancel the sale. Mr. Murray then requested that the City renegotiate the easement with the buyers and allow them to pre-pay their assessments. On January 18, I spoke to the buyers' attorney. buyers were not aware of the easement when they home and that therefore the value of the easement from the purchase price. Mr. Murray called me late matter had been resolved, that the Murrays would easement price and thanked me for my efforts. He stated that the offered to buy the should be deducted r and said that the pay the buyers the in conclusion, it seems the problems were caused not by any delay on the part of the City but rather because the buyers were not aware of the easement over the property until the day of closing. There was ample time to inform the buyers of the this pending easement acquisition. The agreement was signed by the Murrays and forwarded to the closing company one week prior to closing. Negotiations between the buyers and sellers could have taken place long before final Council approval on January 16, 1990. Please contact me with any further questions or concerns regarding this matter. Sincerely, SEVERSON, WILCOX & SHELDON, P.A. Joseph P. Earley JPE/djk of augan I 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD EGAN THOMAS Mayor r EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55129 1897 GUSTAFSON DAVID K PHONE: (612) 4548100 . PAMELA M:CRFA FAX. (612) 454-8363 TIM PAWLENTY January 30, 1990 ER RE WACH THEO D O ? ? 'I S THOMAS HEDGES City Adrrinlstrator EUGENE VAN OVERSEKE ROBERT & MARILYN MURRAY CRY Clerk RR 2, BOX 53B CANNON FALLS MN 55009 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Murray: I received a letter on January 29 that is dated January 24, raising questions about the process regarding an easement and special assessments that were proposed against property you owned at 2852 Sibley Hills Drive. The letter also requested payment by the City for the easement and difference in interest rate you apparently lost on your mortgage. Mr. Gene VanOverbeke, our Director of Finance and City Clerk, met with you on Friday, January 19, and these concerns were raised. I did follow through with our City Attorney's office to better learn what occurred regarding the easement document around your closing date. First, I would like to address the amount of time that transpired in an effort to resolve your special assessment issue. Bob first contacted me in August, 1989 regarding a pending assessment amount that would appear on your property considering your desire to sell the property. There was discussion as to the feasibility of applying the value of an easement to void the future assessment. Recognizing the need for an easement, I referred this matter to the City Attorney's office on September 7, 1989 and asked that he coordinate an appraisal and handle all correspondence and communications with you. The City Attorney's office did request an appraisal by Ray Connelly and Associates and the results of that appraisal were returned to the City Attorney on November lo, 1989. The next step was for the City Attorney to prepare a memo outlining a proposed agreement. The memo was forwarded to the City on December 1st to my attention. This item was then referred to the Director of Public Works for his review and returned for signature and processing by the City Attorney's office during late December, early January. Apparently, there was a dialogue and various meetings that you were involved in with the City Attorney's office leading up to the January 16 ratification by the City council of the agreement. I was not involved in any of the discussions or meetings and asked Joe Early to prepare an account of what transpired to better under- stand the series of meetings and what happened around your closing. For a copy of Mr. Early's response, refer to the enclosure. THE LONE OAK TREE ...THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer LETTER TO ROBERT & MARILYN MURRAY JANUARY 30, 1990 PAGE TWO Hopefully, this information will help clarify this matter for you. Given the facts and circumstances as outlined, I do not believe the City is liable for the costs you referenced in previous conversations and letters. Sincerely, l `??? Thomas L. Hedges City ?- Administrator Enclosure TLH/vmd 926132 PONDING AND FLOWAGE EASEMENT v IN CONNECTION WITH EAGAN CITY PROJECT #5431R eTHIS UTILITY EASEMENT, made this I /i__ day of to " 19 between ROBERT G. MURRAY and MARYLYNN MURRA husband and wife, herein referred to as "Landowner" and the C OF EAGAN, a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City". W I T N E S S E T H: That the Landowner, in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant and convey unto the City, its successors and assigns, a permanent easement for ponding and flowage purposes, over, across and under the following described premises, situated within Dakota County, Minnesota, to-wit: A permanent easement for ponding and flowage purposes over, under and across that part of Lot 2, POST ADDITION NO. TWO, according to the recorded plat there of on file in the Office of the County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota, which lies within 15.00 feet each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point in the east line of said Lot 2 distant 100.00 feet south of the northeast corner of said Lot 2; thence northeasterly 148.66 feet to a point in the northerly line of said Lot 2 distant 110.00 feet west of the northeast corner thereof and said centerline there terminating. Together with a permanent easement for ponding and flowage purposes over, under and across the east 20.00 feet of said Lot 2 which lies southwesterly of said above described centerline. Said permanent easement contains 4,505 square feet more or less. See also Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. The grant of the foregoing permanent easement for ponding and flowage purposes includes the right of the City, its contractors, agents and servants to direct storm water flowage into and through the easement premises. Landowner is prohibited from diverting or blocking the ponding and flowage through the easement premises. And the Landowner, its heirs and assigns, does covenant with the City, its successors and assigns, that it is the Landowner of the premises aforesaid and has good right to grant and convey the easement herein to the City. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Landowner has caused this easement to be executed as of the day and year first above written. z 114 "', BERT G. MURRAY ?.! itJ 1. wt /'Lf YL Y STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF l-k P orA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /01'r day of , 1989, by ROBERT G. MURRAY and MARYLYNN MURRAY, husban and wife. A AAAAA.AN AAAASAAA AA AAAAAAAAAAMAAAA ¦ JCSE° ? P Fi f F'Y NGV•RY POS,JZ .I;.t.ESGTA DAKOTA COJN'TY S Z n y Comm. Au;. 3. 1994 SZ YYWWVvNVVV ?VVJ'JN/bl•VVVVVVVVVVV,V APPROVED AS TO FORM: ttorney's ffice a ?- in' 94 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: { N ar Public r.r ?„/?v4 low orlon 9 ) Public Works Department Date: I- hk l o PERMAN NT EASE FOR P NOING Q / O? /------------a-1 _° ? sus ? ? •?:. n ? I ti ? I i X30., / \?? "o \ 9t 10-40100-030-01 116 (\2r, 3 I F'fl ? L I'•4• -' 90 --?•a Q • SCALE AVENUE W I U a i La W H 3 W C7 O m Of L NT 89_20 LOWAGE 10-58501-020-00 3 10-814 10-58501-030-00 Exhibit A 4 THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: McMENOMY & SEVERSON, P.A. 7300 West 147th Street P.O. Box 24329 Apple Valley, MN 55124 (612) 432-3136 JPE ryy? . _ .p , _ ^ Sol - ? (? 3 ? 5 8 57 3300 T, 4 a7, 000 P CR-) 6.14. 61300 015 -rte 7,3 -TL" -T,...,. &l ,t Ue -, \D .? C ,U %a a mo'o` 4, ?d,,i. +•1ti `a`? 10% a+ J M E M O R A N D U M TO: Tom Hedges FROM: Jim Sheldon DATE: December 1, 1989 RE: Bob Murray (Project No. 543R Assessments) Our File No.: 206-7888 Tom: I spoke today with Bob Murray. I spoke with him yesterday also and in accordance with Ray Connolly's letter of November 10, 1989, told him that the proposed assessment for storm trunk was $1,573.00 and that the proposer: assessment for streets and street storm sewer was $1,775.00, approximately. Based on Ray Connolly's letter, I offered to exchange the streets and storm sewer lateral assessment ($1,775.00) for the easements and required him to pay the storm trunk sewer ($1,573.00). He said he thought he had already paid a storm trunk sewer assessment. My information from the City indicates that he paid a sanitary sewer trunk assessment of $100.00 in 1967, a sewer and water lateral assessment in 1971 and a street assessment in 1972. Mr. Murray felt he didn't need a storm trunk. We had that general discussion about the need for trunks and that type of thing. He then asked if all of his neighbors fought the storm trunk issue and won, would he get the $1.573.00 back. I said no, that it was a settlement and that it was final. He also indicated that he would have to withhold one and one-half or two times the amount of the assessment if he sold his house (apparently scheduled to close the end of December). I told him the City would allow him to pay the assessment now and remove the pending assessment from the roll. He once again reiterated that he would like to trade both assessment for the easements. He said that he had 300 or 400 feet of easement and he was the only one in the neighborhood that had the easement. It's simply a dollar and cents matter. He said that that differentiated him from his neighbors since he had an easement to trade. I told him that my position was that we should follow the appraiser's recommendation. However, I did say to him that he had a right to a response from you as the Chief Administrator of the City. I told him t that I would review the matter with you and give you my recommendation that we follow Ray Connolly's letter. I did state, however, that while you usually follow my advice, you don't always. No doubt we will have the benefit issue challenged (probably via John Klein as appraiser) from the Post Addition people. In addition, the court appointed commissioners (3 each) charge $100.00 per day plus mileage for each condemnation. They manage to get in a minimum of four days for each piece of property, which means that the condemnation costs for the commissioners alone is $1,200.00. Thus, the cost of the condemnation for the easement will eat up the assessment. In addition, we will have to pay for the easement, whatever value that is. As I see it, it's really an issue of how you want to spend your money and what the effect of this will be, if any, on the remaining neighbors up there. Perhaps we can discuss this on Tuesday. I told Mr. Murray that I would touch base with him by the end of the week but may not necessarily have any kind of a decision by then. JFS/djk 1 ~ MEMO TO: THOMAS L HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: THOMAS A COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: DECEMBER 11, 1989 SUBJECT: ifROJ 543Ri SItLEY HILLS RD/SKYLINE RD (STREETS & UTILITIES) tf§Mt ACQbISITION/ASSESSMENT NEGOTIATION LOT 2, BLOCK 1, POST 2ND ADDN (ROBERT MURRAY) I have reviewed a me-!lo from City Attorney Jim Sheldon to yourself regarding the proposed negotiated settlement for the easement acquisition of the above-referenced project. It is my understanding that the City Attorney has offered to exchange the flowage easement acquisition for an abatement of street related assessments ($1,775), but still maintaining that the trunk area storm sewer assessment should remain as proposed ($1,573). On this date, I reviewed the situation with Jim Sheldon and informed him of the problems the City has incurred in the past with "trading" easements for assessments. The problem lies in the fact that the assessment obligation n,-per gets recorded against the property and future historical finan,tal obligation researches could turn up a finding that the propert}- had never paid an assessment for a previous improvement unless the individual doing the research knew enough to check the conditions of any and all easements that may have been acquired from this property owner. We have found it to be more accurate to settle on the easement acquisition for a specified dollar amount (which could/would be based on any proposed assessment amount) but would be paid to the property owner in a timely manner. The property owner could then determine whether he would like to have the special assessment certified against his property tax rolls or he could use the money to pay off the assessment providing maximum flexibility for the property owner. This also eliminates the potential for deleting certain assessments in their entirety and reducing other assessments in exchange for the easements which creates confusion in the preparation of the final assessment roll. In regards to the amount of the settlement, the City has relied on the recommendation of the City appraiser as to the value of the easement to be acquired. Certainly the cost of pursuing the easement acquisition through condemnation can be taken into consideration in adjusting the value of compensation for final settlement. However, if Jim Sheldon's estimate of approximately $1,200 in commissioner fees for each property is accurate, I would think we should pursue some type of "group action", if there is such a thing, to minimize the commissioners' costs. I would hope that they would be able to evaluate more than one piece of property per day as I feel $1,200 per property for a commissioner evaluation is unreasonable. However, this is something that Jim Sheldon is very knowledgeable in and should be left to his discretion and advisement. Another thought to consider is the fact that the easement acquisitions are costs that should be added to the total project costs which are then allocated to all benefiting property owners on a front foot basis. If Page 2 we trade an easement for an assessment, would the City end up picking up the financial obligation of the reduced assessable footage or would all of the other property owners share in paying for Mr. Murray's assessment obligation. I would think it would be easier to explain to the property owners the change in the proposed final assessment amount based on cost to acquire an easement rather than the deletion of a specific property owner from the assessment allocation formula. If you would like to discuss and/or review this issue in further detail, please let me know. Director of Public Works TAC/jj cc: Mike Foertsch, Assistant City Engineer Jim Sheldon, City Attorney 0 oS? aK? AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH EAGAN CITY PROJECT #543R This agreement, made this 104 day of January, 1990, between ROBERT G. MURRAY and MARYLYNN A. MURRAY, husband and wife, (hereinafter referred to as "Landowners") and the CITY OF EAGAN, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as "City"). W I T N E 8 8 E T H: WHEREAS, the City has requested the Landowners to grant a permanent easement for ponding and flowage purposes on Landowners' property; and WHEREAS, City and Landowners desire to enter into an agreement for the granting of a permanent easement and for the pre-payment of special assessments. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of One Dollar and no/100 ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency whereof is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. The Landowners agree to execute the ponding and flowage easement attached as Exhibit "A" in exchange for payment by the City in the amount of one Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy-five and no/100 Dollars ($1,775.00). 2. Landowners agree to pre-pay the City the special assessments to be levied against Landowners' property for City Project #543R in the following amounts: a. Street and storm sewer lateral assessments $ 1,775.00 b. Storm trunk sewer assessments $ 1,573.00 TOTAL a. and b. equals $ 3,348.00 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hand on the day and year first above written. : Thomas A. Its: Mayor ATTEST: By: J. "Va n 0 verbekIts City Clerk LANDOWNERS: Robert G. Murray Mary n A. Murray APPROVED AS TO FORM: C. orney's Of ce d; (-try APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: _ AX c/4erk Cna! 4L P Public Works a artmen Dated: I-g46 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA On this ?? within and for said J. VanOVERBEKE to sworn, each did say the City of E instrument, and th by authority of acknowledged said municipality. ss. day of January, 1990, before me a Notary Public County, personally appeared THOMAS A. EGAN and E. me personally known, who being each by me duly y that they are respectively the Mayor and Clerk of agan, the municipality named in the foregoing at the seal affixed on behalf of said municipality its City Council and said Mayor and Clerk instrument to be the free act and deed of said ?,^ :: 1°."" 1`! L 17L'C"f0^'ENHIG ?I J D. .' .'.,,TA COUN)-Y .dV C:........ .smn Ezp FW 8. 1;73 ?y !,1'SNJrNVri:lO.NINJ N: d?? STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ?e? ..?, ) ss. COUNTY OF .P-WO4) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this L day of January, 1990, by ROBERT G. MURRAY and MARYLYNN A. MURRAY, husband and wife. r . JOSEPH P. EARLEY r". NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA DAKOTA COUNTY Not y blic MY Comm. Eaplfe4 Aug. 3, 1994 •VVYVVWVNVVV V VVWVVVVVVVVV 4, 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD THOMAS EGAN EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122-1897 wyc,r PHONE: (612) 454-8100 DAVID K. GUSTAFSON FAX: (612) 454-8363 PAMELA McCREA TIM PAWLENTY THEODORE WACHTER Com¢il Members THOMAS HEDGES City Administrator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk January 18, 1990 Attention: Ronnie Equity Title 14500 Burnhaven Dr Suite 104 Burnsville MN 55337 Dear Ronnie: The pending assessments for Project 543 on PID #10 58501 020 00 are paid in full per the agreement. Sincerely, le-uL Deanna Kivi Assessment Clerk THE LONE OAK TREE.. .THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Equal Opportunity/Aff rmafive Action Employer city of eagan CITY OF RAGAN FAX TRANSMITTAL 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD RAGANs KINNESOTA S5122 Office # (612) 454-8100 Fax # (612) 454-8363 DATE y 3;1 - 3780 TIME To: Fax# SWAyboN W A &S IL +S RE: f?A nII?ON , Company . . 'b a Attention " 4" # of pages being sent + cover. These are being transmitted as checked below: For Approval For your Use As Requested For Review & Comment Remarks • \ I -EAit of A 1? ev ?[" -4• a o o rw; sw1 A ; s - [Vtar,.1.S I l 7 33 l l b ulrv o - e ? ay Please Reply _No Reply Necessary Signed: THE LONE OAK TREE.. ,THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY September 7, 1989 BOB MURRAY 2852 SIBLEY HILLS DR EAGAN MN 55121 Re: Pending Assessment for Project 543R Dear Mr. Murray: I apologize for my delay in responding to questions you raised at our meeting on August 21. After reviewing your concerns with the City Attorney's office, it was my opinion that your property should be reviewed by the City's appraiser to determine whether the improvements proposed in Project 543R will in fact benefit your property. If it is determined that there is a benefit to your property as proposed by the pending assessment, we will sit down and explain reasons for the assessments in a future meeting. If it is determined that there is no benefit to your property, I will recommend to the City Council that your parcel be removed from further consideration for assessment under this proposed project. As soon as the appraiser has completed his review, you will be contacted. Sincerely, Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator TLH/kf RAY CONNELLY REALTY Brokerage and Appraisals (612) 890-2130 November 10, 1989 James F. Sheldon Severson, Wilcox & Sheldon, P.A. 7300 West 147th Street P.O. Box 24329 Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 Re: Bob Murray Property 2852 Sibley Hills Diive,-'Eagan, MN 55121 Dear Jim: I have viewed the subject property the week of November 6, 1989, and sat down with Mrs. Murray. I got her feelings on the pending of assessment on project 543R. It is my opinion that it would be a fair exchange to take off the street and storm assessment in exchange for them giving the City of Eagan an easement to the drainage way that runs through the back and side of their lot. As far as the trunk storm sewer assessment is concerned, It is my opinion that it is a benefit to all property owners to share equally in storm sewer cost. If you wish further information, please contact me. Sincerely, 12a?/Connelly RC:clm 12904 Nicollet Avenue • Burnsville, MN 55337 A7 -"59'I'D /-PJZep oa of eagan 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122-1897 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 FAX: (612) 454-8363 September 7, 1989 BOB MURRAY 2852 SIBLEY HILLS DR EAGAN MN 55121 Re: Pending Assessment for Project 543R Dear Mr. Murray: VAC ELLISON MQ THOMAS EGAN DAVID K. GUSTAFSON PAMELA McCRFA THEODORE WACHTER Ca df M rM rs THOMAS HEDGES CRV M.m Ishabr EUGENE VAN OVEWEKE CIN CWrk I apologize for my delay in responding to questions you raised at our meeting on August 21. After reviewing your concerns with the City Attorney's office, it was my opinion that your property should be reviewed by the City's appraiser to determine whether the improvements proposed in Project 543R will in fact benefit your property. If it is determined that there is a benefit to your property as proposed by the pending assessment, we will sit down and explain reasons for the assessments in a future meeting. If it is determined that there is no benefit to your property, I will recommend to the City Council that your parcel be removed from further consideration for assessment under this proposed project. As soon as the appraiser has completed his review, you will be contacted. Sincerely, Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator TLH/kf THE LONE OAK TREE...THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer PERMIT City of Eagan Permit Type:Plumbing Permit Number:EA160569 Date Issued:03/20/2020 Permit Category:ePermit Site Address: 2852 Sibley Hills Dr Lot:2 Block: 0 Addition: Post 2nd PID:10-58501-00-020 Use: Description: Sub Type:Residential Work Type:Replace Description:Standard Water Heater Meter Size Meter Type Manufacturer Serial Number Remote Number Line Size Comments:Please call Building Inspections at (651) 675-5675 to schedule a final inspection. Allow an 18" minimum radius clearance to the water meter from all appliances (i.e. furnace, water heater, water softener). Fee Summary:PL - Permit Fee (WS &/or WH)$59.00 0801.4087 Surcharge-Fixed $1.00 9001.2195 $60.00 Total: I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the information is correct and agree to comply with all applicable State of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances. Contractor:Owner:- Applicant - Milosava Ljubisavljevic 2852 Sibley Hills Dr Eagan MN 55121 (651) 500-2069 Noah Acquisitions Llc 5718 International Pkwy Brooklyn Park MN 55428 (612) 822-5292 Applicant/Permitee: Signature Issued By: Signature EAGAN 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD I EAGAN, MN 55122-1810 (651) 675-5675 I TDD: (651) 454-8535 I FAX: (651) 675-5694 buildingi nspections(d),cItvofeagan. com ECEDVE JUN1820zo r For Office Use Permit#. /le7/4O�9'. Permit Fee: 103 - ' (� Date Received: 6 If Staff. 2020 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Date: Site Address: Unit #: Resident/OneZ Owner Name: CIO SO1VA L.Sub1SGl' LT kJ (C Phone: CAT--Li1Z—g'Co,Zt address /city /zip: $ S 2$,bl , .e VI: \ 1 S ` qn $51 Z 1 l k Applicant is: � Owner Contractor ( 1 I hS 4-� A �-(�(� I" Type Of Work Description of work: Ck60 tic 3 fOknok ?0.0. Construction Cost: G 7q 1. CTO Multi -Family Building: (Yes / No ) Contractor Company: Contact: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: Email: License #: Lead Certificate #: If the project is exempt from lead certification, please explain why: In the last 12 months, Yes X No COMPLETE THIS AREA ONLY IF CONSTRUCTING A NEW BUILDING has the City of Eagan Issued a permit for a similar plan based on a master plan? If yes, date and address of master plan: Licensed Plumber. Mechanical Contractor Sewer & Water Contractor. Pire Suppression Contractor Phone: Phone: Phone: Phone: NOTE Plans and supporting documents that you submit are considered to be public information. Portions of the information may be classified as non-public If you provide specific reasons that would permit the City to conclude that they are trade secrets. You may subscribe to receive an electronic notification from the City of proposed ordinances by signing up for an email update on the City's webslte at www.citvofeaaan.00m/subscribe. Exterior work authorized by a building permit issued in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code must be completed within 180 days of permit issuance. CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. Call Gopher State One Call at (851) 454-0002 for protection against underground utility damage. Call 48 hours before you intend to dig to receive locates of underground utilities. www.cocherstateonecall.orq I hereby acknowledge that this information is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City of Eagan; that I understand this is not a permit, but only an application for a permit, and work is not to start without a permit; that the work will be in accordance with the approved plan in the case of work which requires a review and approval of plans. X PI 0 SA"�Ck L5u{, ia1 5 � `Ttv 1 c x t-A. ' L� _ Applicant's Printed Name Applicant'sIg to �� DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE 06.2 ,-,1016.-Li 14; s f),2_ , /62,/nT SIB TYPES Foundation Single Family Multi 01 of _ Plex WORK TYPES New Addition Alteration Replace Retaining Wall DESCRIPTION Valuation Occupancy Plan Review Code Edition (25%_ 100%) Zoning Census Code Stories # of Units Square Feet # of Buildings Length Type of Construction Width Fireplace _ Garage Deck Lower Level _ Porch (3-Season) _ Porch (4-Season) _ _ Porch (Screen/Gazebo/Pergola) _ Pool Interior Improvement Move Building _ Fire Repair _ Repair REQUIRED INSPECTIONS Footings (New Building) _ Footings (Deck) _ Footings (Addition) _ Foundation _Foundation Before Backfill Roof: _Ice & Water _Final _ Framing 30 Minutes 1 Hour _ Fireplace: _Rough In Air Test Insulation _ Sheathing Sheetrock Fire Walls Braced Walls Shower Pan Reviewed By: RESIDENTIAL FEES Base Fee Surcharge Plan Review MCES SAC City SAC Utility Connection Charge SSW Permit & Surcharge Treatment Plant Radio Meter Read Copies TOTAL Final Siding Reroof Windows Egress Window Exterior Alteration (Single Family) Exterior Alteration (Multi) Miscellaneous Accessory Building Demolish Building* _ Demolish interior Demolish Foundation _ Water Damage *Demolition of entire building - give PCA handout to applicant MCES System ® SAC Units City Water Booster Pump PRV Fire Suppression Required Meter Size: Final / C.O. Required Final / No C.O. Required HVAC Service Test Gas Line Air Test Hood X Pool:,Footings Air/Gas Tests Final Drain Tile Siding: _Stucco Lath _Stone Lath _Brick _ EFIS Windows Retaining Wall: _ Footings _ Backfill _ Final Radon Control Fire Suppression: _Rough In _Final Erosion Control Other: Building Inspector r2oo1 TI\ \;Y) CL. 0 i9 0 Page 2 of 3 Address: 2852 Sibley Hills Dr. POOL PERMIT -APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS /4./oe Applicant Name: Milosava Ljubisavljevic Y a a GENERAL INFORMATION o z a 0 0 0 Applicant name and contact information El ❑ ❑ Property owner name O 0 0 Address of property O 0 0 North arrow, scale (1" = 30' or 40') O 0 0 Site Plan, drawn to scale showing location of house, pool, and other existing or proposed structures, including retaining walls and fences. O 0 0 Location and name of all streets adjacent to property ❑ 0 0 Directional drainage arrows (existing and proposed) ❑ 0 0 Lot Square Footage ❑ 0 0 Lot Coverage ELEVATIONS Existing ❑ 0 0 House corners ❑ 0 0 Property corners ❑ 0 ❑ If applicable, ground elevation at each end of retaining walls and at wall's greatest height Proposed ❑ 0 0 Finished pool deck corners ❑ 0 0 Top of proposed retaining walls (if any) and at each different elevation (if it changes) O 0 0 Pool bottom (or max. depth) DIMENSIONS Existing El 0 0 All property/lot lines 0 ❑ ❑ All Easements on the property Proposed O ❑ ❑ Pool O ❑ 0 Pool plus integrated deck/patio El 0 0 Shortest distance from outside edge of pool deck to lot lines and house Reviewed By: Dave Westermayer Date 6-18-2020 G:/1 Engineering/Forms/Pool Permit Checklist 10-14-2019 C_0 tk mil)7 62 . ihk y l41775 L. // �� \ACl 1 O i P ✓1 b '\ j 1 0Thl 1A-VN' 0 c\ about:blank ro6) iNctv\-t G cki-0 \rT A 1‘\ -__.- 21-1•5\ <1,,2= 202 By. a Q, LAGAIN L.o. 6/17/20, 9:53 PM PERMIT City of Eagan Permit Type:Building Permit Number:EA163275 Date Issued:08/25/2020 Permit Category:ePermit Site Address: 2852 Sibley Hills Dr Lot:2 Block: 0 Addition: Post 2nd PID:10-58501-00-020 Use: Description: Sub Type:Reroof Work Type:Replace Description:Does not include skylight(s) Census Code:434 - Residential Additions, Alterations Zoning: Square Feet:0 Occupancy: Construction Type: Comments:Please print pictures of ice and water protection and leave on site. Carbon monoxide detectors are required within 10 feet of all sleeping room openings in residential homes (Minnesota State Building Code). Valuation: 5,000.00 Fee Summary:BL - Base Fee $5K $118.00 0801.4085 Surcharge - Based on Valuation $5K $2.50 9001.2195 $120.50 Total: I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the information is correct and agree to comply with all applicable State of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances. Contractor:Owner:- Applicant - Milosava Ljubisavljevic 2852 Sibley Hills Dr Eagan MN 55121 A Team Construction Inc 13743 Aberdeen St NE Ham Lake MN 55304 (763) 710-9955 Applicant/Permitee: Signature Issued By: Signature