Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2882 Sibley Hills Dr
CITY OF EAGAN Remarks /a, 7`/!' ^-t _ Addition Section Lot 1 Bilk 77 Parcel 10 00400 010 77 2882 Sibley ' E anMN 55121 Owner ^ij. Street State Improvement Date Amount Annual Years Payment Receipt Date STREET SURF. STREET RESTOR. GRADING SAN SEW TRUNK 41) 1968 1510,25 50,3 30 SEWER LATERAL WATERMAIN WATER LATERAL t WATER AREAr VL 1977 3279-40 STORM SEW TRK STORM SEW LAT CURB & GUTTER SIDEWALK STREET LIGHT WATER CONN. BUILDING PER. SAC PARK VILLAGE OF EAGAN WATER SERVICE PERMIT 3795 Pilot Knob - -ad N '12 PERMIT NO.: 1461 X15 74 DATE Eagan, M 551 : R-1 Zoning: No. of Units: 1 WaI tnr H_ WPhar Owner: _ Address: / 'aim Site Address: 2870 Sibley Hills Drive Plumber: Ron Kisslin4 Meter No.: 22843674 Ikonnection Charge: 34.0. 00_12d Size: 5/8 Rock Account Deposit: _?.5?OO-Pd_ Reader No.: 517077 Permit Fee: 10.00 pd 1 agree to comply with the Village of Eagan Surcharg • 50 d ?eCe orn .2 pT Ordinances. Misc. Charges: -} / Total: Gyt,?'Li?/ Date Paid: Date of Insp.: Insp.: Council Minutes October 6, 1987 JAMES HORNE - TRAILER PERMIT RENEWAL Arvella Horne appeared concerning the request of Mr. and Mrs. James Horne for renewal of their trailer permit. Mrs. Horne requested that the Council defer the painting request until after Pilot Knob Road is upgraded. Councilman Smith noted that the Hornes had agreed to repaint.the vehicle on at least two occasions and had not done so. Smith moved, Egan seconded the motion to approve the trailer permit up to July 1, 1988 with the express condition, however, that it is repainted to a suitable earth-tone by November 1, 1987. All members voted in favor. STRONG BEER SALES - LICENSES The City Administrator noted that during 1987, the Minnesota Legislature adopted a revision in the State law to allow municipalities to adopt ordinances that authorize the holder of an on-sale wine license and non-intoxicating malt liquor license to sell intoxicating malt liquor without an additional license. A request had been received from the Italian Pie Shoppe and Winery asking the City Council to address the issue. A review of a proposed Ordinance submitted to the St. Louis Park City Council was discussed. Upon motion by Smith, seconded Egan, it was resolved that the Council approve the preparation of an ordinance allowing intoxicating beer to be served in establishments where on-sale wine licenses and non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses are currently issued, according to the applicable law. All voted yes. ' Egan then moved and Smith seconded the motion to direct the staff and City Attorney to draft an ordinance to implement the revision to the applicable City Ordinance, based upon the guidelines under State law, and also direct publication with the effective date upon publication. All members voted in favor. FREDERICK C. DeLOSH - WAIVER OF PLAT - 2882 SIBLEY HILLS DR. An application was submitted by Frederick Delosh to split 1.003 acres from a 13.4 R-1 Single Family acreage parcel located at 2882 Sibley Hills Drive, north of Treffle Addition and west of Highview Park. The Advisory Planning Commission considered its application at its September 22, 1987 meeting and recommended approval subject to certain conditions. Dale Runkle described the application and also the Councilmembers reviewed a letter from the attorney for Michael and Margaret Sullivan, which expressed concerns regarding a spring in the immediate area. Mr. Runkle noted that the attempt of the staff was to consider future development of the area. 13 Council Minutes October 6, 1987 Mr. DeLosh was background, including springs in the area. amount of $3,566.00 assessments until the to questions, mention of plats or new plats present and read a letter explaining the the fact that there is a deep ravine and also He objected to the proposed assessments in the as being unfair and requested a delay of the property is developed. Mr. Colbert, in answer ed that the assessments are standard for waiver and cover only the area to be split off. Egan moved, Wachter seconded the motion to accept the recommendation of the Advisory Planning Commission and approve the application, subject to the following: 1. No further subdivision or development shall occur without platting the entire 13.45 acres which will include the lot that is the subject of the waiver. 2. No horses shall be allowed on the 13.45 acre site. 3. The parcel shall assume financial responsibility for the proposed assessments as a condition of granting this waiver of plat, according to standard city procedures. 4. A 60 foot right-of-way shall be provided as a condition of the waiver of plat. 5. A variance shall be allowed for the garage if an east-west road is constructed adjacent thereto. All councilmembers voted yes. ROYAL OAR CIRCLE APARTMENTS - SITE PLAN REVIEW A request from Richard Asp, the developer of the Royal Oaks Circle Apartment project on Federal Drive, that the site plan to construct three 22-unit apartments be revised to two 33-unit apartments for the Royal Oak Circle 2nd Addition was next considered. Dale Runkle gave a brief description and Mr. Asp was present. The Council suggested that the center lot, where the building is to be eliminated, be divided in half so that half of each lot would be attached to lots with buildings to be constructed upon them. Wachter moved, Egan seconded the motion to approve the revision with the understanding that the center lot will be divided in half and each half added to the adjoining lot, according to City requirements; further, that all other conditions applicable to the subdivision will be required. All voted yes. 14 am of 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD THOMAS EGAN EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122-1897 mayor PHONE: (612) 454-8100 DAVID K. GUSTAFSON FAX: (612) 454-8363 PAMELA mkCREA TIM PAW tENTY THEODORE WACHTER March 14, 1990 Council Memtom THOMAS HEDGES City Administrator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk MR FREDERICK C DELOSH 180 OSPREY CIRCLE HOPE IDAHO 83836 Re: Project 543R, Sibley Hills Drive/Skyline Road (Streets S Utilities) Parcel #10-00400-011-77 Dear Mr. DeLosh: On March 6, I received your letter of February 28 wherein you requested information from the City pertaining to the above- referenced project as to how it may affect your property and any potential future development. Enclosed you will find copies of pages 2A, 4, 5 and 7 of Contract 89-05 which provides for the installation of streets and utilities within Sibley Hills Drive and Skyline Road adjacent to your property. These plan sheets show how sanitary sewer, water main and storm sewer facilities are being provided to accommodate your existing property as well as any potential for its future subdivision. You will note that there are provisions being made for the potential future extension of public street, sanitary sewer and water facilities from Skyline Road to a connection with High Ridge Terrace in the northeast corner of your property. A preliminary review of the topography of your current property shows a significant ravine running from southeast to northwest which essentially separates your property into the east and west halves for any potential development. This improvement provides for public streets and utilities to accommodate the subdivision of your property on either half. Recently, you were contacted in regards to the acquisition of a flowage easement through this ravine across your property. We would hope we would be able to reach a satisfactory resolution of this easement acquisition without having to pursue condemnation. It is anticipated that this entire project will be completed by the end of this summer with the final assessment hearing held yet this fall. You will receive formal notices of the final assessment hearing at that time. THE LONE OAK TREE ...THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer Page 2 In the interim, if you have any questions pertaining to the acquisition of the appropriate easements, please feel free to contact Mr. Joe Earley of our City Attorney's Office (432-3136). If you have any questions pertaining to the construction scheduling or the referenced plan sheets, please feel free to contact Mike Foertsch, Assistant City Engineer. I hope this letter provides you with the information you recently requested. Please feel free to contact me if any other information or clarification would be helpful. Sincerely, ?ihomas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/jj cc: Joe Earley, Assistant City Attorney Mike Foertsch, Assistant City Engineer Enclosure STATE LF T:'NNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA 0 10350,13 1 011-77 City of Eagan, a Minnesota municipal corporation, Petitioner, V. Frederick C. DeLos.`. and Maxine DeLosh, husband and wife, Respondents. Case Type: Condemnation. DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No.:Cr_y0-8570 mar FINAL CERTIFICATE IN THE MATTER OF THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN LANDS FOR EASEMENT PURPOSES By authority of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 117, I hereby certify that the lands herein described have been taken by the City of Eagan in eminent domain proceedings for easement purposes in conformity with the requirements of Chapter 117 and of said statutes as amended; that Commissioners were duly appointed by tbn Court to ascertain and report, the amount of damages sustained by the several owners on account of such taking; -at said Cc W._s-.__.._r_ qualified and made and filed their report of such damages; that all damages, as determined by award have been paid by the City of Eagan; that the proceedings for the taking of =ertain rights in said lands are now Tianefer Enenred Tn,e dAy of -r-'?-r 19 COU[IL9 AUdlCOS. DYtOLO CO Page Two/FINA'.• rIFICATE - Eagan/DeLosh complete; and that said City now owns a permanent drainage easement over said lands and a permanent easement over said lands for the purpose of maintaining the same for drainage purposes and have the exclusive control of same and_a permanent easement for public roadway and utility purposes over said lands. Said lands are situated in Dakota County, Minnesota, and are described in particularity on Exhibit k, attached and incorporated by reference. And notice is hereby given that the above-caption-i condemnation proceeding has been completed; that payment for the taking of lands above described has been made and that the Final Certificate was executed'' and' approved on the dates shown and endorsed herein. Dated: kh'tL, PL SEVERSON, WILCOX & SHELDON, P.A. /G' 7l By: Annette M. Margar' Assistant City Attorney Attorneys for Petitioner 600 Midway National Bank Bldg. 7300 West 147th Street _ Apple Valley, MN 55124 (612) 432-3136 ' I.D. No. 184445 The above Certificate is hereby approved. The Final Certificate filed August 27, 1991 is hereby voided. BY THE COURT: p1dL 6g. i 4 Patrice Sutherland Judge of District court PARCEL Owner; ' Frederick C. and Maxine Delooh 130 Osprey Circle tiooc,?-0 3333G That the Landowner in the owner of t'hc -ollowing dcscribcc. oaicel: (Parcel 1) That part of Govczamcnt Lot G, Scction 4, Township 27, Range 23, Dakota County, M-4nncsota 1_r_ag south of the south lice of VALL1.71 VIEW PLATEAU and VALLEY VT_Lrl PLi:TEAU PLAT NO. 2, lying East of the cast line and its nou'chcrly catcncion of POST ADDITION NO. TWO., according to the recorded plats `he::ccC Dakota County, Minncsota; EXCEPT that r=t thcrcof ascribed as follows: 1,a Commencing at the northeast corner of Lot 17, TREFFLE ACRES, according to the recorded plat t-hercof; thcnec North 00 degrees 14 minutes 34 seconds West on an assumed Scaring along a line nerpcndieular with tl:e nor'--' 'Une oL said Lot 17, a distlnec of GO.00 feet; thence South dcgrccc 45 minutes ZG seconds wcs'c 1.0.00 fact to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 55 degrees 01 minutcs 31 seconds Want 1011.04 fact; heaec Ncct-"n CO ucgrees l'I minutcs 3,1 seconds West 200.CO f^_et; thence South G3 de:Jrees 36 minutes 25 seconds Last 220.16 icct; thence South 7.1 degrees 04 minutcs 09 sceonde East 112.00 icct; Chcncc South 15 degrees 55 minutcs 34 seconds Gast 50.01 feet; thence South 09 degrees 45 minutcs 2G seconds Want 167.51 feet- to the point of beginning and t-hcrc tc_-m-not'ing_ A permanent casement for public roadway and utility pc;:poscs over, under and across that part- of the above described Par_:'_ 1 which lies southeasterly of a line described as ceamcncinq at the southeast corner thereof; thence north along the cast lint thcrcof 30.00 fact; thence west, parallel •witit the sout:: line thcrcof, 17.41 feet; Chcncc southwesterly 69.17 fecC to the most easterly corner of Lot 11, according to the plat o:1. T.^.EFFLE NCI:ES on file in Che office of the Dakota county Recorder and said line the-^c terndinatirg. ¢:.hCdl A e0 .gather With: :. ncrmancnt caccmcnt for ponding and flowacc purponcs ovcr, under and across that part of the above described parcel *,nich lies within 30.00 feet on each side of the following dcscribcd centerline: Commencing at the southeast corner of the above described parcel; thence South 89 degrees 45 minutes 26 seconds west, asstcncd bearing along the south line thereof, a distance of G58.75 feet to the point of beg:`.nning of the ccntcrlinc to be described; thence North 33 degrees 53 minuses 17 seconds West 49.67 feet; thence z:"th 00 degre, minutes 26 seconds West 207.64 Lect and ca-'d cent, - _ there terminating. Together with ? permanent casement for ponding and -flowage purposes over, under and across that part of the first above dcscribcd parcel which lies within 20.00 feet on each side c; the following described ccntcrlinc: Beginning at the terminus ?f the abcvc dcscribcd ccntcrlinc; thence North 01 degrees 00 minutes 34 seconds Wcnt 196.71 feet; thence North 39 dcgrccs 35 minutcs 59 seconds West 187.76 feet and said ccntcrlinc there terminating. 3ogct:;cr with a permanent casement for ponding and flowacc purposes over, under and across that part of the first above dcscribcd oareel which lies within 20.00 feet to the southo:cst and 50.00 feet to the northeast of the -following dczcr-'bcd line: Beginning at the terminus of the last above dcsc-ibcd ccntcrlinc; thence North 71 degrees 41 minutes 18 seconds west 231.05 feet to a point in the north line of the -first above described parcel and said line there tcrmi nating. The side lines of said easements shall be icngthcncd or shortcn.d to terminate on the boundaries of said parcel. Said pcr-ancnt ponding and flowage casements contain 52,020 sguaxc feces more or less. `I i oac+ker w%i't l ;a A temporary casement for public roadway and utility purposes over, under and across the northerly 5.00 feet of the Horth Half of Lot 13, according to the plat of TREFFLE ACRES on file in the Office of the Dakota County Recorder. Said temporary casement contains 1,675 square feet more or less. - I Said temporary casement expires December 31, 1990. -Exhibit A ,. II [[ r, : I ° h i "E1 JRE - - - -- - Ei f•l ./. ' G F V l F_" 41i E . J I / . I If__?• __a -_ 111 .vi 11L __r_., -` ? ?_ I+ 09I-00 oll•-71 \ , .1 7. J yam Z. E 02002 To 1?C•Ac ti f, -725 fic^dc° ieE 2ezo.5h es wi c nI >:012--7 o l i --17 012.'77 >n s Ills .S --' , R ---STp----.. eo )ts -- J, a t tea.? I}}.? • u. 0 n h ii 4s 4e' .3 V Sit I fir, I I Z?Q I I S - s t i I ! ? t 1 1 I a 1070-00 ?--+ 100-00- ?I J63-U I I 1 1 I' -) O @.KYLINE 160-00 ?? JI6 ;s Z F 130-00 `° r ! T--- 032-56 N ° c s .. `° 131-00 a SUBJECT: WAIVER OF PLAT APPLICANT: FREDRICK C DELOSH LOCATION: SE 1/4 SECTION 4 EXISTING ZONING: R1 (SINGLE FAMILY) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: SEPTEMBER 22, 1987 DATE OF REPORT: SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 REPORTED BY: PLANNING & ENGINEERING DEPTS APPLICATION SUMMARY: An application has been submitted by Fredrick DeLosh of 2882 Sibley Hills Drive requesting a Waiver of Plat in order to split a 1.003 acre, Parcel 'A', from 13.45 R-1 zoned acres just north of the Treffle Addition and west of Highview Park. Mr. DeLosh has retired out of state and wishes to sell the existing home built between 1946-1956 and one acre of land at this time. The one acre is necessary to meet the City Code requirement of R-1 lots in areas not served by City water and sewer. Any further development would require platting the entire 13.45 acres. Mr. DeLosh understands this and is willing to do so. This Waiver will allow the completion of the pending sale of the home. There are three separate tax parcels in the 13.45 acres, however, only one is being split with this proposal. All R-1 standards have been satisfied with this proposal. A 60' x 60' dedicated road easement will provide direct access to the existing home from Skyline Road. This will also provide an east/west connection with the ultimate development of the property if so needed. If that connection does occur, a Variance will be required for the existing garage that would be approximately 11' from the right-of-way. The applicant and City staff have drawn several ultimate designs for this property to ensure that this Waiver does not create undevelopable areas in the future. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The 13 acre site is surrounded by large lot R- 1 plats on the north, west and south with park land on the east. In August 1986 a request to rezone the site from R-1 to Agricultural, in order to stable horses, was denied by the Council. A Conditional Use Permit was allowed for that use as long as there. was no 'subdivision or development in any way .. Currently, there are no horses on the property and Mr. DeLosh knows that the Conditional Use Permit will end with the-approval of the Waiver of Plat. The site is dominated by a deeply wooded ravine 70'+ that extends to the northwest along the back side of the house. The rest of the site is primarily open grassland. CONDITIONS: WAIVER OF PLAT - FREDRICK C DELOSH 1. No further subdivision or development shall occur without platting the entire 13.45 acres. 2. No horses shall be allowed on the 13.45 acre site. 3. The parcel shall assume financial responsibility for the pro- posed assessments as a condition of granting this Waiver of Plat. .., STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL PAGE TWO 5. All internal public and private streets shall be constructed within the required right-of-way in accordance with City design standards.. D. Public Improvements 1. If any public improvements are to be installed under a City contract, the appropriate project must be approved by Council action prior to final plat approval. E. Permits 1. This development shall be responsible for the acquisition of all regulatory agency permits in the time frame required by the affected agency. F. Parks Dedication 1. This development shall fulfull its parks dedication requirements as recommended by the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission and approved by Council action. G. Other 1. All standard platting and zoning conditions shall be adhered to unless specifically granted a variance by Council action. Approved: Revised: STANDARD LTSS2 SITE ZONING LAND USE MAP IOJI SRa1 ?M -° ? ? ,W ? KY.fvI.tY S L(1M Cdgla} t ' ? rz mm aavc .? a?a?p aK arz _ I ?J NMf I - ? s F nor ou a W ?? [ ?i K K• re ? Ya C ? F . uL1 ?. t` ? µd _;?/? 1 'I 6UN CLUB! LAKE LL LOST SPUR COUNTRY CLUB I .. - robT t 1 .?._, 50 - ..-6k7/6 .0 3 PLA IL 8 Nil " ?4 r c 2V / 78,1 AM ... "jam AL. JOHN jr 40 40 , SI EY. T ,MINA ,y 2.0 99.3 /117.0 64.0/ 8 IB° r FOX RIDGE -t 48.2/7 O c are i ACRES! -, - -i I 1 12" I SCHOOL! / 45.8/ ?. 9.0 456 IZ, 5 0;5 M. G. ELEVA7ED STORAGE ^ W.L. 1059 9 /•I N 84:0 V84:0 FREDRICK C. DE LOSK ................. .................. ................. SUBJECT PARCEL city of eagan PUBLIC $ - WORKS DEPARTME WATER MASTER PLAN 7/54.0 74.0 Jtl// /? FIG. #3 57.9/ 5'0 / i / approved standard plate #: FREDRICK C• DE LOSH ul IWI k1l .? ... ?. , J .. r 1 ME • I JI __ ? JI ¢ i =1 SOYM Line Of VALLEY VIEW PLATEAU - bA I!o ?- I N09•32'03"E 3149.01 I W r i-? \ \ \l 'W 'VALLEY _ `i ?I r 0 EF / \ `•°\\ \ 1 ? /? _H f-Yl PLATEAU! 0 - / H"1 \ °?\ \ \\ } } S„AA Lift of VALLEY VIEW PLATEAU PLAT M. z =- I N I 60 - 17 ???\\\\\?e•:1\?\°a _ N499'33'33"E 798.72 N 0. 2 it / • R3 -__•• ?c ''•i \ \ \, ?? ? ? peps \ , X 0, is .Y•..l ?\ \?? 11 At 39 t SIBLEY HILLS / E E.r.eYeM•••e >"f?4 LeT.-pd ?"' 1 } \?} W ?- J Aped ?a l: . Feetlnwl 1 SwVn LMe of pevesn nenr Ls[ S. SKFM O, TVP ET. AS, Z3 \ DRIVE L/ /_ Re.rn ' W i Lino of TRERLE ACRES j - It / 1 / 1 : O I / AO?O/ P b f 0 S?'Ayr;' % T HEFFLE ° o ;s :F; E.3 S89.43'26"W 378.66 WATER AREA 1 AC. STORM SEWER TRUNK 43,690 S.F. Surveyors Certificate WAIVER OF PLAT W V i FOR : MR. 8 MRS. Wi FRED DELOSH \ _,-.,I <i fi_!_ CK Eagan MN yl N JI {.,'i See1A Lin. Of VALLEY VIEW ILATEAU- % i .••I• N89'52'03•E $18.01 0 VA 'L!c'f _i'? _/?? 1 ? fo o I m .-. - ,. o N /?D 00 ?1??i?A( \i\ C'?1 `\•` my?j ?Seulli Lin of VALLEY VIEW PLATEAU PLAT W 2 -I-=-I • o / ?\ •, : °• \ •'o N89'53'550E 799.72 I -- o _ -kc I / / / $ \ \ \\•? ? ` \\ ?R aNMp LoM_I 0'-oC-m 6400 • 010 77_? • \ ? \ ? ARCE L??A'-? ? ? ? ?J a Y N oi, / / / 113,690 S4 fl.) \ \ `\r ti? / /'y 4 i / / ••m'0. °°? ?' =.'[ t ? I ? ` \ \ ? s ? ,F / / Tq Cw l r. rra ? ? \ ? Cy ' 31 LEY NtLL8 E E•I• °^ ^ • `'LF`•f. s? Ittty? N.s"' 1 \ \ °- \ \\ ---- O 7- .CgE.9 \ v DRIVE / T •?ii Eor mm 1 SotP Li.. Iof Oor«n.«I Lot S. Soefien e, /.0 27, $19,23 '---I SB9.45'26•W 939.18 //•"' ,y/ / NwtA Lin. of TREFTLE ACRES O ??- - - _ i0lp- .9 00 I i ?? IS; fa/772 Sd -17O-60? "o I / ' it I '- 389•+5'2e'1v V9.66 --' ? so I I=1 T / J I -N- Y I SIGMA SURVEYING SERVICES E•9An mkowro°t, 55122 Phone: 161 21452-l' " lo- ooyoo-011-77 vCQ h Jigm ? ?'rt9i•Z 2P?'/rl la ?''•? a? way _, y7S gd,0A , 9 /0 3?0 /9a x . 07 6 y 110 37 /9J' xt SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SEARCH SUMMARY AS OF: 04/03/1995 PROPERTY ID: 10-00400-011-77 SEE COMMENTS S/A# ASSESSMENT DESCRIPT. YEAR TM RATE TOTAL ANN.PRIN. PAYOFF 100040 SAN SW TRK 1967 30 6.0000 1369.80 45.66 91.32 101508 TRXFR WAT W205 1987 10 9.0000 1253.75 125.37 250.79 101509 TRXFR SEWTRK W205 1987 10 9.0000 2315.62 231.56 463.14 102191 SL543 1991 15 8.5000 9533.95 635.59 6991.59 102193 WL543 1991 15 8.5000 1854.72 123.64 1360.16 102194 WSSVC543 1991 15 8.5000 846.68 56.44 620.92 102196 ST543A 1991 15 8.5000 24299.72 1619.98 17819.80 102197 ST543F 1991 15 8.5000 13464.93 897.66 9874.29 P99999 POSTPONED ASSESSMENT 0000 10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 ------ SUMMARY OF LEVIED 54939.17 3735.90 37472.01 ****** 1995 P81 CERTIFIED 7240.50 ------ SUMMARY OF DEFERRED 0.00 0.00 0.00 ------ SUMMARY OF PENDING 0.00 0.00 0.00 ------ SUMMARY OF CLOSED 0.00 CD PH J Press ENTER; or F1, F4, F5, F7, F8 Jty of eagan FAX TRANSMITTAL Office # (612) 681-4600 Fax # (612) 681-4612 To: Fax# 'IS V- j9 3 O (d Company (fC?I>4vr4 cg l I Attention 6e6&'m From Ttrry lJ?6fcdto// # of pages being sent , o? including cover. These are being transmitted as checked below: ? For Approval 0 As Requested CITY OF EAGAN 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122 I DATE RE: Z1 For Your Use 0 For Review & Comment ? Please Reply No Reply Necessary THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Equal Opportunity/Aftlrmatlve Action Employer FINANCIAL OBLIGATION- /0- 00ilo? 0//-?7 C_ There are pay-off balances of special assessments totaling $' on the parcel proposed for platting. The pay-off balance will be allocated to the lots created by the plat. At this time, there are no pending assessments on the parcel proposed for platting. The estimated financial obligation presented is subject to change based upon areas, dimensions and land uses contained in the final plat. Based upon the study of the financial obligations collected in the past and the uses proposed for the property, the following charges are proposed. The charges are computed using the City's existing fee schedule and connections proposed to be made to the City's utility system based on the submitted plans. Improvement Vk eM ,j Wd/ Tia4,4 Wa1`er %r???.?2 (ff®n TA efir -fi mew Stet Use Rate s,r bare Quantity Amount ?Flfo S sy ?f a 81 14 V g•8 Ac !? 8d? ct?rt? Inv Arl 00. o f I'Ow d a. 14, C_ ; -o r Aa"/ '0, brn '0' V1/- dl ta{ aP,??nXi? cr///y I- ? 7h I n G e. 6/ Q /(a r gar ?n d ?o., ??, A.? , ° '?/ .? /04, .- "? '0 711W a L_ IL V1 1?f aOJV? j 'r WaAe, ?'eL', ?2. Me' U? SENDER' Be sure to fellow Instructions on ether side PLEASE FURNISH SERVICE(S) INDICATED; BY CHECKED BLOCK(S) (Additions! charges required for tbese services) Show address Deliver ONLY T a. where delivered- - t,, » RECEIPT ' Received the numbered article described below. Ilk E Of AD ESSEE (Must always be filled In) REGISTERED ND. MGNAT RE R FIED ND. 3( a AYERED . 4d OW WHERE DELIVERED (OnI Frederick and Maxine DeLosh 2882 Sibley Mem. Hwy. Eagan, MN 55121 lP Cade), ?. f Re: Water Main Oversizing Assessment Parcel 10 00400 010 76 $748.60 Parcel 10 00400 010 77 $3279.40 Dear Mr. and Mrs. DeLDsh: ?. The Eagan Assessment Committee and the Eagan City Council have both reviewed and approved your request to have the above parcels excluded from the assessment roll for water main oversizing, Project 179, which is being assessed at the 1975 rate. It is our understanding that you hereby agree that when this parcel is connected to the municipal water system you will be assessed at the rate then in effect. very truly yours, Alyce 3olke Clerk - City of Eagan AB:skk PHONE 454-8100 Sheet 1 of 2 sheets 00 `/00 - 0 /l- -77 • WAIVER OF HEARING 00205 Special Assessment Authorization I/We hereby request and authorize the City of Eagan, MN (Dakota Co.) to assess the following described property owned by me/us: 10-00400-010-77 for the benefit received from the following improvements: ITEM QUANTITY RATE _AMOUNT PROJECT Water Trunk Area 1.003 Acres $1,250.00/Acre $1,253.75 14A Storm Sewer Trunk Area 43,691 sq.ft. $ 0.953/sq.ft. 2,315.62 302 • TOTAL $3,569.37 to be spread over 10 _years at an annual interest rate of 9_ % against any remaining.: unpaid balances. The undersigned, for themselves, their heirs, executors,. administrators successors and assigns, hereby consent to the levy of these assessments, and further, hereby waive notice of any and all hearings necessary, and waive objections to any technical defects in any proceedings related to these assessments, and further waive the right to object to or appeal from these assessments-made,. pursuant to this agreement. Dated:" Q-/- - op 7_- i kreC U. e os ` %- _ Maxine T. DeLosh • STATE OF SS COUNTY OF- on this 121* day of o.6./- _, , before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared Fred C, Oel-ar/?_ to me personally known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that executed the same as free act and deed. ?. t -i;,, ELIZABETH WITT. ?? NOTARY PUNESOT ublic DAKONTY Not ry This Document ?r ,V CommisnloSe.t0. 1Y 01 Hauge, Smith, Ei OVLD: 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, Minnesota 55122 ..... ' _ (612) 454-4224 Wigan PublicsJorks-DDirector Revised: 8-30-82 vT?.• .. it 4;-1 Surveyors Certificate WAIVER OF PLAT W Y ?I W • lol • ICI r I=1 • 1 I ".:-- •.,.. 1.... •n.[. w[. .l.19&Y ° -e ? 7o•oogDoJ•s`••.\?6?Qt :F ice: _r? ? ? ? ` ? /lam ?\\i\?• t\`??' T / 0 SIBL E• DRIVE rr.' ! / . I=mo cE( Ko.3 e 0 HEFFLE ° oo 10 ' c I m.er ... ? •a I IJI IYI I°I [99s9 NN W a a 4 I i v I. V:2 i.LE'/ L4EV! f'i..4'EA:! p-', I c Ir:O. .. ,e ?••.. a.. .r wun vu. r.uuu .ux wa ) -I_S-I 17 M99.9]'!S [ 199.1[ I?\?`... TAB PAP-" L `,?---N1 1?.. n \ w_/D-BO'400-0/0-77_1` 1 ?ARC E L? A•-??\ ?.\?;e 1 \• S: °w ;a r Se Y'IS'xi w 939.16' " % A C., ES /? -N- BIO B UP VEYINQ SERVICES 9ww rtu: •>x.xon FOR a MR. 8 MRS. FRED DELOSH V //,? SHEET 2 of Q SHEETS ? / / /I TRUNK AREA WATER MAIN AND TRUNK AREA STORM SEWER ASSESSMENT AREA TO: Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works FROM: Annette M. Margarit DATE: January 13, 1991 RE: DeLosh v. City of Eagan Court File No. C3-91-7724 Enclosed please find a copy of Judge Lynch's Order denying Gary Fuchs a Motion for Amended Findings in the DeLosh case. Gary has thirty (30) days to serve us with a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals if he intends to do so. AMM/wkt (GARY A FUCHS Gi ATTY AT LAW STE 317 EAGANDALE OFFICE CTR 1380 CORPORATE CTR CURVE LEAGA,: 1N 55121 1 YIS t=I -TTE MARGARIT ATi'Y AT LAW 7300 W 147TH ST • •+n (, U (7 1?1 i CI w 2? L PIE VALLEY,MN 55124 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA NOTICE OF. XI FILING OF ORDER 0 ENTRY OF JUDGMENT C] DOCKETING OF JUDGMENT Court File No.: C3-91-7724 lPd R c, FREDERICK C AND MARINE DELOSH V CITY OF EAGAN JANUARY 6TH 1992 AMEND iONCLUILy%OANDACT You era horoby notlfled that on 1 B •an Order uses duly fllod in the above entitled manor. ? You am hereby nollftod that on , 1 B it Judgment wac duty ontcrod In the above entlllad manor. D You am haroby notified that on 1 B a Judgment Yeaa duty dockotod in the above onlipad maltar In the amount of S .. A In:o and corraol copy of lhla Nolloe hao boon sarvod by mall upon the perlloa namod hereln at the last known address of each, purauanl to Mlnnoaota Rulea of Clvll Procoduro, Ruto 77.04. Dalod• JANUARY 6TH 1992 ROGER W. SAM • Court Adminlatmlor by IJ Deputy r 1•Ht JAMS C BACKST011-11 DIUKOTA COU1%TY ATTY JUDICIAL CTR HASTINGS, MN 55033 M+aA 6GY dal Rio tnts _??" 1e Q; of FOGSR 1' SAtd`5, LLC,,aun ;trzlor by STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA Frederick C. and Maxine Delosh, Appellants, vs City of Eagan, Respondent. DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ORDER File No. C3-91-7724 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the Honorable Edward Lynch, Judge of District Court, on January 3, 1992 at the Dakota County Judicial Center, Hastings, Minnesota pursuant to Appellants' motion for Amended Findings of Fact. Gary Fuchs, Attorney at Law, appeared as counsel for and on behalf of Appellants. Annette Margarit, Attorney at Law, appeared as counsel for and on behalf of Respondent. Now, therefore, based upon all the evidence presented, the Court makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Appellants own real property in the City of Eagan described on Exhibit A (Property). 2. The Property consists of approximately 9.66 acres, is unimproved and is located north of Sibley Hill Drive. 3. On January 17, 1989 Respondent approved Project 543R for the installation of sanitary sewer, -storm sewer, water, street, curb and gutter to improve streets leading to and bordering on the Property. day C?"J 19 1 °?J of ROG.R``SS?"/?,5?'fJiES, Gcu1 f.:R,in's:r..at By '" I Ou 1 . 4. As a result of Project 543R Respondent levied the following assessments against the Property: Sanitary sewer lateral $ 11,149.65 Water lateral 2,168.10 Services - sewer, water 989.10 Street area basis 28,419.56 Street front foot 15,746.40 TOTAL $ 58,472.81 5. Appellants contest the method used in determining the assessments, whether allocation of certain non-construction costs to Appellants is appropriate and whether the Property has benefitted from the improvement in the sum of $58,472.81. 6. The Property is an irregular shape. The irregular shape is due in part as a result of Appellants conveyance of a one acre parcel containing Appellants' former homestead from the center of the Property. A deep wooded ravine transverses through the middle of the Property. The balance of the Property is moderately hilly and open east of the ravine and steeply sloping and open west of the ravine. 7. The Property is zoned R-1 which permits single family residential use. Private well and septic systems are permitted in R-1 districts on lots not less than one acre. 8. Prior to completion of Project 543R: a. actual access to the Property was provided by a cart path from the east and a driveway from the west. The cart path and driveway were located on dedicated 2 r but unimproved b. dedicated provided on Highbridge Ter the Property, c. sanitary public street rights of way. public access to the Property was the north by Highbridge Terrace. race was improved to within 12 feet of sewer service providing gravity flow connection was unavailable to the Property. d. water service was available to the Property but the pressure from the available water line was inadequate. 9. After completion of Project 543R: a. sanitary sewer service was available to the Property. b. water service was available to the Property. C. public access was improved by paved public streets; Skyline Road on the east and Sibley Hills Drive on the west. 1o. As part of the improvement project Respondent obtained flowage and ponding easements over the Property in the area of the existing ravine. 11. The total cost of Project 543R was $781,180.52 consisting of $442,334.01 actual construction costs, $261,381.06 overhead and $87,465,45 easement acquisition. The overhead costs of approximately 59% of construction costs were high because of the nature of the project, the necessity to accommodate existing homes and developments, and the need to locate, survey and define 3 1 ponding and flowage easements for storm sewer improvements. 12. Respondent did not attempt to allocate overhead costs in relation to the various aspects of the Project which generated the overhead, but rather added 59% overhead costs to the construction costs incurred for each separate improvement identified by the project. This method of allocation of overhead costs to separate improvements is reasonable and appropriate. 13. The Property was assessed on a front foot basis for water improvements and sanitary sewer improvements. A combination of front foot and area method was used to assess the cos of street improvements. Respondent's use of a combination of front foot and area methods to assess street improvements for this particular project is not so unreasonable as to be arbitrary or capricious. 14. Respondent concedes that an error in calculating the area of the Property to be assessed for street improvements resulted in an overassessment of the Property for street improvements. The overassessment is in the sum of $3,108.43. 15. Each party presented testimony of an expert witness regarding the before and after value of the Property based upon proposed development of the Property. 16. The reasonable value of the Property before the improvements provided by Project 543R was $90,000.00. The only reasonably available development would be to divide the Property into two large lots separated by the ravine for single family homes with private well and septic systems. It is reasonable to 4 , r I assume Respondent would have permitted continued access to the westerly lot via the driveway form Highway 13 and continued access to the easterly lot via the cart path or Highbridge Terrace for this limited development without requiring improved city streets. Each of the lots would have a fair market value of $45,000.00. Reasonable development costs for this limited development are $15,000.00 resulting in a net land value before the improvements of $75,000.00. 16. The reasonable value of the Property after the improvements provided by Project 543R is $125,000.00. The most reasonable development is the five-lot proposal presented by witness Ray Connelly. No additional streets would need to be constructed in connection with this proposal. Lots 1, 2 and 3 would have fair market values of $30,000.00 each. Lot 4 would have a fair market value of $40,000.00. Although Lot 4 is very large, it would be necessary to provide a private septic system since the available sewer provided by the Project would not perit gravity flow from Lot 4. Lot 5 would have a fair market value of $40,000.00. The total gross value of the property ($170,000) must be reduced by reasonable development costs of $45,000.00 including platting and engineering costs, park dedication fees, developer's profit, holding costs and sales commissions. 17. The total benefit accruing to the Property by virtue of the improvements provided by Project 543R is $50,000.00. 5 1 CONCLUSION OF LAW The assessment levied by Respondent against the Property owned by Ippellants exceeded the benefit resulting from the improvements provided by Project 543R. ORDER The assessment levied by Respondent against the Property owned by Appellants is hereby set aside and Respondent shall reassess fr the improvements to Appellants' Property as provided in M.S. 4:. .071. BY THE COURT: 1 dward Lynch edge of District C urt Dated: Jan:ary , 1992 JUDCEKE-NT I hereby c<rtify that the above conclusions of law constitute the judemcnt o the court. Dated: .JF,iuary. , 1992 Roger W. Sames Court Administrator By Deputy Clerk 6 , r MEMORANDUM Appellants' motion for Amended Findings suggests that the portion of the Property lying east of the ravine has not been benefitted to the extent of the assessment attributable to that portion of the Property. If,in fact the easterly portion of the Property was a separate tract, the argument would have merit. The entire parcel, however, must be considered when determining whether the improvements benefitted the Property to the. extent of the assessments. The creation and dedication of the flowage and ponding easements do not create two separate parcels. The overall benefit to the Property as a result of the improvements is $50,000.00. EL 7 EXHIBIT A That part of Government Lot 6, Section 4, Township 27, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota lying South of the south line of VALLEY VIEW PLATEAU and VALLEY VIEW PLATEAU PLAT NO. 2, lying East of the east line and its southerly extension of POST ADDITION NO. TWO, according to the recorded plats thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota, identified as Parcel No. 10-00400-011-77, EXCEPT that part thereof described as follows; Commencing at the northeast corner of Lot 17, TREFFLE ACRES, according to the recorded plat thereof; thence North 00 degrees 14 minutes 34 seconds West on an assumed bearing along a line perpendicular with the north line of said Lot 17, a distance of 60.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 45 minutes 26 seconds West 10.00 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 55 degrees 01 minutes 31 seconds West 104.04 feet; thence North 00 degrees 14 minutes 34 seconds West 200.00 feet; thence South 63 degrees 36 minutes 25 seconds East 220.16 feet; thence South 21 degrees 04 mintues 09 seconds East 112.00 feet; thence South 15 degrees 55 minutes 34 seconds East 58.81 feet; thence South 89 degrees 45 minutes 26 seconds West 167.51 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating. Rece,VEG V' , s rssz MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works FROM: Annette M. Margarit DATE: January 3, 1992 RE: DeLosh v. City of Eagan Court File No. C3-91-7724; Motion For Amended Findings I appeared today in the DeLosh Motion For Amended Findings. Gary Fuchs' primary emphasis in his argument was that the eastern half of the property did not benefit by the improvement as it had adequate access before the improvement either through Highridge Terrace, which in his opinion provided the best access, or through the abutting Skyline Road in the preimprovement condition. He maintains that no increased access was achieved through the improvement. He was particularly attacking the area assessment on the eastern half of the parcel. I responded by pointing out that the eastern lot had acquired an improved, more attractive access to Skyline Road after the Project, an improved, fully paved, full width street out to Pilot Knob Road which Ray Connelly had testified was valuable, and also had the availability of public utilities from the stub at the southeastern corner in Skyline Road. I also pointed out, as we stated in our brief, that Chapter 429 does not dictate the method of assessment, only that the assessment cannot exceed the special benefit. The Court found the benefit was $50,000.00 which is greater than the $44,000.00 street assessment. Mr. Fuchs did not raise any issue regarding the numbers the Judge used in determining the amount of benefit. Judge Lynch took the Motion under advisement and will send us a written order with his decision. Enclosed please find a copy of the City's Memorandum which we submitted in opposition to DeLosh's Motion For Amended Findings. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. AMM/wkt i STATE OF MINNESOTA IN DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE 10: Special Assessment Appeal Fredrick C. DeLosh and Court File No. C3-91-7724 Maxine DeLosh, Appellants, VS. RESPONDENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR AMENDED FINDINGS City of Eagan, Respondent. INTRODUCTION Appellants in the above-referenced action, Fredrick C. and Maxine DeLosh ("DeLosh"), bring a Motion for Amended Findings pursuant to Rule 52.02, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. Generally, DeLosh argues that the evidence presented at trial requires the court to amend certain of its Findings. The Respondent, the City of Eagan, maintains there is sufficient evidence to support the Court's Findings and no amendments are necessary. ARGUMENT The requested amendments are as follows: 1. DeLosh asks that Finding 8.b. be amended to state that Highridge Terrace was improved to within a few feet of the DeLosh property. The City contends that Mr. Colbert testified that Highridge was improved to within about fifty (50) feet of the DeLosh property, not ten-twelve feet. 8.b. should not be amended as requested. I I 2. DeLosh asks that Finding of Fact 9.c. be amended to state that access after the improvement.included Highridge Terrace, a paved public street. This would be erroneous, however, because Highridge Terrace was not paved adjacent to the DeLosh property. DeLosh also asks that Finding of Fact 9 be amended to state that after completion of Project 543R, the DeLosh property was effectively divided into two parts. This Finding is also erroneous because it implies that prior to the Project, the property was not divided into the east/west portion. an cross-examination, Tom Colbert stated that there was a very steep ravine running from north to south of the property cutting it from east to west, that ravine existed prior to the Project. The same information can be gleaned from Appellants' Exhibit 10. Further, on page 6 of Mr. Parranto's appraisal, he states that the "easement traverses the central wooded ravine area of the property. There is no pipe located in this storm sewer easement.... Water flows overland through the original creek-bed." 3. In Finding of Fact 15 the Court states: "The only reasonably available development would be to divide the Property into two large lots separated by the ravine for single family homes with private well and septic systems." This Finding should not be changed. The evidence supporting this conclusion is found on page 25 of Mr. Parrantos' appraisal, a large version of which was offered to the Court as Exhibit 10. By looking at the topographical numbers and the indication on the map which has the word "ravine", the fact-finder can reach the conclusion that, -2- prior to the improvement, the ravine cut the property in half east to west and would provide two lots. Mr. Connelly's appraisal indicated that prior to the installation of the improvements, the Subject Property was not developable and, therefore, there would be only one large lot encompassing the entire property. Mr. Parranto indicated in his appraisal that some six lots were available. Dividing the property into two lots might be construed as being the least expensive way to develop that property prior to the improvements as no additional public street access serving several lots would be required. The Court's Finding that two lots was the reasonable development was certainly within the range of the expert testimony and is therefore appropriate. "Market valuation [of assets] determined by the trier of fact should be sustained if it falls within the limits of credible estimates made by competent witnesses even if it does not coincide exactly with the estimate of any one of them." Hertz V. Hertz,304 Minn. 144, 229 N.W.2d 42, 44 (1975) "The opinions of experts are merely advisory and the jury [fact finder] is not bound by the amounts stated by such experts." State v. Mecklenburg, 273 Minn. 135, 140 N.W.2d 310, 318 (1966) Finding of Fact 15 further reads as follows: "It is reasonable to assume Respondent would have permitted continued access to the westerly lot via the driveway from Highway 13 and continued access to the easterly lot via the cart path for this limited development without requiring improved city streets." -3- This Finding is also supported by the evidence. There was ample evidence before the Court that Skyline Road prior to the Project abutted the southeast corner of the DeLosh property. Exhibit 10 indicates that Skyline Road from the southeastern edge of the DeLosh property out to Pilot Knob Road was a thirty (30) foot-wide road and continued southwesterly from the edge of the Delosh property. There was no evidence presented at trial that an owner of the easterly lot would be forbidden from taking direct access from that part of Skyline Road that abutted the property by creating a driveway to a house located on the easterly lot just as the City had permitted Mr. DeLosh similar access prior to the improvement. DeLosh contends that there was no evidence introduced to show that the right-of-way at the southeast corner of the property after the Project was sufficient to allow legal access. There was also no evidence produced defining what is meant by "legal" access nor that "legal" access would be required by the City after the improvement. 4. The evidence provided to the Court regarding development costs supports Finding No. 16. (a) Mr. Connelly's appraisal admitted into evidence describes the five-lot layout with each lot taking direct access from Skyline Road or Sibley Hills Drive thus necessitating no additional road construction after the improvement. -4- I_ i (b) The Court assigned values of $30,000 to Lots 1, 2 and 3. This is supported by Mr. Parranto's estimated values for the westerly lots as described on pages 28-29 of his appraisal. The Court assigned a value of $40,000 to Lot 4 which is supported by Mr. Parranto's estimated value of his Lot 6 as described on pages 28-29 of his appraisal. Finally, the Court also assigned a $40,000 value to Lot 5 which is reasonable given its comparable size to Lot 4. The Court's valuation of the gross sales price of $170,000 for the five lots after the improvement is supported by the evidence. (c) The Court's estimate of development costs is supported by Mr. Parranto's post-improvement development costs listed on page 28 of his appraisal excluding any road construction costs: Gross Sales $170,000 Costs: Sales Fees $17,000 (.10 x 170,000) Eng./Platting 10,000 (5/10 x 20,000) City costs 8,750 (5/10 x 17,500) Holding Costs 2.250 (.12 x 18,750) Sub-total costs $38,000 Profit 7,000 TOTAL COSTS $45,000 In determining special benefit, the Court does not have to promise a hypothetical developer a particular amount of profit. The Court was not bound by Mr. Parranto's estimate of profit at 50% of some figure required to entice a developer to build this project. Mr. Parranto noted in his appraisal that 35% profit is more typical. Mr. -5- Connelly included nothing as a profit among his development costs. The Court had a range of 0% to 50% as a profit margin. Using Mr. Parranto's figures on page 28 of his appraisal, $33,294 (profit) is 33% of $99,880 (gross sales - other costs). Using the Court's figures, $7,000 (profit) is 5% of $132,000 (gross sales - other costs). The Court's estimated profit is within the range proposed by the experts and is supported by the evidence. See Hertz, 229 N.W.2d at 44. In determining profit, it is possible the court simply determined what percentage of the total costs was profit. Using the figures of page 28 of Mr. Parranto's appraisal and dividing the profit figure of $33,294 ($99,880 - 66,586) by the total costs of $235,414 ($153,500 + 18,420 + 33,294) one determines that the profit is approximately 14% of the total costs. Performing the same function with the Court's decision, the Court allowed a developer profits amounting to 15% of the total costs. Profit 7,000 = 15.5% 33.294 = 14.1% Total Costs 45,000 235,414 5. DeLosh references Finding of Fact No. 12 presumably arguing it is erroneous. Under Mr. Connelly's after improvement development scheme which the Court adopted, access from Skyline Road to the southeastern portion of the DeLosh property would need to serve only Lot 5. There is no evidence that the City would require a driveway cut to be any larger than 25 feet wide. Further, no evidence was presented that a City street would be required at the southeast corner. -6- The Project improved the easterly portion of the DeLosh property as utilities were stubbed to the southeastern portion and available to service a house placed on the high portion of Lot 5. As Mr. Parranto admits in his appraisal at page 9 the utilities stubbed some distance from the DeLosh property in Highridge Terrace could not service the eastern portion of the property as it could not provide the gravity flow. Minn. Stat. §429.051 provides that: "[t]he cost of any improvement, or any part thereof, may be assessed upon prperty benefited by the improvement, based upon the benefits received,..." The statute does not require a particular method of assessment only that the assessment not be greater than the special benefit to the property. The combination of area/front foot assessment for the DeLosh property, less the $3,000 error in figuring the area assessment, is less than the $50,000 benefit to the property found by the Court. Finding No. 17 should not be amended. 6. The Court found in Finding No. 16 that only Lot 4 would be serviced by septic system. Presumably, the remaining four. lots would be serviced by public utilities. Mr. Colbert testified that services are stubbed at the southeastern corner of the DeLosh property making services available to Lot 5. There is benefit to the parcel from having City services available. "Usually, if property receives better municipal services and amenities, it is worth more." Schumacher v. City of Excelsior, 427 N.W.2d 235, 238 (Minn. 1988). -7- Further, there was testimony by Mr. Connelly that the lots are improved by having a full width, paved road, namely, Skyline Drive, providing access to Pilot Knob Road, a major arterial. Finding No. 16 is supported by the evidence. CONCLUSIONS The Findings of Fact made by the Court are supported by the evidence and should not be altered. Dated: Respectfully Submitted, SEVERSON, WILCOX & SHELDON, P.A. By: Annette M. Margarit, #184445 Attorneys for Respondent 600 Midway National Bank Building 7300 West 147th Street Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 (612) 432-3136 -8- ; B£r# 300d ,Wd6Z:D0 16-0£-ZI CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUC:HS, P.A. Arrnrncvs ar Lew T11, mr,.. 1. (:n?Iplw l R.gyr N. Ki"Wo n Th"llm, M. SLIM ( 1, n. G. I i.ch, h nw, 11. W?Lvnm Hli,m R. K..o..?-0 Mirh:od A. Ikokick 12amw 11. SILM,,r December 26, 1991 VIA REGULAR MAIL MID FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION Me. Annette M. Margarit SEVERSON, WILCOX & SHELDON, P.A. 600 Midway National Bank Bldg. 7300 Vast 147th Street Apple Valley, MN 55124 %46=11 (612) 491-iR 00 Fax (6[!1452-5510 Re: Court. File No. C3-91-7724 // Our File No. 1706A Frederick and Maxine DeLosh v. City of Eacaan Dear Annette: Enolosea herewith and 2rereby nerved upon you, please find a true and correct copy of the NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AMENDED FINDINGS, together with its MEMORANDUM OF LAW in the above-referenced matter. Very truly yours, CAMPBELL, IQd[J„TSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P% By: GGF:elk Enclosure cz Mr. rred DeLosh (w/enc.) Suire 317 • Eagandale Office Center . 1.380 (nxprrrare Ckntcr Curve • Laga;r, MN 55121 Z6d LBb ZZ:91 16. 0£ J3Q 9£# SOOd Wd6Z:b0 16-0£-71 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA COPY Frederick C. DeLosh and - - - Maxine DeLoch vs. City of Eagan, Appellants, Respondent. --------------------- DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case Type 10: Special Assessment Appeal Court File No. C3-91-7724 NOTICE OF NOTION AND MOTION FOR AMENDED FINDINGS TO: RESPONDENT CITY OF EAGAN AND ITS ATTORNEY, ANNETTE M. MARGARIT, SEVERSON, WILCOX & SHELDON, P.A., 600 MIDWAY NATIONAL BANK BUILDING, 7300 WEST 147TH STREET, APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 3, 1992, at 9:00 o'clock a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, before The Honorable Edward Lynch, at the Dakota County Goverment Center, in Hastings, Minnesota, Appellants Frederick C. and Maxine DeLosh will move the Court for an order amending the court's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and order and Judgment dated December 6, 19D1, and filed December 9, 1991, in the above-referenced matter. The Appellants, motion will be based on the Court file, records and prcr,.e?dingG cnntained herein, together with the Exhibits introduced to the Court at the trial of this matter and on the attached Memorandum of Appellants in support of their motion. Dated: December 26, 1991- CAMPBELL, & FUCHS, By: £0d Let, KNYTSON ;Z:? zX1 : o - AUC, #3 l66 jf lants e p #317 orpor e C ter Curve MN 55 21p one: (612) 452-5000 ZZ:9S 16, 02 D30 9EIt 400d .1Vd6Z;60 16-DE-8 I STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA ------------------------------- Frederick C. D@LOSh and Maxine DeLosh Appellants, Vs. City of Eagan, Respondent. PROCEDURAL POSTURE MEMORANDUM OF LAW This matter is an appeal of a special assessment levied by the City of Eagan ("Eagan") on propeYty owned by the Appellants Frederick C. and Maxine DeLosh ("DeLosh"). The matter was tried to the court, before The Honorable Edward Lynch, on December 3, 1991. The Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Yaw and order aria TudgmetiL uit Dec ember 6, 1991, duct filed the same with the Court Administrator's office on December 90 1991. DeLosh now moves the Court for Amended Findinga of Fact and Amcndod Conolunionc of Law. At the trial of this matter the only persons who testified were Thomas Colbert, C appraiser for the city appraiser for DeLosh. those three witnesses. presented to the Court set forth herein. Lty Engineer for Eagan, Ray Connelly, expert of Eagan, and Mark Parranto, expert Documailtary evidence was introduced through DeLosh now submits that the evidence requires the Court to amend its Findings as DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case Type 10: Special Assessment Appeal °676=H Court File No. C3-91-7724 ' 170d L96 EZ:9T T6. 02 73G 9£# SOOd Wd6Z:D0 16-0£-21 Amendments 1. Finding of Fact No. a provides as follows: "a. Prior to completion of Project 543R: a. actual access to the Property was provided by a cart path from the east and driveway to the west. The cart path and driveway were located and dedicated but unimproved public street rights of way. b. dedicated public access to the Property was provided on the north by Highbridge Terrace. c. sanitary sewer service providing gravity flow connection was unavailable to the Property. d. water service was available to the Property but the pressure from the available water line was inadequate." The evidence submitted by the parties on these facts was that the access from the north, or IIighbridge Terrace, was not only dedicated, but also improved access. Mr. Parranto testified that the street was paved and improved to the DeLosh property line. Mr. Colbert. thought it was improved to within 10 to 12 feet of the DeLosh property line. Finding of Fact No. s.b. should be amended to include that Highbridge Terrace was improved to within a few feet of the DeLosh property. The uncontradicted evidence submitted at trial also showed that the Property was not encumbered by any public easements prior to the Project. Finding of Fact B.e. should be added to so find. 2. Finding of Fact No. 9 provides as follows: "9. After completion of projact 5d'3R: -2- %ro6=x Sod Lev 0:9T T6. 02 D3Q 9C# 90011 W116Z:VO I6-06-3 1 %1,6-x a. sanitary sewer service was available to the Property. b. water service wan available to the Prnparty. c. public access was improved by paved public streets; Skyline Road on the east and Sibley Hills Drive an the west." The uncontradicted evidence was that, as part of this Project, Eagan condemned and acquired an easement for ponding and flowage purposes that varied between 40 feet and 70 feet in width, totaled approximately 42,020 square feet and effectively divided the Del,osh property into an east portion and a west portion. (see Dakota County District Court File No. C4-90-6278) Finding of Fact No. 9.c. should be amended to provide that access after the improvement included Highbridge Terrace, a paved public street. Finding of Fact No. 9. should also be amended to state that after completion of Projection 543R the Property was effectively divided into two parts, an east portion and a west portion. 3. Finding of Fact No. 15 provided, in part, that before the improvements the only reasonably available development was to divide the Property into two large lots separated by the ravine. That finding is not substantiated by any evidence presented to the Court. Mr. Parranto toetified that before the improvements the most likely development was to divide the Property into six (6) large lots as shown on page 25 of Exhibit 9. Mr. Connelly gave no testimony on that issue except to say (based on hearsay) that the neighboring owners supposedly had difficulty selling his home without City sewer and water. That comment has no bearing on the -3- 90d L86 £Z:91 T6. 02 Ma 9£# LOOd w.d6Z:40 T6-0£-ZI %v6=9 most reasonable method of development of the DeLosh property before the improvement. Finding of Fact go. 15 alto provided, in part, that before the improvement it was reasonable to assume that the City would have continued to allow access to the easterly portion of the Property via the cart path. That portion of the finding is not mubstantiaLed by any evidetion. There was no evidence of any kind presented to the Court that the "cart path" provided direct access to the east portion of the Property. In fact, it never did. The upgrade of Skyline Road from a cart path to a paved street had no bearing on access to the east portion of the Property. The only access to the east portion of the Property was via Highbridge Terrace, both before the improvement as well as after the improvement. In fact, Lhere was iau evidunc;e introduced to show that the right-of-way length at the southeast corner of the Property after the improvement is sufficient to allow legal access. The only evidence offered regarding access to the east portion of the Property after the improvement was access from Highbridge Terrace. d. Tn Finding of Fact No. 16 the Court found that reasonable development costs for developing the Properly lsiLu rive lots, including platting and engineering costs, park dedication fees, project holding costs, developer's profits and sales commissions was $45,000.00. The evidence submitted to the court on development costs does not support that finding. Mr. Parranto's projected costs for developing seven lots, including all of th? ahnve costs, before the improvement was -4- Lod L8b 4Z:91 T6. 0€ :)3Q 90# BOOB M6Z;50 I6-OE-ZS $137,431.00 (Exh. 91 p. 26) and for developing ten lots after the improvement was $205,214.00 (Exh_ 9, p. 28). Mr. Connally's projected cost or developing rive lots attar the improvement was 9656-3 $116,950.00 (Exh. 12, p. 24) and for developing nine lots after the improvement was $174,330.00 (Exh. 12, p. 25). In addition, Mr. Connelly testified that his estimate for devolopmcnt eootc wac based on per lot costs for developments that included a significantly greater number of smaller lots and that his development cost project.inna did not t.neDida park dedication fees and other costs that 13is proposed development plans would require. The evidence on development costs, therefore, ranges from a low of $116,950.00 for five lots (average of $23,390.00 per lot) to a high of $205,214.00 for ten lots (avcrago of $20,521.00 per lot). There is no evidence in the record to substantiate the finding of total development costs of $45,000.00 or $9,000.00 per lot. 5. In Finding of Fact No. 12 the Court found, in part, that assessing street improvement costs on the parcel based on a combination of front foot and area methods was not arbitrary and capricious. The evidence presented by Mr. Colbert, City Engineer, was that the improved street provided 380 feet of new frontage on the west portion of the Property and some unknown amount of frontage on the southeast corner of the subject Property. The assessment for front footage was for 405 feet. A fair conclusion is that only 25 feet of frontage was on the southeast corner; substantially less than the width required for City streets. The only conclusion that can be reached from the evidence is that the improvement did not -5- 80d Let, 7Z:9L 16. 02 33Q 9£# 600d NId6 Z:V0 16-0E-Zi %b6=2I provide new access to the east portion of the Property. Even if it did, the now access did not provide benefit to the east portion of the Yroperty because the east portion already had access from an improved street, Highbridge Terrace. In spite of providing no benefit to the east portion of the Property, the City's method of combining frontage and area assessment methods, as opposed to only frontage, served to increase the street assessment on this Property from $31,493.60 (on a front foot basis) to $44,165.96 (front and arse lnathnd combined). That increase is due solely to the method of combining frontage and area assessments and then including all of the area of the east portion of the Property which received no benefit from the street improvement. 6. Finally, in Finding of Fact No. 16 the Court found, in part, that the only reasonable development after the improvement WAR. the five lot proposal prPeented by Mr_ Connelly- That finding would necessarily mean that each lot would be in excess of one acre in size. The east portion of the Property, where Mr. Connally's proposed lots four and five would be located (Exh. 12, p. 26) would have been developed into two large lots as proposed by Mr. Connelly both before and after the improvement with access from Highbridge Terrace and on site water and sewer. The improvement project had absolutely no impact on development of the east portinn and addpd no value since access is the same and utilities are not included in either situation. -6- 60d LeV SZ:91 16. 02 D3a 9£# 010d 1ad6Z:V0 16-0£-ZI C o N C L U S.L 0 N B 1. 2. 3. Finding of Fact No. 8 should be amended as follows: %Y6=21 116.b. dediuateQ public access to the Property was provided on the north by an improved, paved public street, Highbridge Terrace. 8.e. the Property was unencumbered by public easements prior to the Project." Finding of Fact No. 9 should be amended as follows: 119.c. the publicly acquired storm sewer easement divided the Property into easterly and westerly portions. 9.d. public access to the west portion was by a paved public street, Sibley Hills Drive. Public access to the east portion was by a paved public street, Highbridge Terrace. The improvoment did not provide new public access to the cast portion." Finding of Fact No. 15 should be amended as follows: 1115. The reasonable vAlun of the Property before the improvements provided by Project 543R was $90,000.00. The only reasonably available development would have been to divide the Property into lots larger than one acre in size for single family homes with private well and septic systems. It is reasonable to assume Respondent would have permitted continued access to the westerly portion via the driveway from Highway 13 for this limited development without requiring improved public streets." 4. Finding of Fact No. 16 should be amended to read as follows: ¦16. The most reasonable dsvelnrmant of the property after the improvement is the five lot proposal presented by witness Ray Connelly. No additional streets would need to be constructed in connection with this proposal. Lots 1, 2 and 3 would have fair market values of $30,000.00 each. Lot 4 would have a fair market value of $40,000.00. All of the lots would be greater than one acre in size and could be developed with on-site private septic systems and private water supplies. Lot 5 would have a fair market value of $40,000.00. The total gross value of the Property must be reduced by reasonable -7- 0Td Lev SZ:9T T6. 0C D3Q 9£# TTod Ad6Z:110 i6-0£-ZI ' %D6=2t development costs including platting and engineering costs, park dedication fees, developer's profits, holding costs and sales commissions." 5. rinding of Fact No. 17 should be amended to read as follows: 1117. The total benefit accruing to the Property by virtue of the lmyruvemeats provided by Project 543R is 031,500.00." Dated: December 5 y , 1991. Respectfully Submitted, CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT 5 FUCHS, P-4. By: rpaatelCenter Curve MIT 5512 ne: (612) 452-5000 -8- TTd LBb 9Z:9T T6. 02 D3Q ? no ms _ ? OO??eay ? PO ;:1 t 1! :..... J, caa rwR:nsvuot ey DEFIY STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA Frederick C. and Maxine Delosh, Appellants, VS. City of Eagan, Respondent. /b - U o Yav -vet-77 DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER, AND JUDGMENT File-Ro C3-91-7724 The above-entitled matter came on for trial before the Honorable Edward Lynch, Judge of District Court, on December 3, 1991 at the Dakota County.Judicial Center, Hastings, Minnesota. Gary Fuchs, Attorney at Law, appeared as counsel for and on behalf of Appellants. Annette Margarit, Attorney at Law, appeared as counsel for and on behalf of Respondent. Now, therefore, based upon all the evidence presented, the Court makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Appellants own real property in the City of Eagan described on Exhibit A (Property). 2. The Property consists of approximately 9.66 acres, is unimproved and is located north of Sibley Hill Drive. 3. On January 17, 1989 Respondent approved Project 543R for the installation of sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water, street, curb and gutter to improve streets leading to and bordering on the Property. 4. As a result of Project 543R Respondent levied the following assessments against the Property: Sanitary sewer lateral $ 11,149.65 {water lateral 2,168.10 Services - sewer, water 989.10 Street area basis 28,419.56 Street front foot 15,746.40 TOTAL $ 58,472.81 5. Appellants contest the method used in determining the assessments, whether allocation of certain nonconstruction costs to Appellants is appropriate and whether the Property has benefitted from the improvement in the sum of $58,472.81. 6. The Property is an irregular shape. The irregular shape is due in part as a result of Appellants conveyance of a one acre parcel containing Appellants' former homestead from the center of the Property. A deep wooded ravine transverses through the middle of the Property. The balance of the Property is moderately hilly and open east of the ravine and steeply sloping and open west of the ravine. 7. The Property is zoned R-1 which permits single family residential use. Private well and septic systems are permitted in R-1-districts on lots not less than one acre. 8. Prior to completion of Project 543R: a. actual access to the Property was provided by a cart path from the east and a driveway from the west. The cart path and driveway were located on dedicated 2 but unimproved public street rights of way. b. dedicated public access to the Property was provided on the north by Highbridge Terrace. C. sanitary sewer service providing gravity flow connection was unavailable to the Property. d. water service was available to the Property but the pressure from the available water line was inadequate. 9. After completion of Project 543R: a. sanitary sewer service was available to the Property. b. water service was available to the Property. C. public access was improved by paved public streets; Skyline Road on the east and Sibley Hills Drive on the west. 10. The total cost of Project 543R was $781,180.52 consisting of $442,334.01 actual construction costs, $261,381.06 overhead and $87,465,45 easement acquisition. The overhead costs of approximately 59% of construction costs were high because of the nature of the project, the necessity to accommodate existing homes and developments, and the need to locate, survey and define ponding and flowage easements for storm sewer improvements. 11. Respondent did not attempt to allocate overhead costs in relation to the various aspects of the Project which generated -the overhead, but rather added 59% overhead costs to the construction costs incurred for each separate improvement 3 identified by the project. This method of allocation of overhead costs to separate improvements is reasonable and appropriate. 12. The Property was assessed on a front foot basis for water improvements and sanitary sewer improvements. A combination of front foot and area method was used to assess the cost of street improvements. Respondent's use of a combination of front foot and area methods to assess street improvements for this particular project is not so unreasonable as to be arbitrary or capricious. 13. Respondent concedes that an error in calculating the area of the Property to be assessed for street improvements resulted in an overassessment of the Property for street improvements. The overassessment is in the sum of $3,108.43. 14. Each party presented testimony of an expert witness regarding the before and after value of the Property based upon proposed development of the Property. 15. The reasonable value of the Property before the improvements provided by Project 543R was $90,000.00. The only reasonably available development would be to divide the-Property into two large lots separated by the ravine for single family homes with private well and septic systems. It is reasonable to assume Respondent would have permitted continued access to the westerly lot via the driveway form Highway 13 and continued access to the easterly lot via the cart path for this limited development without requiring improved city streets. Each of the lots would have a fair market value of $45,000.00. Reasonable 4 development costs for this limited development are $15,000.00 resulting in a net land value before the improvements of $75,000.00. 16. The reasonable value of the Property after the improvements provided by Project 543R is $125,000.00. The most reasonable development is the five-lot proposal presented by witness Ray Connelly. No additional streets would need to be constructed in connection with this proposal. Lots 1, 2 and 3 would have fair market values of $30,000.00 each. Lot 4 would have a fair market value of $40,000.00. Although Lot 4 is very large, it would be necessary to provide a private septic system since the available sewer provided by the Project would not permit gravity flow from Lot 4. Lot 5 would have a fair market value of $40,000.00. The total gross value of the property ($170,000) must be reduced by reasonable development costs of $45,000.00 including platting and engineering costs, park dedication fees, developer's profit, holding costs and sales commissions. 17. The total benefit accruing to the Property by virtue of the improvements provided by Project 543R is $50,000.00: CONCLUSION OF LAW The assessment levied by Respondent against the Property owned by Appellants exceeded the benefit resulting from the improvements provided by Project 543R. 5 ORDER The assessment levied by Respondent against the Property owned by Appellants is hereby set aside and Respondent shall reassess for the improvements to Appellants' Property as provided in M.S. 429.071. BY THE COURT: dward Lynch Judge of District Court Dated: December 0, 1991 JUDGMENT I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CONSTITUTE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. DATE: DECEMBER 9TH 1991 ROGER W. SAMES COURT ADMINISTRATOR (SEAL) BY DEPUTY CLERK DEC 9 1991 WURT AM, INISTRATOR DAKOTA COUNTY 6 EXHIBIT A That part of Government Lot 6, section 4, Township 27, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota lying South of the south line of VALLEY VIEW PLATEAU and VALLEY VIEW PLATEAU PLAT NO. 2, lying East of the east line and its southerly extension of POST ADDITION NO. TWO, according to the recorded plats thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota, identified as Parcel No. 10-00400-011-77, EXCEPT that part thereof described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of Lot 17, TREFFLE ACRES, according to the recorded plat thereof; thence North 00 degrees 14 minutes 34 seconds West on an assumed bearing along a line perpendicular with the north line of said Lot 17, a distance of 60.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 45 minutes 26 seconds West 10.00 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 55 degrees 01 minutes 31 seconds West 104.04 feet; thence North 00 degrees 14 minutes 34 seconds West 200.00 feet; thence South 63 degrees 36 minutes 25 seconds East 220.16 feet; thence South 21 degrees 04 mintues 09 seconds East 112.00 feet; thence South 15 degrees 55 minutes 34 seconds East 58.81 feet; thence South 89 degrees 45 minutes 26 seconds West 167.51 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating. r •, MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Annette M. Margarit DATE: December 11, 1991 RE: Appeal Time Pursuant to Rule 104.01 Minnesota Rules of Appellate Procedure, an appeal may be taken from a judgment within 90 days after its entry and from an order within 30 days after service by the adverse party of written notice of filing. In the DeLosh case, judgment was entered on December 9, 1991. Counting begins on December 10, 1991. Mr. DeLosh has to file his Notice of Appeal by March 9, 1992. If Mr. DeLosh wants to bring post-trial motions, pursuant to Rule 59.03, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, a notice for motion for a new trial must be served on the City within 15 days after service of notice by the City of the filing of the decision or order. The motion must be heard within 30 days of the notice of filing. Rule 5.01 refers to "every order required by its terms to be served". Rule 5.02 states that service upon the attorney is permitted by mailing a copy of the document to the attorney. "Service by mail is complete upon mailing." Beginning counting on December 12, Mr. DeLosh has until December 26, 1991 to notice post-trial motions. AMM/wkt STATE OF MINNESOTA C ?FYFIRST DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT ------------------------------- Case Type 10: Special Fredrick C. DeLosh and Assessment Appeal Maxine DeLosh Court File No. Appellants, vs. (,?{ NOTICE OF APPEAL OF ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. SECTION 429.081 The City of Eagan, \ Dakota County,.Minnesota, .h1 t5 ,? Respondents ------------------ - TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR or CLERK OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA: 1?\ YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §429.081, the above-named Appellants hereby appeal from 1 the assessment for Improvement Project No. 543R Street and Utility Improvement, levied by Respondent against the property described on "EXHIBIT A". The assessment was levied by Respondent for Street and Utility Improvement Project No. 543R in the total principal amount of Fifty-eight Thousand Four Hundred Seventy-two and 81/100 ($58,472.81) Dollars, plus interest. The assessment was finally approved and adopted by Respondent on July 2, 1991. This appeal is taken upon the following grounds: 1. That Respondent lacked authority to levy the assessment because of failure to comply with statutory requirements relating to notice to affected property owners and other statutory and constitutional requirements for due process. PP 2. That the assessment was adopted in an arbitrary and capricious manner without regard to the special benefits conferred, without rational support in the record for any determination of benefit conferred and without proper findings. 3. That the assessment was calculated in an arbitrary and capricious manner in that a standard formula was applied uniformly to properties not similarly situated and not in the same class, without regard to actual benefit conferred or other proper restrictions on the amount which properly can be assessed. 4. That the assessment exceeds the special benefits conferred and is excessive and arbitrary and constitutes a taking of Appellants' property without just compensation therefor, in violation of the Minnesota Constitution, Article 1, Section 13. 5. That the assessment is discriminatory and violates Appellants' constitutional rights of equal protection and due process. In accordance with the above-cited statute, please furnish the undersigned with certified copies of objections filed, the assessment roll, exact minutes authorizing the assessment, affidavit of publication of notices involved herein, copies of all feasibility studies, reports, addendums and other documentation which is part of the record on which Respondent based its actions in ordering the improvement and adopting the assessment appealed herein, copies of resolutions, contracts or other instruments showing participation by other property owners and governmental units in the costs of said project, and all other documentation -2- showing Respondent's compliance with statutory procedures for adopting the assessment. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The undersigned hereby acknowledges that costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 549.21 Subd. 2, to the party against whom the allegations in this pleading are asserted. Dated: July 3, 1991. CAMPBELL, PNUTSON, S & FUCHS J P.A. / By: va y v A n ys r ppellants 46 ashi gt n Dr., Suite #202 MN 5142 ine: (612) 456-9539 -3- EXHIBIT A That part of Government Lot 6, Section 4, Township 27, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota lying South of the south line of VALLEY VIEW PLATEAU and VALLEY VIEW PLATEAU PLAT NO. 2, lying East of the east line and its southerly extension of POST ADDITION NO. TWO, according to the recorded plats thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota, identified as Parcel No. 10-00400-011-77, EXCEPT that part thereof described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of Lot 17, TREFFLE ACRES, according to the recorded plat thereof; thence North 00 degrees 14 minutes 34 seconds West on an assumed bearing along a line perpendicular with the north line of said Lot 17, a distance of 60.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 45 minutes 26 seconds West 10.00 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 55 degrees 01 minutes 31 seconds West 104.04 feet; thence North 00 degrees 14 minutes 34 seconds West 200.00 feet; thence South 63 degrees 36 minutes 25 seconds East 220.16 feet; thence South 21 degrees 04 mintues 09 seconds East 112.00 feet; thence South 15 degrees 55 minutes 34 seconds East 58.81 feet; thence South 89 degrees 45 minutes 26 seconds West 167.51 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating. il M E M O R A N D U M TO: TOM COLBERT, EAGAN PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FROM: ROXANN DUFFY DATE: AUGUST 6, 1991 RE: DELOSH ASSESSMENT APPEAL PROJECT NO. 543R OUR FILE NO. 206-9700 Enclosed herewith for your information please find Calendar Notice in connection with the above-referenced matter. The matter has been set for November 14, 1991. Please be available to testify on November 14, 1991. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this, please feel free to contact me. a1-4 l0-e") ") 0D FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT STATE OF MINNESOTA CARVER, DAKOTA, GOODHUE, LeSUEUR, McLEOD, SCOTT & SIBLEY COUNTIES Issued date: 8/01/91 CALENDAR NOTICE County of Dakota ATTORNEY: Division: James F. Sheldon FILE NO. C3917724 600 Midway National Bank 7300 West 147th Street Apple Valley MN .55124 RE: Frederick C. Delosh et al v. City of Eagan You are hereby notified that the above matter has been set for the following: COURT TRIAL on 11/14/91 at 9:OOAM before the presiding judge at the following location: 1560 Judicial Center, Hastings, Minnesota You are expected to appear at the above time and place fully prepared. It is your responsibility to have your client and witnesses present. Judy Schnegelberger DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR ASSIGNMENTS Phone (612) 438-4326 All motions must be made prior to the trial date. By:' If the status of this case changes, immediate notice must be given to the Court Administrator's Office. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE FOLLOWING CONTINUANCE POLICY IS IN EFFECT: One continuance will be granted by the Assignment Clerk with the consent of all parties and for good cause shown. Subsequent requests for continuances must be made by a motion, unless all parties agree to have the case stricken from the calendar. Before a continuance is granted, a new trial date must be agreed upon by all parties and the assignment office. gm 4052-2)09 I- RECEIVED JUN 2 7 1991 June 26, 1991 Mr. E. J. VanOverbeke City Clerk City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Re: Special Assessment for Project 543R Dear Mr. VanOverbeke: As owners of the parcel identified as Tax Parcel No. 10- 00400-011-77, located in the Southeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 27, Range 23, we hereby object to the proposed special assessment for the above referenced project against our property in the proposed amount of $58,472.81. This letter is intended as our written objection as is required by Chapter 429 of the Minnesota Statutes. Very truly yours, Frederick C. DeLoshf Ma$ine'DeLosh Address: 180 Osprey Circle Hope, Idaho 83836 . w , RAY CONNELLY REALTY Brokerage and Appraisals (612) 890-2130 June 20, 1991 Mr. Michael Foertsch CITY OF EAGAN 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Mike: RECEIV`D JUN 2 y 139E This letter is a followup to the meeting I had with you and Mike Dougherty on the discussion of the assessment policy for the Skyline Project area. After reviewing the information presented by you, it is my opinion, that the manner in which you plan to assess the benefitted property is a just assessment and the improvements are a benefit to the subject property for at least the amount of assessment. Sincerely, onne 12904 Nicollet Avenue • Burnsville, MN 55337 I1?I G' OF PL4NNitJ4 C14iYIIJ_-4,Y ViT1 G2DUN,:/i VE.q L E_LD?ti___w. oil __... _THE._REOuE9.7__FOR.. A_W11y6?_o.F_ PLAT-_-?? EZ) _QP._MR..}Na.._M.?S.. DE t08>`?.?0 SELL _SHEilt NOUSE_PLUS ONE cc ;?FE --___._..keRE.-.._ tiiaH.i?EoUi)?F9 THE 5 AL i TT i N& __ 0 F .4 TqX PARd94 _OF-Af'fRc ?MRTfL??O ACREfi._oF_?N Pt.A_T7.Eb??r ^,._____ -__-- - _PBESEKT._bR.DiNAHCES_P_RoM)81T_TN?BE?OR?j.N?__OF_• Cs N 4E `d ^C _w/2HevT_A_P44r oR__ W4 VvR-OIc_eL 47- R E ------ -- -_Z.T__?I4C(rN2?1+E FO ___BE?9PP?QpI AT_E__TO.CO_YILoER THE I3pCKCcRO?JND_D-f _TyiS. RfCuEST._.4ND r'.T?1M?'?7C'S-w?'rN__Rlfr9aD_10.__- _OH.?L?;?_E?93KNdt1iE?EdBN I 'N /.S4(. ZT RE A? NC D ist_..?RE?$? NT J i ?E i N APPRQ.X?L.`/ V L._ RND [/B.i?EEni VKDE4?i4iAf6 fON3S_2hfL.ntIA"A eR4Nf_65 EVER _SjAtdf,??J?l12Q_?_- L D. C.A1?'L_L?2QR f d R_?E_SS__1_N TyE M? L???t2f S ANL iS FtANk !Y THE NORTH ANa_EA57 SiDEB_QY A DEEP RAv%NE. THE NFRRE$L UR?? THE C?yRSE o.P TNor LaS7 T/?REE?E1p,?$?..IQE RS NAYE,___ PTE?-rO_S,E?L1 ThJE?E44(,S?L?(IrM /O AcRC$- =Al- oke--84I?C.E E?KCcs/+E?ORSi?DiN? T£RRAiN __quy+ _TN.4??'Q_SS OG TN£ f+/p.U?_E- COtgPLEL.__WijN_JHE_ CDS.T__O?N?_1.!4VD, AN_4xTR^?FL`LS7E.EP_.RAViNE?(r0 ?..:.._DiviDESf /D._ACRE: _7/!RouGH._7ME a OTTOM -IF TNiS RAViuE RUNS H SMAtt CRffK£Y -----...----? i?Oddi S'L `' /?. NA(C ..^O<F7?/ -SPR "!a5 i wNiCti ?O SC ION STx=; ?'ac AND ARAiN . ..-_ -- __IA.'A E.-PRO 0 WAi vZtR OF Pt AT Ci TY Cd.]E , Se C. /3. IZ SuBD. ,2 f A ( - sr,a f£s / IN 4FfCC.^, TIVA' WAWf/d MAY QE .4RAN-rEaWKER2.UNNEOESSARY./-/ARDSNiI'._1S-./NC6'RRE= AND _-.wMaRf - NeN-CO,rI?ti/?NCE i7oes_NoT__!NrcR,FEkE-. w; ry?yE_Pp/rPOtfe ___.___ ___.__ oF_TNE__GNRPTER.-W!T!<_TME_GODE_iN_M._?Ndi. SET </.8 ca NS DEQ -- ?. O t C.I -- __-__. MR$_, D£_LOSH WISH ZoJt4?iRE E?EewvfR! AMD DESp -______. /QTECY. NEE D.__1Y70ME.Y__FROM_TNE- Sq?E_O_F TKE NoaIESO_LO_EQ_. __ __ °FgYER$ _FOR TNE-_NouSE_.?+/uS_.1_AtRE_?9RE_w9iriNG_ TD__CGOSE, ____ _._ __ TNEIR_PROPERrY_._h`9s BEEM totn._AND.MUST?E_vACR7ED.- 8o rµ _guYER: AN: LGERS -.*RE _RE T/RfD..A!+D !±t_-S1Lf?R_ZEC.0.WNer-YEARS _._ ,?,_f?NT?L._REQENTLY?-_nIO BKE_.ADV?Fa TFt?en?,YR??Z2,?_l?_ _ ____wglvfR_T?EI¢f?F+ w:FS__/VECfssgq-y?Dq?na?ECSRaL.?_o_F ,E'B?-E??a: 374ND484YV_7/14 _4 0AN.iN er_1/S7tT_UZo-It_DDES /OT_1VLSN ZO ADV!iNCC ____ _--__-. MoN,E.Y...UNaER_..rNEtE-.CONDcTiOt1S,JQ311_S+aE LiGNT/?/(D?QE??T?'?OM __ PA!YY?oK>'n,1CT_FD I(NEw/?F TIl6?et i?NCg$?.E?SSLb-.f9La?£?CE• _____ __ !HE 4RAkr OF A MA(VER_D.F PlA7 QN TN??EIQSH "?{. DOES ^_ ee ^ FSirZwt%sK_n /4 Pe iw r s O F PoR Pe ?[ - /.s!?? •. /? a+? . R6yiEW?F?KE?Y/EVi[Y?Tl1OWe THAT {JN6N[UMBeRED AtlLtt MA3?( Rf?kf?E?R J4??DS?ND ?iLLLtJ !NBC FbraR? DEV?,LOpMlNf OF TwE_ RCRf_i f,E., 7A9c_D£1o.Jl. PARCft i S?PLSO?N?Ct1RD 1 v/7N TiVL C1?4d NINs __ Ccu/DE._1'IAN?ND _C+RPiLAt IMPRIVf?E?L!_?CRJ1, --------elfiPP._/3-,_Suea.a,.B.2_'=tr??ES TM?r.Zl?!AltUSR.!MA.Y??R4e2e? _ _IN_rNtS_CAJE,-.'!Mf .pACt An W/ffRf AN iMiRivfD .l?4A7 C'RJJ 8E Aby)'FVED,. It RE JWDVAL..0c NC A144UsF ?Ha Wee 4o f A,fOA, rwE _oufPA;c ??ertrRE_w/c? J)?ncOUR9kL 27EvE4oPF-R3 TO TANG 4#67 L>< -- 8) ?cI?E T>ifM SOMETNJml CONCRETE w;T.H u/N/CK To /<qN FmruRB /feME s%7JS5. G+ W.9i v _rR 0 F AL AT 9 ,R)'RZSP.LT 1N AMORE DETAILED ANO IAI .Qvav4r1 A(AT S1 MCE MA, yA3 DF COC'gA WO MIRE AaToINI,Y TAX pA?4c?LS wNlr?± csucD? AANa Fnd,At7?' WdvL7) BL' iNe4vve0 /N 7we fuTuter 4jvp 'Coto A01C7 DEVEL"OpMevr fNz -------___WE_NOPS TNAr rNi3 A4EJfRT/1?.en?__HfiO5 Ydu _rO.-BETTf+Q-".DFR' __. _---._ __ STgN.y _TNE _ftEHdnNS_fdR .TN/S i9EQvtJT AND-2HC _ !?'?'=L+?CAInf?+J)-?N__ .. - - WN%[Al -WE - F'iNb DVASBLVES r - - - - -- - - -- - --- - --- CT9c??/ --- -- -- -- --- --- --- - - -- ---- -F?tcD _•A_ /YI,?X iNE__?E. L D d H ---- - v U W W (n r ? LL 3 O N O w x F r w O H X W 2 w.J r N W 3 PONT OF BEGININ o 0 %- I N 89°I N O6 O MO 9,109,----- 0 2 i Al U I ;0 - -?jI ---\LA - _?-_ o PC) , -t S:61-1:Ey HILLS D ERNE C) M 3O AO / x'999 ? / N 89° 'i II 32' 03'? E NORTHWEST SOU H LINE IOF GOV' LOT l TTRfFFLEORNER F ACRE ?I r . ti?.?i :w?:2iiffi1{i • . ?: i' ^ ,1 PARCEL SPLIT FROM DELOSH PROPERTY y? EXISTING Q fv'?" ,7- HOUSE \ 6 -?- EACEFTION r \\\ SiSa 4p \ \ \ ?; J \ \ -Q<? p° \ EXISTING ^) ?r ROAD EASEMENT )T 6,SEC. 4, 27,R.23\? I 60 Sp loo -cE 5? -,V JO 0 t 01G?yQ `' n I C 1 I ?U ?J cry .1 UO V (n0 V, ,E 12 N S O 50 i00 150 SCALE IN FEET HOLIDAY, HENDRIX AND KELLY ATTORNEYS AT LAW PENTAGON OFFICE PARK 7701 NORMANDALE ROAD, SUITE 105 EDINA, MINNESOTA 55433 TELEPHONE: 16121 921-0361 KATHLEEN HOLIDAY GLENN E. HENDRIX DANNY P. KELLY October 6, 1987 Eagan city council 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Re: Waiver of plat for Frederick C. Delosh to split 1.003 acres from 13.4 R-1 single family acres located in SE of Section 4, north of Skyline Road and east of Sibley Hills Drive Dear Eagan City Council: I nave been retained by Michael and Margaret Sullivan who are adjoining home owners to the above-described acreage. The Sullivans' home is located at 1476 Bridgeview Avenue. The back of their lot is separated from the above-described acreage by a ravine through which flows a natural stream or brook. At a meeting of the Eagan Advisory Planning commission on 9/22/87, the above described waiver of plat was approved. With regard to the potential development of the remaining 13.4 R-1 single family acres, there was mention of a possible storm sewer through the existing ravine. My clients feel the development could include possible road access to this acreage by continuation or extension of Bridgeview Terrace. My clients are concerned that this potential development would compromise the natural stream currently flowing through the existing ravine. It is their fear that plans could include diversion of the natural stream, possibly into the storm sewer, and/or partial or total filling of the ravine to allow for possible road access via the continuation and extension of Bridgview Terrace. I would like to emphasize that my clients are not opposed to development per se, but rather, their concern is that proper procedures be followed in planning for that development. It is their belief that this development involves the potential impairment or destruction of the natural resource of the stream, Rs +o-k Eagan City Council October 6, 1987 Page two and therefore I have advised my clients to consider triggering the input process set forth in Minn. Stat. y116D.04. Subd. 2a. (c). Furthermore, I have advised my clients of their rights under Minn. Stat. y116B.03, Subd. 1. While the matter before the City Council at this time is only the waiver of plat, my clients believe that the ramification of the waiver of plat (i.e. the potential development of the remaining acreage) needs to be discussed and weighed in your decision- making process. Thank you for your consideration. It would be appreciated if this office were kept apprised of further action on this matter. Very truly yours, Kathleen Holiday rT 607- loft TDOV' 07 Ike- 19 / , sCJ r t 1. f • ' ' y?/ l 1 1, , J , It i F / ?_ ? I I J r f r , - - - --------- c tg 180 Osprey Circle Hope, Idaho 83836 City Cooncil Prov. 6, 1989 T.E. Colbert T. L. Hed?es Sirs: It see°+s th-et you nave chosen to disre?mrd my let- tFr of Aril 6, 1999 with reference to settirt up a mePtirm to aiscVSF the ease-rents and. asFescrnerts of Project 543 H. Wherefore, this letter is to be considered as a bl7nket rejection of all easements, as^essments and the nro- cess used to co.-mite same. ple^se he advised that all corresoondence relat- inn to the above should be sent to the obove rid.d-ess. F?il- i?re to do so will icnalidate said corres7ondence. Very truly yours, Frederick C. De Losh `Tk 18o osprey Circle Hope, Id. 8°836 Feb. 28, 1990 T. A. Colbert public oorl?s Dent. hLoT S`13 P_ E=?an, Yr. Sir: Approximately two tears ago the city Planninor and Public works Depts. had the opportunity to discuss proposed deve3opment plans for our property. In fact, you asked for, and received, copies of these drawings which contained not only roads and lot Pl.aceTent but also contemplated weter and sewer lines and hook ups. It mi-ht behoove you and other city officials to rep ew these drawings so that our desires and nlans might rot be com- pletely disreaardee.You might also like to glance at our letters c` Aortl 6 and Nov. 6, 1989, to which no one deir*ned to reply. In order to -core adeglz?tely assess yout project's im- n?ct cn our Drnoerty, sre would annreclAte, detailed plans and srecif`icetions for-- 1) Treatment nf t're SF corner of our property. 2) Flow3ae a-A ponding trlvpur nrooerty Inclvrcr.z. eiF ositicn of our stable and T c and cc-nects t'ce revire from. west to east. Yo.ar immediate reply tothese requests will be xrentV :-rrec]eted. We iao?;ld also like vour drswins nd eO meets on how the city clans to handle the water and sewage Tnrouzht nii_r e.crea'e. In my o,inion, they n.re intimately con- i.ected to, Fnd ?ffecte' by, the storm sewer lines. very truly yours, Frederick C. De Losh 6)e)Vc0 - bie-77 7? -= _ c iz 77 011-77 SE 4- 926134 RIGHT-OF-WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH CITY PROJECT #542R AND CONTRACT # This easement, made this ,2J- day of Ju/y , 1989, between FREDERICK C. DELOSH and MAXINE DELOSH, husband and wife, herein referred to as "Landowner" and the CITY OF EAGAN, a Minnesota municipal corporation, organized under the law of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "City". W I T N E S S E T H: V J That the Landowner is the owner of the following described parcel: (Parcel 1) That part of Government Lot 6, Section 4, Township 27, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota lying South of the south line of VALLEY VIEW PLATEAU and VALLEY VIEW PLATEAU PLAT NO. 2, lying East of the east line and its southerly extension of POST ADDITION NO. TWO., according to the recorded plats thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota; EXCEPT that part thereof described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of Lot 17, TREFFLE ACRES, according to the recorded plat thereof; thence North 00 degrees 14 minutes 34 seconds West on an assumed bearing along a line perpendicular with the north line of said Lot 17, a distance of 60.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 45 minutes 26 seconds West 10.00 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 55 degrees 01 minutes 31 seconds West 104.04 feet; thence North 00 degrees 14 minutes 34 seconds West 200.00 feet; thence South 63 degrees 36 minutes 25 seconds East 220.16 feet; thence South 21 degrees 04 minutes 09 seconds East 112.00 feet; thence South 15 degrees 55 minutes 34 seconds East 58.81 feet; thence South 89 degrees 45 minutes 26 seconds West 167.51 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating. following easements: That the Landowner, in consideration of the sum of One Dollar 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, forever, the A permanent easement for public roadway and utility purposes over, under and across the south 60.00 feet of the west 440.00 feet of the above described Parcel 1. kh, And a temporary construction easement over, under and across the north 20.00 feet of the south 80.00 feet of the West 330.00 feet of the above described Parcel 1. Together with a temporary construction easement over, under and across the north 25.00 feet of the south 85.00 feet of that part of the above described Parcel 1 which lies east of the west 330.00 feet thereof and lies westerly of the exception to the above described Parcel 1. Together with a temporary construction easement over, under and across the south 60.00 feet of the east 10.00 feet of the west 450.00 feet of the above described Parcel 1. Said temporary easements expire December 31, 1990. See also Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. The grant of the foregoing temporary construction easements and permanent easements for right-of-way and utility purposes includes the right of the City, its contractors, agents and servants to construct, reconstruct, inspect, repair and maintain a public roadway, utilities and appurtenances over, under, across and through the premises, to erect and maintain signs in conjunction with the public's use of said public roadway, utilities and appurtenances and any signs erected in conjunction with the use of the roadway and appurtenances. And the Landowner, for itself and its successors and assigns, does covenant with the City, its successors and assigns, that it is well seized in fee of the lands and premises aforesaid and has good right to grant, convey the easements 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. FREDERICK C. D' OSH INE DELOSH 0 o 4e. STATE OF M04NES15TA ) ss. COUNTY OF c,t,ti v ) On this 'day of t Notary Public within and fo1 said, FREDERICK C. DELOSH to me persona. described in and who executed the acknowledged that he executed the , 1989, before me a County, personally appeared Lly known to be the person foregoing instrument and same as his free act and deed. C: Notary ublic \ 1 A14< STATE OF -M14ftf SeTA ) ^? ) ss. COUNTY OF l \? r n 'V c ) On this .?5 day of 1989, before me a Notary Public within and for aid ounty, personally appeared MAXINE DELOSH to me personalT known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that she executed the same as her free act and deed. Notary Public 167.4 24L c I 4 SRI D GE V I E W t.s_ . is 01/- i7 • ?/ ?o A E C 0 3 I :3- J o /7 4' . /r, /C 1 v os T I o SO[/T.?IR?OGE AV E• isr.rc V A ! L? E Y V r _ 3 p L A T? A U N° Z. i I` Gty of Eapon 030-02 D r c 'DRE r C'S2- 56 Frvd< <c,E C O? L o.s",f? e? w/fir TEMP. U?Avr. '"or2-77 O i t --77 ,ST EA$EME'1T N ASE .2rp (c0 WADwAY EASEAtEgT /7 ID TEMP. Gon wrtc%wrlo4 1=ALE?tE4"r !L 0 n 7 ? a o •, 1---------------- S SKYLINE 160-00 z z r 4 F 130-00 F 131-00 _:-r " t a f Pe6,4 f r• ? i 1 14 070-00 ?' ?--!- 100-oO t zs, AUG 23 'P.9 16: 11 MRS 1b'd "Jd l APPROVED AS TO FORM: s Cit Attorney's O ice Dat 7-/.7-fo APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Public Works Department Date: 8--3-81 • 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 /o-oa ?/oo -0 11-7 7 4-441c kal 70' 7, ?, c? rJZV?ru.L Ght ? me ?- ?Q'-C ?ne i??rt? ? GCSE ac?a-trz ??0? r??c? CvLL? ?e. ?/Lfi-?.= dZ4461.1?4j/? ,I C&zb 3-9-9?- 1399951 CITY OF EAGAN DAKOTA COUNTY, MINA RELEASE OF CERTIFIED LISTING OF POSTPONED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS PROJECT NO. THIS RELEASE is dated, made and entered into this 18th day of December , 19 96 , by and between the City of Eagan (hereinafter "City"), and Frederick and Maxine DeLosh (hereinafter "Owner"); i'::IEREAS, :iir. CiLy nuu 'Lhe Owiiei entered into an agreement to postpone special assessments under City Project No. ; and WHEREAS, on the 12th day of July , 1984 , a Certified Listing of Postponed Special Assessments, dated the 27th day of June 1984 , was recorded by the City a s Document No. 659735 , with the Dakota County Recorder in accordance with Minnesota Statute §429.061, subd. 2, against the following property: Legal Description: Section 4 TWn 27 Range 23 South 20 Rds of Govt lot 6 S 2 Rds Govt Lot 7 Ex St Dakota County Identification No.: 10 00400 010 77 NOW THEREFORE, the City hereby releases the Agreement to Postpone Special Assessments against the Owner's above-described property. DATED: • - 4 Transfer Entered This /7-& day of+-nay_--9Au ?3 L Dakota County Tr 9,tl ; Certificate 060 I, E. J. VanOverbeke, City Clerk of the City 4E qan, do Hereby ter 'fy that the foregoing is a true and correct copy. VanOverbeke, City Clerk 0 k 16" By:. J. VanOverbeke Its. City Clerk `'A 1-ho -0/7 1399951 OFRCE OF THE CMM Y RECORDER DAKOTA MUM, MINNESOTA CERTIFIED THAT THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT WAS RECORDED IN THIS OFFICE ON AND AT JAN I.l q Oo PH '97 DOC. NO. 1399951 JAMES N. DOLA UNTY RECD ER BY: Deputy FEE ?© SURCHARGE CASH ? CHECK ? ESCROW ? WELL ? CHARGE I CHARGE TO: O/R DO NOT REMOVE o 6t, G59t35 C I T Y O F E A G A N CERTIFIED LISTING OF POSTPONED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Section 4 Twn 27 Range 23 South 20 Rds of Govt Lot 6 S 2 Rds Govt Lot 7 Ex St COUNTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: 10 00400 010 77 POSTPONED SPECIAL ASSESSMENT: Water Area Assessment Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.061, Subd. 2, as amended by the 1980 Session Laws, Chapter 560, Section 5, I hereby certify that the City of Eagan has approved the postponement of the special assessments as set forth above on the property described. Dated this -.?' :L W day of Njkti. 1984 EXEMPT FROM STATE DEED TAX STAMPS 57j from State D Tax _Qpd This Document Drafted By: City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Treasurer Q ? ),"V., 01 rou E.J. 9nOverbeke City lerk/Finance Director Certificate I, E:J,.--VanOverbeke, City Clerk of the City of Eagan, do Hereby certXty 'that- the -foregoing is a true n cor ct c y. E. VanOverbeke, City Cle •-7 nA- rheredThis 19.Zx RL-C,_iVED darayof_ __ r .:v 9 1S17 Dakota County wsyrer?r ?? ?? v?. CITY OF EAGAN DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RELEASE OF CERTIFIED LISTING OF POSTPONED SPECIAL PROJECT NO. THIS RELEASE is dated, made and entered into this l8th day of December , 19 96 , by and between the City of Eagan (hereinafter "City"), and Frederick and Maxine DeLosh , (hereinafter "owner"); WHEREAS, the City and the Owner entered into an agreement to postpone special assessments under City Project No. ; and WHEREAS, on the 712th day of July , 1984 , a Certified Listing of Postponed Special Assessments, dated the 27th day of June , 1984 , was recorded by the City a s Document No. 659735 with the Dakota County Recorder in accordance with Minnesota Statute 5429.061, subd. 2, against the following property: Legal Description: Section 4 Twn 27 Range 23 South 20 Rds of Govt lot 6 S 2 Rds Govt Lot 7 Ex St Dakota County Identification No.: 10 00400 010 77 NOW THEREFORE, the City hereby releases the Agreement to Postpone Special Assessments against the owner's above-described property. DATED: 8-q1 Certificate I, E. J. VanOverbeke, City Clerk of the City 4E ando Hereby cer that that the foregoing is a true and correct copy. anOverbeke, City Clerk 5 By: . J. VanOverbeke Its: City Clerk 6 59735 C I T Y O F E A G A N CERTIFIED LISTING OF POSTPONED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Section 4 Twn 27 Range 23 South 20 Rds of Govt Lot 6 S 2 Rds Govt Lot 7 Ex St COUNTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: 10 00400 010 77 POSTPONED SPECIAL ASSESSMENT: Water Area Assessment Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.061, Subd. 2, as amended by the 1980 Session Laws, Chapter 560, Section 5, I hereby certify that the City of Eagan has approved the postponement of the special assessments as set forth above on the property described. Dated this °)q T W day of qckK,Q 1984 EXEMPT FROM STATE DEED TAX STAMPS EExem t from State De d Tax This Document Drafted By: City of Eagan Dakota County Treasurer 3830 Pilot Knob Road E.J. nOverbeke City lerk/Finance Director Certificate nOverbeke, city clerk of the City of Eagan, do Hereby cert ?X 'that° th'e;:foregoing is a true n cor ct c ry. ,. y E. VZOVer City Cie--M r Eagan, MN 55122 Q? STATE OF MINNESOTAi County of Dakota ss. Office of Courtly Recorder This i cer?i , Lt at the within instr ' Want as fil i,:r record i This c `ic ?t H °irg; en (h- daY h.i ro the _and ih. at - the same was iy reco'dad in Dakota County Records JAMES N. DOLAN 7,2 - ?? CITY OF EAGAN DAKOTA COUNTY, MINA RELEASE OF CERTIFIED LISTING OF POSTPONED SPECIAL PROJECT NO. THIS RELEASE is dated, of L?raceacher . 19,gy, (hereinafter "City"), and _ (hereinafter "Owner"); made and entered by and between into this 18th day the City of Eagan DeLosh WHEREAS, the City and the Owner entered into an agreement to postpone special assessments under City Project No. ; and WHEREAS, on the 6t-h day of January , 1988, a Certified Listing of Postponed Special Assessments, dated the 30th day of penen*or , 19_U_, was recorded by the City a s Document No. 822079 , with the Dakota County Recorder in accordance with Minnesota Statute $429.061, subd. 2, against the following property : Legal Description: Section 4 Twn 27 Range 23 PT GOVT LOT 6 LY S OF VALLEY VIEW PLATEAU & VALLEY VIEW PLATEAU #2 EX COM NE COR LOT 17 TREFFLE ACRES N 60 FT S 89D45M26S W 10 FT TO BEG N 55D1M31S W 104.04 FT N OD14M34S W 200 FT S 63D36M25S E 220.16 FT S 21D4M9S E 112 FT S 15D55M34S E 58.81 FT W 167.51 FT to BEG ALSO S 2 RDS GOVT LOT 7 EX ST Dakota County Identification No.: 10-00400-011-77 NOW THEREFORE, the City hereby releases the Agreement to Postpone Special Assessments against the Owner's above-described property. DATED: Certificate I, E. J. VanOverbeke, City Clerk of the City qfEjag at the foregoing is a true and correct copy. V4It anOverbeke, City Clerk . J. yanOverbeke : City Clerk C I T Y O F E A G A N CERTIFIED LISTING OF POSTPONED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Section 4 Twn 27 Range 23 PT GOVT LOT 6 LY S OF VALLEY VIEW PLATEAU & VALLEY VIEW PLATEAU #2 EX COM NE COR LOT 17 TREFFLE ACRS N 60 FT S 89D45M26S W 10 FT TO BEG.N 55D1M31S W 104.04 FT N OD14M34S W 200 FT S 63D36M25S E 220.16 FT S 21D4M9S E 112 FT S 15D55M34S E 58.81 FT W 167.51 FT TO BEG ALSO S 2 RDS GOVT LOT 7 EX ST COUNTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: 10 00400 011 77 POSTPONED SPECIAL ASSESSMENT: Water area assessment Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.061, Subd. 2, as amended by the 1980 Session Laws, Chapter 560, Section 5, I hereby certify that the City of Eagan has approved the postponement of the special assessments as set forth above on the property described. ?1 II q Dated this 3QT14 day of 0 .o?...br 198azp EXEMPT FROM STATE DEED TAX STAMPS This Document Drafted By: City of Eagan 3830 Pil.nt Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 E.J VanOverbeke City Clerk/Finance Director Certificate I, E.J. VanOverbeke, City Clerk of the City of Eagan, do Hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy. V E. . Vanoverbeke, City Clerk 822073 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER-DAKOTA COUNTY, MN. CERTIFIED THAT THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT WAS FILED FOR RECORD IN THIS OFFICE ON AND AT ??a S 23 kN'8B DOC. NO @22073 JAMES N. UNTY RECORDER DEPUTY, FEE O M CASH ? CHECK A CHARGED( CHARGE WHOM &Z( Z" REFUND DO NOT REMOVE 12) (Maf 13999 0 CITY OF RAGAN DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RELEASE OF CERTIFIED LISTING OF POSTPONED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS PROJECT NO. THIS RELEASE is dated, made and entered into this 18th day of •om , 19?, by and between the City of Eagan (hereinafter "City"), and Frederick and Maxine DeLosh (hereinafter "Owner"); WHEREAS, the City and the Owner entered into an agreement to postpone special assessments under City Project No. ; and WHEREAS, on the th day of January , 1988, a Certified Listing of Postponed Special Assessments, dated the 30th day of DP Pmhar , 1987, was recorded by the City as Document No. _822079 , with the Dakota County Recorder in accordance with Minnesota Statute §429.061, subd. 2, against the following property: Legal Description: Section 4 Twn 27 Range 23 PT GOVT LOT 6 LY S OF VALLEY VIEW PLATEAU & VALLEY VIEW PLATEAU #2 EX COM NE COR LOT 17 TREFFLE ACRES N 60 FT S 89D45M26S W 10 FT TO BEG N 55D1M31S W 104.04 FT N OD14M34S W 200 FT S 63D36M25S E 220.16 FT S 21D4M9S E 112 FT S 15D55M34S E 58.81 FT W 167.51 FT to BEG ALSO S 2 RDS GOVT LOT 7 EX ST Dakota County Identification No.: 1.0-00400-011-77 NOW THEREFORE, the City hereby releases the Agreement to Postpone Special Assessments against the Ouner's above-described property. DATED: d a of Erdered This-_:?,? day of 7 *ota CountyTrreasurer-Aud or Certificate I, E. J. VanOverbeke, City Clerk of the City of Eag , do Hereby t' y that the foregoing is a true and correct copy. E. VanOverbeke, City Clerk By . J. VanOverbeke It. : City Clerk 1399950 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA CERTIFIED THAT THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT WAS RECORDED IN THIS OFFICE ON AND AT JAN 17 q oo Ni '97 DOC. NO. 1399950 JAMES N. DO: BOUNTY RECORDER BY Deputy FEE ? SURCHARGE CASH ? CHECK ? ESCROW ? WELL ? CHARGE 1` CHARGE TO: Ef36f?itJ O/R DO NOT REMOVE =3 U?s a?,??, MXJ 55i?2-by!;7 822079 C I T Y O F E A G A N CERTIFIED LISTING OF POSTPONED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Section 4 Twn 27 Range 23 PT GOVT LOT 6 LY S OF VALLEY VIEW PLATEAU & VALLEY VIEW PLATEAU #2 EX COM NE COR LOT 17 TREFFLE ACRS N 60 FT S 89D45M26S W 10 FT TO BEG N 55D1M31S W 104.04 FT N OD14M34S W 200 FT S 63D36M25S E 220.16 FT S 21D4M9S E 112 FT S 15D55M34S E 58.81 FT W 167.51 FT TO BEG ALSO S 2 RDS GOVT LOT 7 EX ST COUNTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: 10 00400 011 77 POSTPONED SPECIAL ASSESSMENT: Water area assessment Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.061, Subd. 21 as amended by the 1980 Session Laws, Chapter 560, Section 5, I hereby certify that the City of Eagan has approved the postponement of the special assessments as set forth above on the property described. ,r/1? Dated this 30zµ day of llpr.Qvl[r 1988£ V EXEMPT FROM STATE DEED TAX STAMPS This Document Drafted By: City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 (P- ? &ZA 11?- E.Jq-VanOverbeke City Clerk/Finance Director Certificate I, E.J. VanOverbeke, City Clerk of the City of Eagan, do Hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy. RLL,_IVEQ ew;a 4 G. ?SS7 V E. . VanOverbeke, City Clerk Transfer niered This _17 day of Dakota County Tr urer . Wdltop Al 4 i , . , . l M' !t I' I r 1~ 1. i 7~A 1I ' i ' r W/ 4 1 1 f ~f I ~ ~I~., { i. i, ~9 ( . __...,:.r.. fl i 1 W 7 , ~`rf~ ;M> yi ~ ~F j I ~ 1 r. Y l i. ' ® ~ _ j ~ ~ _ ^4. i~ {1~ f 1`!. ~y ~R I . i. x tl ~ i. ' ~ v i.. + t w Jil{vu i i i 'f e3. ~ n r . awe..m...nrcns..-6. r ~ { } r Z''~ t. ` n i ~ I r~ ~ i ' f ' + ` f Q I~1,5 i r. i{, A,'~ 1, ~ ~ ~ ~.i~ { ~ ~ ~ i 'I~~ l _ ~ ~ ~ F~'~ I~ ~ ~ 1 h r "I'. ~ ~ .r<<. ~ I ~ i. i j ~ w. i i ~ ` 1 1'a ~ a J Il ' l -vrs= c 6r I i ~w i I f ~ I ~ i ~ j ~i, ~ Y~. „ri e. ~ l~ i _ ` i ~ ~ .b., ~ -F._ r S~'~ i1. i 1 I 'R II is i I.i i j;i S ~ y a - ~ ear- y m ~ + 1`` i~ a ^ sir ,-~~wc"" i r A V ~ - ~~d~ 7 1 - ~ ~ - ~ _ i ,1. - ~ ; ~ ~ - ~ ,I~ ~ ~ ~ 6 r ; ~ _ ~ ~ i l t ~ ~ . ~ i ~ r, r r, ~ ~ i ~ ~ P , 1 I7 ~ 11 i 1 ~t .r A' ~ ~J ` r f i r . ~ ` ~ 1 _ . , ~ `G ~ ° , ~ , t r r ~ ~ ~ _ i t } ~ ~ ~ ~ e~,~ e~v ~ ~ ~ d, a .w ~ l 1 \ ~ ~ ; ~,i' ~N i 1 i' ~ y ~ r i / ~ .r i ~ ~ ~ I .5. 1 f 1 1 1. ) e ~ t ~ ~~~;rri ~ ~ ~ L' ~ L ' ~ i ~ ~ e t ~ ~ - _ i r ~ - ~ ~ } \ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~~~~w ropy , - ~'v ~ ~ ill ~d ~ S} ~ i~ l , e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~..i ~ ~_f ~ , , :xn t ~ „ ^ ,r y~ ~ ~ s.~ ~ ~ , 1 14 ~ ~ ~e ~l~ e~'~ ,4~1C ~r1" i L 4 _ i d ~ ~ ~ it I~~ f M~l luA~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ _ . r" - , ~ , . t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ,~ls ,t~'~ any € ~ ~77rp~ ~ ~ i. i s ~ , e i ~ ys~,i~ - ~ y ~ ~ 1, + ~ . ~y4 y y ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ l y ~ ~ 7. ~pk°. t ^ t" ' tai r" y,~'~, { ~ 9V ~V t ~ ~`u A i'\ ~ '.I S- Wey?'~ 1~ Sl ~ i ~ ~..'»..,p.~ 1' ~ y~ ! "1 I' ~ 4 r' ` l j ~ %,~r.,,~ 1 ~ Jyi inn ~ ~L ~ r. I i e , _ Y ^ ~ , s i` t ~ ? e 1 r I. ff ~ ~ . ~ Y ~ ~ _..--~5'. ! i > ~ .~r tel. , f / a ~ y. ~ ,.;.,~a--~'+.- n.~ . . v s ~ ~ tie y ,i ~ ~ ~,l'~ 1 ~ 4 iC ~ ti i i it ~ r 1~ ~ t~> t r f r P - ~ r i ~ ~ a .u~=;~~ b• ~ p e~,. ~f', t r,. ~ , J i e. a ( , 1 d Y A 1 r ~ e~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `vV .c" i> g I~ ~l ~ ,t, it, ~ e i, 4~ t~ ~ I ~ ~s ~ u ,.}~q.. ~y } ^.r ~!'h`^'~ -~~Y'~`~~5 _,rr rig ~ i . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~i~~ . v L.. ~~1 r~! l ~i, ~ S. f r • j" ag w ~ ~ ~ ? i ~ 7 .ti t'~, ~ ~,;~i ~~f ~ ~r 4~. eft ~ti r ; ~ f; , ~ ~ e. ( ~ _ ~~„i r < ~ ~ ! , ~ d '~-.,_i.._ r ~a ~ ~ r t . ~ ~a , s ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ a-. t~q-~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' . _ ~ , , u:,,.,. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r,~ ~ a , ~ ' r r. + w~. a• r ~ ~ ~ e~ ~ r'' ~ ,~~,,7° ~ ~ i ^ ~ , ~ e { ~ 'r ~ ~ ,i r ~ ' j 1 ~:r ~ e , \f r'.d;. r~ ~i; - v i ~ ~ i.. ; i _ ~ ~ ' r ! a I ~ ~ l~ . ! ~ t t e~ ~ c i' i >1 n s' ~ , , ~ ' , . ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ i, , i l?. d _ t , - t ~ ~ ~ r ,a ~ r ~r l i a ` y i. ~ D ~ t tJ +C, 4 y* ~l ,~b P t I F ._~,d....._ .~stMOyg _.~..,._.-N w i e r ` ~ - - t i ~ y i. .'.b i ~ ~ f-~ - f ~ " I ~ p i;~i I ~ i ~ ~ , e , y z, ~ . i "~1 < ~ ' , ! Y ~ ~ p,r ~ i ~ , t `~t ~ ~ r. a ~ k~ i .'A I i { d i iF' r,; y ' ~'t to/ qw e sf. r~ is 1 S ~ ~ ~ ' + ~ I i r .r I ` ~ t ~ ' ~ ''r j ~ t t ~ ~ r'~ '~p-~7 e' i~ t ~ 'i~ I ~ - ~ f Y ~ .,i ~ r 3. ,e s ~ I~° 5 ~rka r i i r ~ > ~~r ~ , h ~ ~ , d a 3 yy,~PR~: ~ r i [}~J J w Y~ ~ i y 1 ` L f " t ~ ~ ~ ~ 'b p i ?f ' ~ :I,!- - ~ t I' I~ I I ~ , ' ! , zl I ~ ~ ~ ~ f Ii S~ I i r ~ t 1 l y% ~ ~+y f ~ 4. ~~I ~~II I ~ i d ~ I~ 1 ~1 ^ ;r C._ _...i_ - ~y~ ~ _ _ , 1 ~ I ~~.W II l 1 ~ f I pp r° v' .1 ~ ,t, • ~i r , ~ ' l ' ~ I i ~ _:..i } i.. i w m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F I~ V + r i~ it 1 ,L . cam..,- ~ ~.r ~ ~ a 4. ~r,Y e r ~t~ ~ P T1..~~~. 4 1•S' a"~k, ,i~~ " ~ ~ ~ e ~ I,' { - ~ t: ~ ~ 1 ~ ~...~L.~~......`~ ~y,,,~~ y,i}'. ,1~,. 1 y,! f i I. i r ~ , ` `ate ~ ~ _ t r , f . 1 ~ x, f y, ~ y s~, ~ .d ' l' ~ ''"8~d! 1 t,. J ~ ~ i ~ ~ s ~ ~ d ;h~;b., ~ , , ~ J ~ ~ -.i 1. e. 7~, ie .r ,fit ~ e ~ e r d`. e a ' d ~ ` ~ C\: Y ' - ~ Y. .c ,~~r e~4,. ~ 'e~ 1 i , . ~ f r.~~ J1 /"1. ~ ~CJ.I' ~r i t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u fi. 1 ~ t ~ , ~ ' ~ ( ' y_c 9 u ~ t ~ ~ f ' ~ ~ i Y e i ~ ::aa .v M ' ~ , m' g ,.l-i' ..'^y ~ LaJ r. v t. - ,w i _ ~ ,r _ 1/ ~ 4 7~ 1 0 ~ - 1~. ~r Aye~~ tt d, i .;a'~'~''''"~ a.~ 1~I ~~"~S d ~ W e , .e ;~Y i.a'~t; •;`~-+J~l. q" r~.,,~.yp~:, ~t , ~ ~ gmrd,A'.: e l ~ ~ i ~ d ~ ~ ~ =r I i } ~ ~ t i ~ ~ j i t i , ~ ~ v r , r fig t 1 t r t i ~ r i' x~ ~ ~ 1, ' ~ ~ ~ i , rR ~ A+~1 k l ~at , i i J 1 ~ R ~ t , ~ e ~ m~~ ~ ~ i';,1 ~ ~ , i , i~ ' ' ,e ~ ~ ~ i ii . t ,a ~ , +6 ~ e e j 1 r r~u 3 ~ e r ~ ~ ~~i ~ ~ ~ .Y~ ` , i. - , << 1..,. ~ ~ - i ~ ~ i t ~ ~fi~ ' `i~E-,~ i ~ - i q - - - . r ~ a- a ~ - e i ~ ~ Mi .F 3 q. » , i t { ~7. t ~ - 4e, ,.A ~e ~ ~ i ' I - ~ _ ~ ` , m yli ei:. _ ~ 1 I h 1 i ~ ~ J ~ , . I e, ~ y ~ ~ ~ / _ + .w,~.e ,..r 1 " ~ ~ ~ e i i 5 ~4. 1.~l r ~ ..P~~ e ~~'L g »~,~n,yAh et ,n ~ s ,f d d. . ~ , v ~ i e'i ~ ~ ~ ~ y~' ^ t~, ~ ~ ~ ,i tri _ ' (t' k ~ 1 ' d t~ , ~ k. u~ ' _ ~ ~ ~ il~ ~ fide r" t~~ ` - i ' / ~ - 1~ ,t _ i_ )c r. ' ~ ~ ~ 1~, Et °O ~i ~ ~ ~ ` ~~d t y ~ a ~ t c: i `4 ~ ~ a e ~ . ~ ~ ~ a tl t Ifs 1 i N' e ,j ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ r I Y ~ ~ ~ ~ w I~ t ` i i i{~ ~ t ! ~ r r ek, ~ ~ ~ ~ F, ~ , : ~ / u;, :it~~ ~ ~ r 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r4C~l p~l'UM i~~`~i: ~i ~ , i t ~ iii ~ ~ '1 ~ I i 1, ~ e ` ~ ~u~ I~~I. T' S~dT~ _ifl~) I ~1 ~ .q:. fed q ~ ~ ~ t racaa,ruar.~ ~ „sr~r.::r~ ~±_~nR~aMira~gu~,~vun~rc~.~nr : a ~ r i., °,v ~~w.._.~ ti , I , . r ` , ~t yy h (l. r' _ ray,( ~ ~ yi ~r r P~ a •r ~,t. W f•..~•* . ' '9,., } ' ~ v p k`.. 1 ;c f~ _ ,.x V~ , ~ `ti , . ^~,w. .a:,Kw~,~,~~_. ,.....v„~ ,*~K,a. .w« rypp~~~. 6[x~, 1. , , ~ `#I ' 1 n ' ~ i Rl ~v ~ ,e, 1 I'-,.. 6 'clor~ r. _a , _ Cj P 7 ~ G ~,,1 Gr ~ D a t, Est ~ , IV'- , fy ~ of a ryM ~ ~ ' r..:.,9k5Taeti ~e~X~r... is ,,r ~ 7 d ~ - a a° A A 1 L r ~ i.. ~i.. ~ ^ ~ . ~ T ~ v. t ,a ~ ~ r ~i„ I ~1 ` x ~ ~ q4 4 Y d 1 Vy ~ ~ ~ T~ " ° ~ n. x 11 Y n r ~ ~ k'~ P , i~ I ~ i { f ' r; r.. i? 1'l~ • 111 { ~ ~ r ~ I, ~v ~.L d ~ € r ~ ;t +a I / A m : a . ~ R ~ ~ T` R i 0..1. ~ ~ y ~ ~ f ~M~. .r n "h~,~ y ~ ctKt ~1 ~,1~..' ,,w r~~ p s n ~r iii fff ~ ~ i ;n ~ ~m _ M' ad ~i to ^.n. ~Yj ~ 1„ ~ \ I.~w.,,~„?..w..w.. j u!~~~;yn,.,~, .rvavnwveurrs. rMrcnm~Q,r;~ar~ y_ ~r~ ~t}I' I - rr r el ,a ~ i II r ~i ~ er A':-1.""`~; ~ P It _ i rr-~.~, a' r ~ c . ~ ~ 'i ~ we~w"w'"',a.'''.r'~wvwsut'w;l daw N fir' 31~W N+MnM~ M, ~ - . _ uMt1e Wb t d .:GV.MaiktyMw«Ypuk~P+v , 4 1 '3 '~nL a-. . 3~ ~aa` .a ? ;J T - - :a ~ . W a~' ~ ~ ~ r ,.W4AU'~^"~'~ ~ dvY'1=~.~ ~ ud Um4lW %Ra41~ ~a' S ~ "I n: ~ k- .CV r ~q ~ ~ nar,. y., , - } n? AJ` ~fl ~ e~''. 11 ' ' . r,, r. f, 'Mq !+y .P ` 4 r'V~/ f : a ~o ~ ~t~9 h ~ _ I P"~ ~ ` J t ~ ~ , ~ , _ r ,,rte Py r /1~ ~ ~ ~4 ~ fY` J~~lA Y~~f /I ~ r ~ ~ ~ y JMk_. Ned; ~ ~ { i.. ~ : ~ ~ L,. , .w.r.. . ~,M i ~ ^ 4 r`~ ~r ~ w w.~ . ~ iq ~ Y ~ts.%rwm °Anr+,e u ~ .i;, nxfl'wMNa,Y A i ' j a. Y ~4 s ~ i a~l• f ~ iA 4 r , I ~f a~ ~ ~ ~ ,l ~ y i rd y h w - .~.,„,.W,.~,. ~w..~,.,. w., I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' E , ~ t _ i ~~1 i. ~ .L ' ~ ~ ~ 4466d1''. T I' 'M . ~ t. „ I. ~"4.m, ~ ' 3; i ~ ~ d Y - j r d` ~ 4 1 s {i A ~ ~ ~1 ~"l k~ P', ~ - 0 ~ ~ ~ ; R i ~ag i ~ wrF r~„ s ,r,,^~, l~ e~ " R f ~n~~41F~ r: v. 444 ~ y l.lk r .i.. _ h6 . , . ~4 nw.. Y;T ~