3045 Poppler Lane_ . , vr tAGAN Remark ??? Aadicion Popplers Hdnestead Lot Out °t A Ri?
Ownec street 3045 Poppler Dr.
Improvement Date Amount Annuat Years Payment Receipt Date
STREET SURF.
STREET RESTOR.
GRADING
SAN SEW TRUNK 1970 1
SEWER LATERAL
WATERMAIN
WATER LATERAL
WATER AREA
STOFiM SEW 7RK
STORM SEW LAT
CURB & GUTTER .
51DEWALK
STREET LiGHT
WATER CONN.
SUILDING PER.
sac I. nn nn i 9no2 1 1_7_7h
?.
?:..?.. -
?r7 ,
0-4
r
pc? .
a,a,v-<L-.,_n
?1
CITY OF EAGAN
3795 Pilo! Knob Rood Eagan, MN 55122 N2 4443
. • PHONE: 454-8100
BUILDING PERMIT :_;?.'r.. (i, Receipt #k 6958
To be und for i'ox'ch Adda d ktt. C;,.; ,_, Date ?st 49 . 19 77
$ite, Address ?i: •': i '= epat.er Dr.- Erect 0 Occupancy -r
fiUt ;t. .
Lot Block S¢C/SUb. Alter 0; Zoning r' Z
Parcel # Repoir ? Fire Zone
Enlarge ? Type of Const.
cc Nome ^ -- ^ Move ? #k Stories
z Address -3c}~F '''"1" "0` ')r' Demolish p Front ZL ft.
° City ERgan phone 454-19 5" Grode ? Depth 22 fr.
?
Annrovnis FeBs
? Name _
o
?? Address
r ?:...
Name _
Addres,
Assessment _
Water & Sew.
Police
Fire
Eng.
Planner -
Council
Permit Z :)-uv _
Surchorge 2. 00
Plan check
SAC
Water Conn.
Woter Meter
1 hereby acknowledge that I fiave read this application nnd state thot Bldg. Off.
the information is correct ond agree to comply with all applicoble 17.00
$tate of MinnesoYa Stotutes and City of Eogan Ordinonces. APC Total
Signoture of Permittee • -- ?
ia?.r..ncc-. :;onp irr -
A Building Permit is issued to: ? on the ezpress condition that
all work shall be done in acfordance with oll appliwble State of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances.
Building Officiol - -
P?k # paM IwoN Paadlhm
Plumbing
Mechanical
INSPECTIOIVS I DATE INSP• RwqMln Finol
Footings 2 7 Date Insp. Dofe Irap.
Foundation Plumbing
Frame / ins. Mechanical
Final
Remorks:
viLusE oF ua?N SEWER SERVICE PERMIT
PERMIT NO.: 240G
3795 PibtwnoSRoad 11/15/74
Eoyon. AAN 55122 DATE:
Zoning: No. of Units: 1
Owner: W ? 1 r
Address:
P 1 r Drive
Site Address: 1-345
Plumber: s?
401.OD Ed_
??? ??mply whb the yNlqp of Eoqan Coanection CharBe:
prdinaKes. Account Deposit: 10. 00 Qd
permit Fee: , 50 pd
SurcharSe:
HY- Misc. Charges:
Date of Insp.: Total:
lnsp.: Date Pald:
Y!?_.LAtiE OF EABAM ?o - 00 WATER SERVICE PERMIT
1F.?4G
3795 Pilot Knob Road P p?>Pd, pERMIT NO.: 11/15 74
- ' Eogan, MN 55122 "e'S'1Q:A4041 DATE: 1
Zoning. Rl No. of Units:
° Owner:
Address: -
Site Address:
' Plumber:
Meter ? "'?2? / Connection CharSe. _50•00 pd .
.., Siae `?? e' CIA Account Deposit: lo. 40 ?
Reader No.: Permit Fee: .50 pd
.. I ugrae to ean Ir witfi the llu?.Pf Ea9an Surchazge: 60. 00 pd
. Ordinanu ? e-7?Cs?i(??- M'sc.Capeerhorn 10.65 pd
Total.
' BY Date Paid:
Date of Insp.: Insp.:
19,9
PPle r
Dtc.'i6d-o? i?
CI`i'Y OF EaGAN
3795 Pilot Knob Road
Eagang Alinnesota 55922
PFRD"ST N0.'- r3l,
T'ne City of Bagan hereby grants to _ .awr_nce Popplez
3030 oi 3030 Poonler Lane. Paaan 55121
a PLUAIBING Permit for: (Owner)!_ same
30 ?r. _
at 4345_poppler nrive , pursuant to application dated 11/7/74
Fee Paid: $20.00 dated this 15 day of p?. ,.19_7n •
.50 s/c
Building Lnspectcr
b:achsnical Permits:
Bid Totals
PPPIe r ?vr+s-9`? I
c=z or .F,ar.-aN
3195 Pilut Krio? P,a:Ad
Laga:, Diinnasota 55122
PERD"ST NO.: 599 ?
The City o° Eagan hereby g_-^ants to Tac*rence Ponoler
of 3030 Popplp,r Lane
a ,??ATiPG Permit Por: (Owner) GaTe _
ai -?? PQ==3'QF 13-4yo , pursuant to application dated 11/7/74
Fee Paid: $2Q QQ - dated this •75 day of mov. , 19 74 +
.5o s/c
Building Inspector
Mechanical Permits:
Bid Total:
?
f. • • -. CITY OF EAGAN
3795 Pilot Knob Read Eagen, MN $5722 N2 4443
' PHONE: 454-8700
6958
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION $3,500. Receipt #
AuBust 4.
77
To be umd for Poith Addn 6 Att. GaiE. Date 19
ddAeu
0
o 30?'S Dop-le- nr Erect (k Occupancy -7
t
Utl
Lof Block Sec/Sub. PnPPl_pr --g HmS[d. Alter [} Zoning Rl ,
Porcel # Repoir ? Fire Zone _
r
E
l e of Const
T
. ge ?
n
a .
yp
oc Nome ' Move ? # Stories
Z Address 3045 Popp 0T DI, Demolish ? Front 20 ft.
0
..._. Ha¢an
.1___ 454-1959
Gmde C7
Deorh ZZ e.
o Name
?? Addre
Nome _
Address
I hereby ocknowledge thot I have read this application and state that
the information is correct and agree to wmply with all applicable
Stote of Minnesota Stotutes and City of Eagyn Ofdinapces. _
Nssessment _
Water & Sew.
Police -
Fire
Eng.
Plonner _
Council _
Bldg. Off. -
APC
Permit _15.00_
Surcharge 2-00
Plon check
SAC
Water Conn.
Woter Meter
Total 17.00
Signature of Permittee "°'°?'?? 1
A Building Permit is issued toJ? L8Wi8S1Cfl PO lEi on the express condition ihat
ail work shall be done in a i dante 'th {IZIp liwble State of Minnesoto Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances.
Building Official - ?
Faea
CITY of EAGAN
BUILDING PERMIT
OWTO! ..... ...........??..?..'".l'?.....`.:? ......................
Addsesa (Presen!) ....... r<° ...... ..?.......
.............'----•........... . .
Builder ............. ??':.?..:...............................................................
Addrea .........---..................................................................................
DESCRIPTION
.,. ?/
N4 3456
3795 Pilot Knoh Road
Eagan, Minnesota 55122
454-8100
Dals .....??..?:.f.P....... .?y ............ _...
Sloriea To Be Used For Fron! Depih Height Eel. Cos! Psrml! Fse Aamarks
._...u, `-?+u•
SI
3-c' 30?3? sn
/a'•cS`a
3o1 .aZC4?? .5L-vC.:_
? LOCATION i v X'i So
Sireel. Roed or olher Deaeiipfion of LoeaSion I LO! I Slock 1 AddltSOa os Tsac!
30 'f
Thia permit does not suShori(e fhe use of slreefs, roads, allepa or sidewalks nor does it give the ownar or hSs agapt
the righf to creale anp sifuation wh[ch is a nuisaace or which presenfs a hasard !o !6e heallh, eately, eonvenIenea and
general welfare to anpone in the rnmmunitp.
THIS PEAMIT MUST BE.,ygEPT ON THE PREMISE WHILE THE WOAK IS IN PROGRESS. ?-?^-
This ia !o eeriifp. lhai...?•..----I .. . ............. . ................hae permission !o erecf a.... ......:
!he above desaribed premise subject lothe visions ot all applieable Ordinances for the Ci! of Eagan.
?,lcT:.'...........-?-.?? ....................... Per .... ......................Y?'""`:`.......0!....?..?.?.".?::,?. ...... -
.......... . .
.......................... Mayor ----- 6 Suildixg Impecfor
60
i
APR 3 0 2Qp1
4-27-01
TO: Mr. Michael Dougherty
FROM La ry Poppler ?
?---= :
RE: Request for a response from my letter dated I-15-01 (copy enclosed)
I have had a couple of conversations with the city administrator Mr. Hedges
since sending offthe 1-15-01 letter to you. In the last conversation W. Hedges
assured me that he talked to you regarding a reply. He also told me that he did not
prompt you in any way as to what to write or respond. He also told me to send off
this reminder to you and carbon him.
My request to you is to consider all the facts and not to ignore those points that I
gave in the I-1 S-O 1 letter. Again my request is: after reviewing the information that I
provided, was this assessment (Project 636R) excessive?
I patiently await your response.
oi-is-oi
Mr. Michael Dougherty
7300 West 1470' Street suite 600
Apple Valley, MN. 55124-3136
Re: Eagatt Public Improvement Project No. 636R
Dear Mr. Dougherty,
I would like to address your letter dated Oct. 25t° 2000 regarding the above issue. The
reason for the delay in this response is the busy schedules between myself and the city
administrator. I wanted to discuss with him this issue and how it affects the broader
community. That phone discussion was done about 10 days ago.
I can understand State Statutes regarding time lines to facilitate the orderly operation of
municipal govemment. But, I would like to address how tlus project was handled and the
issue of fairness along with using that short timeline to extract excessively an assessmetrt.
First, the law reads that a municipality cannot assess more than the 'unproved value. This
refers to a fairness issue. There was no procedure in place on Public Improvement
Project 636R to determine that value (or faimess issue). Some projects are given the
opportuniry to use some standazd via appraisals. That brings up a question as to who
determines what neighborhood receives a fair way to determine "improved vafue" (from
the project) and what neighborhood does not? If the process is biased and subjecrive
(by doing some professional appraisals and others not) then is everyone receiving equal
protection under the law7 (from the Consritutional point of view)
Secondly, the city used the same standard for everyone in the neighborhood (Project
636R)--everyone was treated as a developer. However, there was only one developer on
that street. No one else Gving on the sueet had a fee imerest other than in there own
homesteaded property. The classificauon used was uniform (as required) but not true.
Thirdly, at one council meeting (when I was appealing the excessive amoum of the speciai
assessmem) all council members had de-facto agreed that the process to deternvne
the assessment on tlus project was flawed. The council vote was 3 to 2 for not
considering a reassessment. The reason that the three voted against correcting the
mistake was because others may also come forward. However, I understand that
reassessments have been done before. I had approached the council for a re-evaluation
because the Statutes states that if Council Members detemvne that the amount of special
assessments are "excessive" then they could make some changes.
Lastiy, the Statute also states the city attomey can also detennine that the assessment
was "excessive". The State Statute has these lifelines in place in case something goes
wrong such as this.
?-
Please again refer to the Malkerson Report which the City of Eagan approved to use as a
benchmark appraisal of legal issues regarding assessmerts and the
cited paragraphs from my 8-21-00 letter to you.
SUMMARY: Your letter dated 10-25-00 starts offby stated that I`Utimatel}" am
responsible for voluntarily choosing not to contest this issue during the very short time
line. Does the end justify the means, Mr. Dougherty? The issue is that ordinary citizens
(tax payers) are vulnerable to rely on city officials, staff and a city council to be treated
fairly. I believe that you need to review this again and please recognize the Malkerson
Report. City of Eagan has held rnimerous meetings in order to approve its content.
Sincerely,
Larry Poppler
cc: Thomas Hedges, City Administrator
Thomas Colbert, Public Works Director
F
?o1 ? o???FiY'
8-21-00
Mr. Michael Dougherty
f°?P?? 1??? #a
Attorney at Law
7300 147' 5t. W.
Apple Valley, NIlV.55124
Dear Mr. Dougherty
I have reviewed the response from your office dated June 30, 2000 regarding
Poppler Lane/Special Assessments. The letter focused on primarily reviewing the
historical timeline process and how it happened. But, the main concem is.
Were we denied equal protection under the law?
The whole neighborhood was classified as a developer when in fact that is/was
not true. (The Public Works Director stated in correspondence with the council that ,
he cannot recall that being done before in any other neighborhood.)
According to the Malkerson Report and testimony:
1) "Special assessments may not exceed the special benefit."
In our case the assessments did exceed the benefit.
2) "Where there was no evidence that the city considered matket value of owner's
properly, either before or after improvements, prior to the counciPs adopting
assessment, such failure of the city to deternune amount of special benefits would
have allowed the District Court to reverse the assessment."
Appraisals were not done on this project. The report goes on to state "When the cost
of a local improvement exceeds the benefit, the difference must not be borne by a
particular property, but instead be the city as a whole." This is generally done.
3) "An assessment may not be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable."
See the enclosed street reconstruction assessment history grid. The amount charged
for Poppler Lane is out of line with other comparables.
Please review the Bruce Malkerson report regarding the City's Assessment Policy,
Procedures and Practices dated March 8, 2000. Then give an answer for the above
question. Please demonstrate that this assessment is lawful, correct, and valid as required
by State Law.
Sincerely yours,
Larry Poppler
cc: City Administrator, Mr. Thomas Hedges
Public Works Director, Mr. Thomas Colbert
R
eity oF eagen lplev }.lawi?(b N
, PATRICIA E. AWADA
Mayor
June 30, 2000 PAUL BAKKEN
. BEA BLOM9UIST
PEGGY A. CARLSON
. SANDRA A. MASIN
Council Memben
_ _. THOMAS HEDGES
"UWF21?C8.POIT[-OL.: Ciry Atlminisfroiw
?3QA5jPbpPlec1'?e E. J. VAN OVERBEKE
Eagan, MN 55121 cyclark
RE: Poppler Lane/Special Assessments
Dear Larry:
At a City Council meeting held on Mazch 21,2000, the City Attorney's office was
directed to review pertinent files relating to the adoption of certain special assessments
levied against the Poppler properties located in Poppler Addition.
Attached is a copy of a memo the City Attorney has sent to the Mayor and City
Councilmembers dated June 30, and a memo from the City Attorney to the City.
Administrator apologizing for the delay in providing the attached response.
I know we have spoken on various occasions about the de(ay in the City Attomey's office
reviewing the files and I extend my apology for the delay in getting this response to you.
If you have any questions regazding the memo, feel free to contact either Jim Sheldon or
Michael Dougherry at the Severson, Sheldon, Dougherty and Molenda Law Office.
Sincerely,
Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
Enclosures
ms
MUNICIPAL CENiER
3830 PILOT KNOB ROM
EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55122-1897
PHONE: (651) 681-4600
FAX:(651)68t-4612
TDD: (651) 454$535
THE LONE OAK TREE
THE SVMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWfH IN OUR COMMUNIN
Equal OppoAunity Employer
www.cMyofeagan.com
MAINiENANCE FAqUN
3501 COACHMAN POIM
EAGAN, MINNESOiA 55122
PHONE: (651) 681 d30p
FAX: (651) 681-4360
TDD: (651) 454-8535
2,
SENT BY: 6-30- 0; 7:28 ; SEVERSON SHELDON?
• J ..
11?MORANDCTM
TO: Patticia E. Awada, Mayor
Paul Aakken, CounCilmcmber
Bea Blomquist, COUncilmember
Peggy A. Carlson, Councilmember
Sandra Masiq Counciimember
FROM: City Attorney's Office
DATE: June 30, 2000
1tE: Poppler LandSpecial Assessments
65168146124 3/ 4
At the request of the Council, our office has reviewed the pertinent files relating to the adoption
of certein apecial agsessments levied against the Poppler properties. Based on our raview of t!?e
files, we find that there are no irregularities in the adoption of the assessments and that the
assessments fully comply with Minnesota statutes.
Our conclusion is based on a number of factora. First, Lawrence G. Poppler petitioned the City
for the public improvement project that ineluded the construction of the street and the installation
of the necessary utilities to allow for subdivision and deveiopment of his property. In cannection
with the devclopment, Mr. Poppler errtered iiLLO a development contract with the City dated Aptil
2, 1996. Section 5 of the development wntract speeifically addresses the installation of the
storm Scwer and stceet improvementa that were to be conatruc[ed under City Project No. 636R
Undcr this section, Mr. Poppler waived his right to object not only ta any procedural errors
rclating to the adoption of the asseasment, but also the amount of the assessment levied under the
Project. Notwithstanding this waiver, this provision of the development cotrtract also contained
a somewhat unusual clause allowing the developer to objecf to the award of the contract for the
street and utility construction pri&r ;.,, '-::y entering into the Contract. Presumably, this
provision was put into place to allow Mr. Poppler to enalyze the potential costs associated with
tbe Construction of the street and utility improvements to detetmine whether to proceed with his
development. Upon revicw of our filcs, no objection was received by Mr. Poppler relative to the
bid award. In Novembci, 1996, the City Council held s final assessment hearing. Written
Objections to the asscssment were received from Lawrence G. Poppler, Larry Poppler and Peter
Yoppler. The Popplers' objection was referred to the Public Works Committce to discuss the
potential assessmcnt. It appears that the Popplers requcsted that the assessment be reduced from
$8,900.00 w$8,497.00 per lot. The Public Works Committee reeommended a reductian to
$8,545.00 per lot. The matter was then referred back to the City Council and a modified
asseasment roll was adopted, without further objettion.
Pursuant ta Minn. Stat. §429.081, the Popplers had 30 days after the adoption of the assessment
to take an appeal to the Disuict Court challenging the amount of the assessment. No such appeal
was taken. Accordingly, the Popplers ere now barred from challcnging the validity of the
6124323780 _> CITY OF EAGAN ,TEL=6596814612 06/30100 08:25
SENIT, BY: 6-30- 0: ,7:29 ; SEVERSON SHELDON- 6516814612;# 4/ 4
- ? ?
assessment. The assessments were adopted in full compliance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter
429.
The Poppler development is similar to other infill developments in the City. For example, the
construction of Englert Road for the Pond View Townhomes and the construction of Violet Lane
for the Villas of Violet Lane are wcamplcs of two developments wherc the developer was
responsible for uncollectcd assessment costs. Both Englert Road and Violet Lane were existing
substandard city streets. When the devetoper petitioncd for the improvement vf the city street,
the non-developing nearby neighbors werc proposed W be assessed for the sucet consttuction.
The City approved the project, but required the developer to absorb the full cost of the road in
the event the City was unable to support the assessmcnt against the non-developing parties. In
the Poppler development, the Popplcr family initially objected to the assessment, but worked
with the Public Works Committee w arrive xt x mutually agreeable assessment amount. .?
JFS/wkt
6924323780 => CITY OF EAGAN ,TEL=6516894812 06/30'00 08:25
5ENT BY:
6-30- 0; 7:28 ; SEVERSON SFELDON- 6516814612;# 2/'4
SEVER50N, SHELD0N,
DOUGHERTY & MOLENDA, P.A.
NIEMORANDUM
TO: Tom Hedgea, City Administrator
F12UM: James F. Sheldon, City Attomey
DATE: June 30, 2000 '
RE: Larry Poppler Request
We have received 3 request ftom a Councilmember regarding the delay in responding to N[r.
Poppler. The Council cpnsidered the official meeting minutes a number of times and finally did
approve the minutes in May. I[hought that 1 had requested a copy of the final approved minutes.
Later I lesrned that T did not We reyueated nnd receired the minuLea in early June. We enclose
our opinion.
T apalogize for the delay. Thank you.
7FS/wkt
EnC.
6924323780 => GITY OF EAGAN ,TEL=6516894692 06/30'00 08:25 i
rz_? +c
40 - c'tty of eagan
MEMO
TO: CITY COUNCILMEMBER MASIN
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: JLJNE 30, 2000
SUBJECT: CITY ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE TO NIIt. POPPLER
I have asked our City Attorney on various occasions to prepare a response to Mr. Poppler's request
for a written explanation specific to the special assessments levied against Poppler properties in
Poppler Addition. These requests have been made by my office over the past couple of months.
Mr. Sheldon was waiting for the minutes to receive final ratification by the City Council, which
occurred in May.
I did speak with Mr. Poppler on vatious occasions about the delay and the need for Mr. Sheldon to
have the minutes officially approved before he prepared a response. The informaaon was received
today from Mr. 5heldods office and a copy is enclosed in the Informative Memo for review by the
entire Council. I also sent a letter and a copy of the information to Mr. Poppler, dated today, June
30.
Attached is a copy of a memo from the City Attomey apologizing for the delay. I also forwazded a
copy of that memo to Mr. Poppler.
o'?`'-?
City Administrator
Attachment
TLH/vmd
b-SU- U; 7:28 ; SEVERSOIN S}?'1.DONy 6516814612;# 2/'4
SEVER50N, SHEI,DON,
DOUGHERTY & MOLENDA, P.A. '
MEMORANDUM '
TO: Tom Hedgea, City Administrator
F'Y20M: James F. Sheldon, City Attomey
DATE: 7uae 30, 2000
'
i
RE: Larry Poppler Request ,
We have received a request from a Councilmember regarding the delay in responding to Mr,
Poppler. The Council considered the official meetins minutes a number of times and fwally did
approve the minutes in May. I thought that 1 had tequcsted a copy of the fihal approvcd minutes_
Later L learncd that T did not We reyuested und rex:eived lhe minutes in early June. We enclotie
our opinion. ?
T apologize for the dday. Thank you.
JFS/wkt ,
Enc.
6124323780 => CITY Of EAGAN ,TEL=6516514612 06/30100 08:25 ;
Jun 24 00 01:59p Central Mendota HeightsMN [6517681-9787 'p•1!'?
y
TO: City Administrator Hedges
FROM: Councilmember Masin ?
Date: June 24, 2000
R.E: City Attorney's Response Ta Mr. Poppler
I would appreciate a written explanation of why it has taken three months to respond to ,
Mr. Poppler's request.
Has there been any attempt to keep Mc Yoppier updated in the interid Ylease provide
documentation.
Thank you
6516819787 => CITY OF EAGAN ,TEL=6516814612 06/24'00 14:51
Z'?
SEVERSON,SHELDON,
DOUGHERTY & MOLENDA, P.A.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tom Hedges, City Administrator
FROM: 7ames F. Sheldoq City Attorney
DATE: June 30, 2000
RE: Larry Poppler Request
We have received a request from a Councilmember regarding the delay in responding to Mr.
Poppler. The Council considered the official meeting minutes a number of times and finally did
approve the minutes in May. I thought that I had requested a copy of the final approved minutes.
Later I learned that I did not. We requested and received the minutes in early 7une. We enclose
our opinion.
I apologize for the delay. Thank you.
JFS/wkt
Enc.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Patricia E. Awada, Mayor
Paul Bakken, Councilmember
Bea Blomquist, Councilmember
Peggy A. Carlson, Councilmember
Sandra Masin, Councilmember
FROM: City Attorney's Office
DATE: June 30, 2000
RE: Poppler Lane/Special Assessments
At the request of the Council, our office has reviewed the pertinent files relating to the adoption
of certain specia7 assessments levied against the Poppler properties. Based on our review of the
files, we find that there are no irregularities in the adoption of the assessments and that the
assessments fully comply with Minnesota statutes.
Our conclusion is based on a number of factors. First, Lawrence G. Poppler petitioned the City
for the public improvement project that included the construction of the street and the installation
of the necessary utilities to allow for subdivision and development of his properiy. In connection
with the development, Mr. Poppler entered into a development conuact with the City dated April
2, 1996. Section 5 of the development contract specifically addresses the installation of the
storm sewer and street improvements that were to be constnxcted under City Project No. 636R.
Under this section, Mr. Poppler waived his right to object not only to any procedural enors
relating to the adoption of the assessment, but also the amount of the assessment levied under the
Project. Notwithstanding this waiver, this provision of the development contract also contained
a somewhat unusual clause allowing the developer to object to the award of the contract for the
street and utility construcrion prior to the City entering into the Contract. Presumably, this
provision was put into place to allow Mr. Poppler to analyze the potential costs associated with
the construction of the street and utility improvements to determine whether to proceed with his
development. Upon review of our fi(es, no objection was received by Mr. Poppler relative to the
bid award. In November, 1996, the City Council held a final assessment hearing. Written
objections to the assessment were received from Lawrence G. Poppler, Larry Poppler and Peter
Poppler. The Popplers' objection was referred to the Public Works Committee to discuss the
potential assessment. It appeazs that the Popplers requested that the assessment be reduced from
$8,900.00 to $8,497.00 per lot. The Public Works Committee recommended a reduction to
$8,545.00 per lot. The matter was then refened back to the City Council and a modified
assessment roll was adopted, without further objection.
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §429.081, the Popplers had 30 days after the adoption of the assessment
to take an appeal to the District Court challenging the amount of the assessment. No such appeal
was taken. Accordingly, the Popplers are now barred from challenging the validity of the
assessment. The assessments were adopted in full compliance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter
429.
The Poppler development is similar to other infill developments in the City. For example, the
construction ofEnglert Road for the Pond View Townhomes and the construction of Violet Lane
for the Villas of Violet Lane are examples of two developments where the developer was
responsible for uncollected assessment costs. Both Englert Road and Violet Lane were existing
substandard city streets. When the developer petitioned for the improvement of the city street,
the non-developing nearby neighbors were proposed to be assessed for the street construction.
The City approved the project, but required the developer to absorb the full cost of the road in
the event the City was unable to support the assessment against the non-developing parties. In
the Poppler development, the Poppler family initially objected to the assessment, but worked
with the Public Works Committee to arrive at a mutually agreeable assessment amount.
7FS/wkt
304s
,a
???
?
? ??
??Y?.
c,??
-??':,
? . t.;¢„`lw-.,..,
city of eagan
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: OCTOBER 16, 2000
SUBJECT: LARRY POPPLER CORRESPONDENCE
MEMO
Attached is a copy of a Ietter the City Administrator received on Friday, October 13, from Larry Poppler
asking that certain questions that were subaritted to Michael Dougherty on August 21 be given a response.
A letter was sent by Mr. Poppler to Mr. Dougherty on August 21. In a conversation with the City Attomey
today, it was the feeling of the law firm at that tnne that information responding to these questions had been
shared with Mr. Pappler.
Mr. Dougherty has prepazed a response which will be sent to Mr. Poppler specifically answering the three
T
City Administrator
TLH/vmd
ro-i i-oo
Thomas Hedges
City Administrator
City ofEagan
ocr / 8<<, _u
RE: Poppker L,ane/Special Assessmerit
request for questions to be answered by Mr. Michael Dougherty
A letter dated August 21, 2000 was sent to Mr. Michael DougheRy requesting
an answar some questions.
Let me again request the following questions to be answered.
• Were we denied equal protection under the law?
• Why didn't the city follow the process outlined within the Maikerson Report?
(as noted in the 8-21-00 letter to NIr. Dougherty) The Malkerson Report attached a
court case that cited "A special assessment that exceeds the bene$t to the property,
as measured by the difference in market value before and after the improvements,
is a taking of property without fair compensation in violation of the fourteenth
amendment." (Buettner v. St Cloud, 277 N. W. 2d. 199, 202 (1979).
• The whole neighborhood was not accuraiely classified, therefore, please demonstrate
that this assessment was lawful, correct and valid as require by State Law.
Your letter indicated that questions and concerns would by answered. What happened?
Sly>
&Poppler
cc: Michaei Dougherty
Thomas Colbert, Public Works Director
*iY>XY,:X(:;kYF?K:;<;:A?iqF?(Y'ki,t'* +F%'r:;:':..)k'iSi;+);v.:
r.r.rv r!= ErrAN
L'r1^;H'[I::R. ig `fFRMINN_ NO: 04'
Tlfl"fE; 0?/29/00 T]:hS(:.e 11.r,2 E,e"19
ID ;
;.'F>itL° 1-'ETF:f;: P Pnr•PL.ER
3r i.iJ 9001. 3045 POrPLF:R i_r, 8305
2155 4001 3045 POF'F'I_t:.Fi l..f-i 050
Tui:al Recri.pt, 9mouni: ^. 94.75
CR'I.c :i3.`:39c! .
U8E:i :I:LIM :IAPJ
;;Y,:Y(,VC;:::Y?:.;t5;'. ;UY'+Y7$"C'(:X>ni? n';k ; . ;;>'GiY"?„ ??:;' ., ;:7i`?t:5?",C:(n:°,
2000 BUILDINC PERMIT APPLICATION (RESIDENTIAL)
CITY OF EAGAN
3830 PILOT KNOB RD - 55122
851-681-4675
New ConshueMon ReaWremeMs
> 3 regittered tlte wneys thowinp tq. fL W bf. W. fl. of taute
and go rooled areas (TO'/. mmdmum bt covamae albwed)
a 2 eopies ot plm (show, becffn a wlndow tlzea; pouretl tnd. tledyn; etc.)
a i set a enerpy caa,ianona
D 1 coplei of hee presenaMon plan M bt plalted aBer 7/1/93
DAiE: ?R - ? '?I -- B o
DESCRIPTION OF WORK: re- Noo !p -
SiREEf ADDRESS: 30
LOT: a BLOCK: SUBD./P.I.D. i:
Name: u' he-,*1 cQ Phone g: "/t; ?- MS/"r
l?t FiR1
PROPERTY
OWNER
COIYiRACTOR
ARCHITECT/
ENGINEER
Sheet Address: 3d 'fs aee Z,EV
Cify Sfate: Zip:
Company: ge Phone g:
(area code)
Sheet Address: llcense # Exp.
ciy
Remodel/Reoalr Reauirementa
-jr-)
2 eoWes d plan
1 eet d eneryy cdculaHOns for healed addtlans
i are wNey ror extedor aamna,s a aacw
CONSiRUCTION COST: ? U 00
4?-?_
State:
Company: Name:
Telephone i: ( )
Sheef
CHy
StaFe:
Zip:
Zip:
Sewer. vater Ifcensed plumber !ff insfallinn sewerlwaterl: Phone #: ?I
I heretly acknowledge Maf I have read Ihis appliealion, date Mwt Me Womwiion b careef, and agree to comply wllh a9 appAcable S1ate
of Minnesota SMlutes and Cify of Eapan Ordinancea
Signalure ol
Certificates of Survey Received _ Yes
OFFICE USE ONLY
_ No
Reglehafbn i:
FEB 2 9
Tree Preservation Plan Received - Yes _ No - Not Required
OFFICE USE ONLY
BUILDING PERMIT SUBTYPES
? 01 Foundation ? 07 05-plex 0 13 16-plex O 21 Porch (3-sea.)
? 02 SF DwelBng 0 OS 06-plex O 17 Garage ? 22 Poroh/Addn. (4-sea.)
? 03 01 of _ plex ? 09 07-plex ? 18 Deck O 23 Porch (screened)
O 04 02-plex O 10 OS-plex [3 19 Lower Level O 24 Storm Damage
? OS 03plex ? 11 10-plex aibg Y or_ N O 25 Miscellaneous
? 06 04-plex ? 12 12-plex p 20 Pool O 30 Accessory BId9•
WORK TYPE
O 31 New ? 36 Move Bldg. ? 43 Reroof
O 32 Addition ? 37 Demolish (Bldg)" 0 44 Siding
O 33 Aiteration O 38 Demolish (Interior) O 45 Fire Repair
? 34 Repair O 42 Demolish (Foundation) O 46 Windows/Doors
• Giva PCA handout to applicant for demolition permit
GENERAL INFORMATION
SAC Code # of Stories s9• n•
No. of Units Length sq. ft.
No. of Buildings Width Footprint sq. ft.
Const. (Actual) Basement sq. ft. Census Code
(Allowabie) Main level sq. ft. MC/ES System
UBC Occupancy sq. ft. City Water
Zoning sq. ft. Booster Pump
PRV
Fire Sprinklered
MISCELLANEOUS INSPECTIONS
0 Stucco/Stone
APPROVALS
Pianning Building Engineering Variance
? 31 Ext Alt - Muld
? 33 Ext. Alt - SF
O 36 Multl
Permit Fee
Surcharge f - 5-CJ
Plan Review
License
MC/ES SAC
City SAC
Water Conn.
Water Meter
Acct. Deposit
S/W Permit
S/W Suroharge
Treatment PI.
Park Ded.
Trails Ded.
Other
Copies
TotaL• ?. -7,!?'
ValuaUon:
I
SAC Units
% SAC
Lfi. a? ?bl, 1
I"U??lPsf' ?O yyLPAewe{1s ?. ?
Couttcil Meeting: Visitors to be heard 3-21-00
From: Lazry Poppler
I am here tonight b.ecause of a lazge number of phone calls that I received
regazding the behavior and decision made by Mayor Awada and Council Member
Carlson at the last council meeting. As you recall, they rejected a request to re-examine
a special assessment to deternrine if it is "excessive" in my neighborhood.
I would like to direct my attention to the city attorney to obtain a legal opinion
on this matter. According to State Statute, a reassessment request could be determined
as excessive with reasonable cause not only by the council but also by the city attorney.
Allow me to Gst what Mayor Awada and Council Member Carlson overlooked in their
deternrination.
1) They failed to recognize that everyone was labeled a developer when in fact that was
not true. The City Administrator has indicated in correspondence that not everyone met
that classification. He also stated personally that it was a mistake to use that classificarion.
2) Originally we were told that the classification was to be used because that is the way it
needs to be done. Now we find out that in fact that that classification was never done
before. Both Mayor Awada and Council member Carlson had in their possession a memo
from the PubGc Works Director indicating that fact. Both ignored that memo!
3) Mayor Awada falsely stated the timeline of my complaint to be almost 8 years when in
fact I have been addressing this just since 1997 or shortly after the assessmer?t hearing.
4) The false labeling obfuscated the process and denied appraisals to determine the
assessmern based on the "benefit received" as required by State Statute.
5) The simple street and curb upgrade amoumed to $8,545 per lot equivalem. Which ,
makes it the highest of any neighborhood when most come in at between $1,000 to $3,000
per lot equivalent. The amount along with the inconsistent and false classiScation makes it
excessive.
6) The decision to reject a.reassessment was not unanimous by the council. After that
meeting, the Mayor walked by me in the entry-way and made a very quiet but distinct
HA! HA! sound. lvfinnesota Statute Section 412.191 Subdivision 2, states that "The
mayor has an obGgation to be impartial and objective in conducting meetings. Mayors
should not use their power to freely suQport their own convictions".
Ignoring importarA facts and displaying a cavalier attitude took advantage of
ordinary citizens and is in fact abuse of power. Mayor Awada and Council Member
Carlson would rather support a lie that take action to corract a mistake. ,
The city attomey not only needs to review the facts and the law as h pertains to
eqaal protection rights but also if its proper for a city to continue in this sort of behavior_,
;
cc: MN. League of Cities, State Attorney General, State Auditors Office ?
?
S,-
ADMINISTRATION
?
x Tom Colbert, Public Works Holly Duffy, Administration
Kent Therkelsen, Police 7amie Verbrugge, Administration
Craig Jensen, Fire Maria Kuels, Administrative Secretary
Doug & Mike, Comm. Dev. Joanna Foote, Recycling/Comm. Coordinator
Gene Vanoverbeke, Finance Kristi Peterson, IT
Ken Vraa, Pazks & Recreation Mike Reardoq Cable
Jim Sheldon, City Attamey
Po t Q 511-? 3 (Z1
MRR-21-00 WED 82:09 PM MRSIN-SANDY
I
TO: Tom Hedges
From: Sandra Masun ?
Date: March 21, 2000
Re: Poppler Agteement
'I1ank you for faxing over the Papper Agreement.
651 405 1857 P.61
I see vnly one signature. Does that mean only Larry G. Popper zs bound by
the apareeznent?
When was Poppler Lane originally construcied?
My understaading is that assessments can only be for the increase in
property value. Is that correct?
Ts there anyone thai believes that the property of anyona on Poppler Lane
can prove an increase of $8000. Who? How?
Is there any othex assessment that was handled in the same manner as
Poppler Lane? Pleasa identify. If not, why not?
I would appreciate the responses prior to the meeting tonight.
Thank you.
6514051857 => CITY Of EAGAN ,TEL=6516814612 03/21'00 15:05
_ eiry oreagan
FAX TRANSMITTAL
?
"lo: FAX #: l `r?Sc?,_
ATTENTION: `?/? -t PG V i In.c?
COMPANY:
FROM:
CODImEIIts:
Z? v-v-
3830 PILOT KNOB RD
EAGAN, NIDVNESOTA 55122
DAIE: ?.?e I co
TIWvIE:
N OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER:
PHO`NE i!:
These are being transmitted as checked below:
For approval _ For your use
7X- As requested _ For review end comments
For publication _ High priority
For Your Information
FAX 1!:
OFFICE 11:
AdmiaistradonlFinance/Parks 651-68I-4612
Communiry Development/Engineering 651-681-4694
Central Maintenance 651-681-4360
Fire Admiaistration 651-905-4810
Municipal Center
Central Maintenaoce
TDD
651-681-4600
651-681-4300
651-4548535
-?
Originals forwarded
Originals not forwarded
Note to Facstmile Operator:
Pleau deliver this fax transmission to the above addressee. If you did not receive all of tbe pages in good oondition, please
eontact us. 1'hank you.
THE LONE OAK TREE.»THE SYNi80L OF STRENGTH AND GROR'TH IN OUR COMMLTNITY
Eqnnl Opportuairy/AtSrmative Actioa Employer
S?
Council Meeting: Visitors to be heazd 3-21-00
From: Larry Poppler
I am here tonight because of a lazge number of phone caqs that I received
regarding the behavior and decision made by Mayor Awada and Council Member
Carlson at the last council meeting. As you recall, they rejected a request to re-examine
a special assessment to detemnine if it is "excessive" in my neighborhood.
I would like to direct my attention to the city attomey to obtain a legal opinion
on this matter. According to State Statute, a reassessment request could be determined
as excessive with reasonable cause not only by the council but also by the city attomey.
Allow me to list what Mayor Awada and Council Member Carlson overlooked in their
determination.
i) They failed to recognize that everyone was labeled a developer when in fact that was
not true. The City Administrator has indicated in correspondence that not everyone met
that classification. He also stated personally that it was a mistake to use that classification.
2) Originally we were told that the classification was to be used because that is the way it
needs to be done. Now we find out that in fact that that classification was never done
before. Both Mayor Awada and Council member Carlson had in their possession a memo
from the PubGc Works D"uector indicating that fact. Both ignored that memo!
3) Mayor Awada falsely stated the timeline of my complaint to be almost 8 years when in
fact I have been addressing this just since 1997 or shortly after the assessmem hearing.
4) The false laheling obfuscated the process and denied appraisals to determine the
assessmem based on the "benefit received" as required by State Statute.
5) The simple street and curb upgrade amounted to $8,545 per lot equivalent. Which ,
makes it the highest of any neighborhood when most come in at between $1,000 to $3,000
per lot equivalent. The amount along with the inconsistent and false classification makes it
excessive. -
6) The decision to reject a reassessment was not unanimous by the council. After that
meeting, the Mayor walked by me in the entry-way and made a very quiet but distinct
HA! HA! sound. Muinesota Statute Section 412.191 Subdivision 2, states that "The
mayor has an obligation to be impartial and objective in conducting meetings. Mayors
should not use their power to &eely support their own wnvictions".
Ignoring important facts and displaying a cavalier attitude took advantage of
ordinary citizens and is in fact abuse of power. Mayor Awada and Council Member
Carlson would rather support a lie that take action to correct a mistake. ,
The city attomey not only needs to review the facts and the iaw as it pertains to
equal protection rights but atso if its proper for a city to continue ia this sort of behavior. i
cc: MN. League of Cities, State Attomey General, State Auditors Office i
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
MARCH 6, 2000
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY ADMINISTRATQR
DII2ECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
Item 1. Reassessment Request for Project 636R
4kk?-
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
3UBJECT:
MEMO
city of eagan
HONORABLE MAYOR AND C1TY COUNCII,MEMBERS
CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
MARCH 3, 2000
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA
CTI'Y ATTORNEY
There will be an Executive Session to consider pending litigation including the Michael Vincent v.
City of Eagan, Mayor Awada and Councilmembers Bakken and Carlson: The City Councif
reserves the right to review any other litigation during Executive Session if announced at the
regular City Council meeting.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
There are no items to be considered under City Administrator at this time.
DIIiECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
Item 1. Reassessment Request for Project 636R(Poppler Lane) -- Mr. Larry Poppler, who
resides at 3030 Poppler Drive, has submitted a request to reassess Project 636R at a lesser
amount. Mr. Poppler has provided a memo that provides historical background, support
information, a petition and conclusion regazding the assessments that were levied for
improvements to Poppler Lane. This information was previously distributed with the Informative
Memo on February 25. Another copy is enclosed on pages J-% through = for your
review. Project 636R provided for the upgrade of Poppler Lane to a standard city street with
concrete curb and gutter along with miscellaneous utility improvements in 1996. Mr. Poppler's
request was most recently reviewed and denied by the Council on Sept. 7, 1999. The City Council
could consider any of the following possible actions in response to this most recent request:
1. Deny the request for reassessment and reaffirm the levied assessment for Project 636R,
Poppler lane (Streets and Uriliries).
2. Refer the request to the Public Works Committee for review and recommendations.
3. Schedule it for reconsideration at a future City Council meeting.
4. Concur that the assessment was excessive and schedule a Reassessment Hearing setting the
assessment equal to Proj. 717R (Counhy Home Heights), or some other amount.
5. Direct Staff to have an appraisal (formal or opinion?) performed to validate/deternune an
appropriate assessment amount and, if less than the levied amount, schedule a Reassessment
Hearing. (Appraisal cost approx. $2-5,000)
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Provide a response to Mr. Poppler's request or specific
direction to City staff.
/s/ Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
/ f 'S?
Council Members:
The following request has been read over the phone to he City Administrator for
informal review and correctness.
Some minor wording changes were made before being distributed to the property owners
and to you, the counciL The City Administrator felt that it was a well written letter and
had some very strong points.
This is a unified effort to correct something that went wrong. Using a State Statute
to make the correction shows that the current policy/format can work.
/ g6
T0: Council Members, City of Eagan 2-21-00
RE: REASSESSMENT REQUEST FOR PROJECT 636R
5late Statate 428.071 Subd.2 Reassessment states that
"..... or in the event the council finds that the assessment or any
part thereof fs excessive .... or any part thereof is or may be
for any reason, the council may, upon notice and hearing as
provtded for the original assessment, make a reassessmsnt
or a new assessment as to such parcel or parcels."
This leGer is inteuded to show with supporting material that Project 636R was excassive, harvv it
happened and request thoughtful and respect£ul recmideratiaai.
Nistorical Background:
Oct. 1, 1996 -leter sent by an assistant city-enginaer as a respaisa as to why no city funding
would be granted for Projed 636R. "Since Poppler I.ane was (originally) consuuded
to a substandard width as well as the absence of cwbing, the roadway impmvements
were considered to be an upgrade w city standards and therafore 100% assessabla to
the adjacent properties." 'Ihis leuer was reviewed by the Public Works Diractor. Aiso,
at some point in the discussions it was requested to place Project 636R together with
Cournry Home Hts. Projad , an adjacwt naighborhood curreatly under review with the
same stred dafioition. 1hat request was not accepted.
Dec, 1996-Project 636R was approved by the council for assessmat of the current charge.
7an. 7, 1997--Council meeting. Under deparhnent head business, with regard to Coimtry
Home Hts, street upgrade, the Public Works Director stated that "He did nat fael ihat the
benefit received would be equal to the entire cost of the project and would require some
sort of city subsidy." Whai asked L1ter, the Public Works Diredor stated that it was
not a recommendation for that neigh6orhood and rt couldn't ba daaie any other way.
Since that time, as you lmow, I have questioned the faimess of granting no city subsidy for
Project 636R. When Country Home HeiBhts was formal1y Pdvan oae of the laz8est cit3' subsidies,
the council member who was chairman of the Public Works Committee stated that ow
naighborhood projact would be reviewed for faimess. Tlia neyer happened under that fornier
council.
Sept. 7, 1999-The current council with 2 new members, with a vote of 3 to 2 it rejeded a
mova to make a reassessmemY. Council Mmnber Bakken stated "that he could not find
any indication of maifeasance an the part of the previous Couacil." CouncII Member
CarLson stated that "she did aot support reducing the amowrt of any already certified
assessment " Mayor Awada stated "that Mr. Poppler was a developer at the time he was
assassad."
FitSfy is the using the term developar. In a subsequant maeting with the City Adnunistrator and
Public Works D'uector, the mauer of developar was clarified. 1he results of conespmdence and
that meeting is that the whole neig$borhood, as the City Administrawr stated, should not have bem
refereuced as develapers. EvidenUy it was done so as to snake the assessnumt uniforn? upm the
same class of property (a unifonnity requirement must be met). But in affect it was metthrough a
mistake in the classificatim.
SeCOndly: The Pubtic Works Director on 2-4-99 published a 5ve paga signed report
(with a cqpy smt to the city auornay for review) put togather for a council workshop daae on
2-9-99. It contains the £ollawing;
l9?
"While the law givas great discretm to the legislative awhoriry of city crnmcils in
calculating assacsmau obligations, rt narrowly defines the process and sets some very
specific criteria that must be met. 'Ihare are two major yardsticks:
1) all like pieces of pmperty must ba assessed in a similar manner; and
2) the assessment cmmat exceed the value beae5t accrued by the improvemeatt.,,
In ather neighbochoods, aPPraisals were done to help datermine the valua beneftt accrued
by the imprwemea. Project 636R was na given the opportunitS' Of havkB aPPraisals w prove
value of the benefrt accrued. Since everyone ia the naighborhood was classified as developers
(which is not ttue) the aPPraisal process was ignored.
Thirdly: Enclosed is a citY Prepazed °Sueet Reconstructian Assessmea?t History"of 14 projeds.
l.aoking at the numbers in the gnd, one can susped tlhat something extraordinary LaPPmied wth
Projed 636R. Poppler Additiam is over 8 1/2 times lugher tban the lowest project and over
twico as high as the next highest assassment. A key pomR is that Projed 636R was placed as a
Pub6c Improvement Projaot wn that list Yet everyone on Poppler Ln. was classifiad as a davelaper.
Now, lets refar back to the Public Works Report datad 2-4-99 and reviewed by the city
attorney. It states: "Ihe City was challonged in court with a small number of various fornw
assessment appeals. 'Iha court nilings indicate that modific,atiais were needed w the existiog
farmal policy W provida continuity and equity of process required by law.,,
In calculating the assessment for residants on Poppler Lxi, everyone was gim a falsa
classiScation whicli satisfied the incanect continuity for administrative purposas. But, by domg so
"•equity of process" was ignored by not invoh'm8 aPPraisals to limit the asaessment to the value
received (as requirad by State Law). The false labaling m effect grandfathered in the mistzke.
Even though the ciry aad council has broad discrebar regarding assessmeuts, this reassessmont
request supported by StaUrte provides for a checks and 6alance trigger to provide a 1?feline for
citizm to raview, equal Protectiou undar the law. Isu't that what reprmmtatir+e Democracy is all
abMrt?
Conctuslon: A&er discussing this problem wirh the City Adminiscrator and most
of the resideats affecke3 by tlvs orierous assessment and unfeir pracess, the residents would like to
make the following suggestiau. Why naz use the same format as Country Home Heights? k makes
a good benc]unark for the following reasons. That aeighborhood is adjacent to Poppler Ln and
bath were originally established about the sama time. 'Ihey both had the same original stred
design prior to the wrrent city upgrade. The Couatry Hqme Heighu project wmt through a
rightful procsss to determine their assessmern of $4,000 per lot equivaleat• Even though that
charge would place us on the high ead of dher neighborhoods, it would bring rt in line with a very
comparable adjacent. neighborhood. Coumry Home I3eights follvwed the ldter of the law as
summarized by the 24-99 report &om the Public Works Director which was reviswad by the city
attomey.
Now, some property owners ca Pappler La have already paid the assessment to ctear up
debts, thay too are protestiog this assessment. If the councd agrees m a fair reassessment, it would
be uniform to correct it for the whole neighborhooQ. Enclosed is a sigaature list, to request this
appeal. We all aza hopefiil that you carefully raview t}us project widi its saPPartinB evidenca,
as it is never too late to do the right thing.
SmcerelY,
I.aITY PoPpler
Note: All quotes given aze supportsd with writtmi dxumeittation available upon raquest.
Enclosures: City prepared gtid showing assessments &om 14 other neighborhood
cc: Residents affected by the assessment, City Administrator, Public Works D'vector
1 qF
?R '6'SS?55?
, ? CAO?a wa+&
. Cub)
. ,.
GdffGeo??? 3A.?? ? 9
1 199?3
.
& 4 1991
,• , .? ?_ ???q;i'.14'?'I'1 ' '19U
4. 1993
w ?Orod'lumbl"1rW'
, 1996
npOMeE,aa 1996
1
1
'
? ?
? ?
t?
?
f? ? ?
L'????? '
,i? T ? .
• 9. 1*I
10. O& Chw WAA S 199?
? ' `
?
11.OdcPoodAdL 79W
J
.
?. Yo11oY Pb" 1999
• ? H? ? 1999
, ? ?. ..
S2=
aa
?
?
sl,rW
a?
7)
aa
F-I
pow
0
.m ,r , . 0
s3rw
53.? .
??•
u
itA00
W400
A"
AM
14. OaM
,
O ?
?> >
??,? •
? -? . ? . - Q ? , ':'rr ?•d-? , f '?f?
I(we) have read the "Reassessment Request for Project 636R" dated 2r21-00
sent to the Council Members, City of Eagan. It is my (our) hope that the council
will give serious consideiation to tlris request with its recommendations.
Name Address
Sz AR e,I 3a?5 ?. Jr,-1?,? t d??x .
'a
Name Address Signature
i::_,(A(tA'I. 1"L!V ?....-i
Name Address Signeture
?
I(we) have read the "Reassessment Re9uest for Project 636R" dated 2-21-00
sent to the Council Members, City of Eagan. 4t is my (our) hope that the coiu?cil
will give serious consideration to this request with its recommendations.
,.re..,., Address Signature
Comments: ?p v
Sig
,..__e Address nature
.. .,- •
;
I(we) have read the "Reassessment Request for Project 636R" dated 2-21-00
sent to t6e Council Memhers, City of Eagan. It is my (our) hope thst the council
will give serioua consideration to thia request with its recommendations•
, Name Address Signature
'h _. 1 1 "-----.. - U. ? i.,. / 9n A'& !!.()r • f17os[)
?
i
;
?
Comments:
I(we) have read the "Reassessmert Request for Project 636R" dated 2-21-00
sent to the Council Membeu's, City of Eagan. It is my (our) hope that the council
will give sesious consideradon to this request with its recommendadons.
Comments:
? ?/L(L(Ll ?
i
77ta? u,'e
Aud( e di
-Ad v Ae
Lf/,r?"r"" `?tlS
?
?
????
. I
?o/
iM
I(we) have read the "Reassessment Request for Project 636R" dated 2-21-00
sent to the Council Members, City of Eagan. It is my (our) hope that the council
will give serious consideration to this request with its recommendarions.
Name Address Signature
FfIRlv.Az 70 u,ssl . (:7?
3050 loPPLE,C LA?.E
E A 4A,,, 5s 12 I
con,n?ents:
-- O04?
"? FrOvRNAM 7UUSS ? owNER
I(we) have read the "Reassessment Request for Project 636R" dated 2-21-00
sent to the Council Members, City of Eagan. It is my (our) hope that the council
will give serious consideradon to this request with its recommendations.
Name Address Signature
NI A L R'A bri i Z i P.]a."3 ;
3oyo PoPP[5oc jAevG
,AA(rae? ,. Mm
°j5/2/
cummencs:
FA Rnr7a z To uss I
_A °"
a oC;-.
M R
I AL
--?U PI.I
CITY COLTNCIL Z3
? MAYOR AWADA
? COUNCILMEMBER BLOMQUIST ? COUNCILMEMBER CARLSON
? COUNCILMEMBER BAKKEN ? COUNCILMEMBER MASIN
Qn M? w o-%:>i S?`?-.? ?-3 l z t ? 0 0
,
? . oc t?.r`^-w,-?-??., -? a •-?? ??'?..?,,,.9, ?u??,.z-?-.?.
,n,w,w??
?Y uw.. Po -ksk:.". W. e?
. ,
4-3-00
F "
TO: Thomas Hedges
City Administrator
City of Eagan
FROM: Larry Poppler
RE: Request to have the City Council review the minutes (of the Mazch 21' meeting) to
include the following facts that were discussed or mentioned: (facts and items excluded
from the preliminary draft of the minutes)
The minutes do not recognize and mention that the classification used for the
neighborhood assessment does NOT APPLY to ail property owners in the neighborhood.
The minutes ignored the fact that the discussion included the fact that the
Public Works Director knows of NO OTfER CASES where everyone is classified as a
developer (in a neighborhood). Also, left out was that fact mentioned that the City
Administrator indicated through correspondence that NOT everyone met that
classification.
It was also stated that the City Administrator stated to Larry Poppler that it was a mistake
to use that classification.
After Councilmember Masin stated that the Council did not use the appropriate
procedure in determin;ng the assessment on Poppler Lane, no mention was given that all
Council Members were in agreement with that statement. (by de facto body language
showing agreement)
Nothing was noted about the false labeling that in turn caused denial of appraisals
to base an assessment on "benefit received" (as required by State Statute).
It was mentioned by Larry Poppler that the time line for the complaint was falsely
lengthened by Mayor Awada. Discussion was made that Council Member Carlson would
rather defend an error (lie) than conect a mistake.
No mention was given that Larry Poppler mentioned that the Mayor gave a quiet
Ha! Hal after the Mazch 70'Council Meeting.
These items are necessary to include in the minutes to give a more accurate
description of the subject discussed. To eliminate any would not give a true and
accurate pictuve of the discussions.
0
4-4-00
TO: Maria
Secretary to City Administrator
FROM: Larry Poppler
RE: Absence of important facts on the minutes of the March 21" Council Meeting during
visitors to be heard.
Mr. Hedges retumed a message on my machine giving me some instroctions regarding
the absence of some important facts on the minutes. Enclosed is a review sheet and the
scripted sheet used in my request. Amazingly most of the material on the script and
therefore on the video was not mentioned in the minutes. He stated that you would
review this material, verify the facts and include whatever is verified. Again it should
include at least every fact on my script.
1to
cc: City Administrator
Enclosure: Script dated 3/21/00
`.,
Counail Meetin8: Yeitors to ba heard 3-21-00
Fcom: I.tu'ry Poppler
I am here wnigtrt because of a large number of phone calls that I received
regarding the behavior and decision made by Mayor Awads and Counci! Meraber
Carlson at the last council meeting, As you recall, they tejected a request to re-examine
a apeaal assessment to determine if it is "excessive" in mp neiSbborhood•
I would like to direct my atteotion to the city attorney W obtain a legal opinion
on ttua matter. According to State Statute, a reasseasment requeat could be determined
as excessive with ieasonable ceusc not only by tUe council but also by the aty attomey.
Allow me to list what Mayor Awada and Council Member Carlson overlooked in their
aatCiIDt118U00. _
1) They failed to recognize that everyone was labeled a developer when in fact that was
not true. The City Administrator has indicated in correspondence that not evaryone met
that classification. He also stated personally that it was a mistake to use that classificadoa •
2) Originally we were told that the clasaification was to be used because that is the way it
needs to be doae. Now we Snd out that in fect that that classification was never doae
before. Both Mayor Awada and Council member Carlson had in theit Possesslon a memo
&om the Public Works Director indicating that fact. Both igaored that memo!
• 3) Mayor Awada falsely at$ted the timeJine qf my complaint to be almost 8 years when in
fact I have been addressing this just since 1997 or shortly after the assessmeut hearin8•
4) The false labeling obfuscated the process and denied appraisals to determiae the
assessment based on the "benefit received" as reqaired by 5tate Statute.
5) The simple stred and curb upgrade amounted to $8>545 per lot equivalent. Which
makes k the highest of any neighborhood when most corae in at betwean 51,000 to $3,000
per lot equivalent. The amouat along with the inconsistent and false classification makes it
axcessive.
6) The decision to reject a reasseasment was not uasoimous by the council. After that
meering, the Mayor walked by me in the entry-way aad made a very quiet but diadnct
HA1 HAI souad. IN'innesota Statutc Section 412.191 Subdivisioa 2, states that `°The
mayor has an obGgation to be impartial aad objective in conducting meetings. Mayors
. should-not use.their power to fraely support their own couvictioas".
Ignoriag important facts and displaying a cavalier attitude took advaqtage of
ordinary atizens aad is in fact abuse of power. Mayor Awada and Council Member
Cadson would rathex support a lie that take actioa to correct a mistake.
The city attomey not only needsto revew the facts and the law as it pertains to
equ$1 protection rights but also if its proper for a city to continue in tlus sort of behavior.
ac: MN. League of Cities, State AttorneN General, State Auditors Office
, ?,. .
. ?
\\ ?..
.. . . : .
..,...... _ . .
_...?.?. _.
,$].w
° i..
,"' c
OWNER
STRUCTURE AND
LAND USED AS
J'-'Z MASTER CARD
Permit
No.
Issued Issued To
Conirador Owner
BUILDING ,39S,G 7 z-
PWMBING
CESSPOOL - SEPTIC TANK
WELL
ELECTRICAL
HEATI NG
GAS INSTALLING _?i •7C/
- _-F ? ? ? r •
SANITARY SEWER
OTHER I
OTHER I
Items
FOOTING Approved
(Initial)
Date
?
Remarks
Distance From Well
$EPTIC
FOUNDATION CESSPOOL
PRAMWG TILE FIELD FT.
FINAL
ELECTRICAL
HEATING
Ir DEPTH
OF WfLL
GAS INSTALIATION
SEPTIC TANK
CESSPOOI
DRAINFIELD
PWMBING
WELL
SANITARY SEWER
Violetions Noted
on Batk
COMMENTS:
COMPLIANCE INSPECTION REPORTS
TO BE USED ONIY IN EVENT OF OBSERVED VIOLATIONS
PERMIT NO.
CONDITIONS OF CONSTRUCTION AT THIS INSPECTION
? NO EVIDENCE OF NON-COMPLIANCE
OBSERVED.
DATE OF INSPECTION
? ACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTIONS OR
DEVIATIONS.
I-I NON-COMPLIANCE. BUILDER WILL COMPLY
I J WITHOUT DELAY,
ITEMIZED AND DESCRIBED
NON-COMPLIANCE. BUILDER DOES NOT
INTEND TO COMPLY. ? I COMPIETION OF CER7AIN 1MPROVEMENTS
Ll WILL BE DELAYED BY CONDITIONS BEYOND
CONTROL.
? REINSPECTION REQUIRED DATE OF REINSPECTION
REINSPEGTION REVEALED
CERTI FICATION -1 certify that I have carefully inspected the abwe in which I have no interest present or prospective, and that I have reported here(n
all significant conditions oLserved to be at variance with ordinances of tha Town of Eagan, approved plans and specifications, and any specific require-
ments for off-site improvements relating to the property inspected.
F-I ALL IMPROVEMENTS ACCEPTABLY COMPLETED
BUILDING INSPECTOR DATE
COMMENTS:
.r
gjj?. ..
?
_ 59r-/9? 070 D o
fJo/0 ?SG # 3b437,?
HJ.GY'1Y .^'.ASi:t^'st,7T DEI?'D
3oq5 P'J'P?A?UE
i/5 1? J
/
xxzs zrroEriTTrxE, made acel cntcred into this 21 day of October , 19 69 ,
by and betAaeenLawrence G. and ureliA M. Poovler,:?usband' f, e as
Grantor s, and E.:gan Totanship, Us:wta County, 11inr.q,1-0t2,." G:antee,
WIITIESSETH WHEREAS, said Grantor sxbs/are the o;anar -s of the tracts of
Land in the Taconship of Ea?a^, Dal:ota County, Piinnesota legal?y deacri3ed
as follows: Outlot B, Poppler's Homestead
NO[d THEREFORE, the said Grantor_,,L, in consideration of One ($1,00) DoL'•ar
and other good and naluable consideration to t h em aid by Grantee, rece;.p:
cohereof is hereby acknewledged, hereby cormeys, warrants and de3ic3tes to
said Grantee, its heirs and assigns, for highway purposes, tcgqther o7ith the
unrestricted right to improve the same, free and clear of all incumbeza;^_es,
the above described tracts of land, together orith the right to lay, maiaeain,
operate and repair utility lines over and through said above tract.
And said Grantor s, for them sel ves, their heirs, executors, ad-
ministrators and assigns, do covenant never to cur., damage, destroy or
reflove ant tree or shrub or other natural growth upon the hereinbeiore des-
cribed premises for the conticnance of this ea=enent, and do ILereby grar.t
and convey to the said Toanship of Ezgan all grasses,.shzi3s, trees and
aatural growth now existing on said lapds or that may be hereafter plan:ed or
grown thereon.
And the said Grantor s, for them sel ves, their heirs, executors,
adninistrators and assigns do hereby release the said Township of E,gan,
it successors and assigna, from alI claims for any and all damages resulting
to the lands through and across which the percel oi land hereby conveyed is
located hy reason of the location, grading, construction, maintanence, and
use of a public highway over and upon the removal of materials fram the
premises hereby coaveyed and from the usea incident thereto, an d th=_ said
Towaship of Eagan shall have the right to use and renove all.earth andntter
materials lying within the parcel of land hereby conveved and the rigl;t to
construct and maintain, upon the lands adjoining the parcel hereby couvcyed,
siich portable snow fencea during such months as weather conditions make
necessary.
And the said Grantors , for ht em 3elves, theisheirs, executc=s,
administrators and assigns do hereby waive the right to any and all not:cee
for the renoval of trees or hedges within the liaits of the abo-,7e desc:ibec
highway under the provisions of Section 160,211 Mianesota Statutes AnnotaCr:' '
or otherwise and hereby expressly waive_ any ciai.m for damages on accaunt
thereof.
IN WITNESS WtEREOF, said Graators have hereuato sat their hands and
seal s the day and year first written above.
In Presence of:
(LL• v P.? (L?-[??-L? QlC. Xt I Ct( --
??r, ---
)fe f)-?ec/ ?d x ?ro.? Kn? u iI-ec,r ?
STATE OF MINAESOTA
) ss.
CQUNTY CF DP.POTA )
On this 21_day of 19_bl, before me 8Puh7;c
within and for said County, pexsoaally appeare3 Lawrence G. and
??ureli,?M Poppler, husband and wife to me knn,in to
b2 the pe:son s describad in, and :aho etie tcd the foregofng incr.rc-,ene,
and Ecknowledged tAat t heV executed ne sa e as their frce act
and decd. • • RIa/
'
. . ; , ?
Paul H. Hauge, Notar Pub c
• . . Hennepin County, Minnesota
My Coumiission Expires October 9, 1976
?
3t;9a'r5
-
: .. ?. .. . .?? . ' i
!
9 ?
?
,.1 i k•.r
. . . F
' , i .
- . N ? .. '
f
. ? •
. .i. .
1 ' . , If 1?1 .
?
,
?
1 i 13 ! ? I
? ? '?
.
.
,
?- , • -
; • `
i ? - . . ? . i .
,
;STATE OF A"If•lticSOiA i 0
,
' Countv oi Dako;a,
..
? •
.
,
of Deeds, ?
: TtTis to ccrtiiy tliat the within p
I I • k '.
•. ?
H .. ?
' :
itnstrum,:nt wms fii(,d for record in ?
itiiisoifia?1!astings,onthe5th o
idaS'of 8M1 _A.D.19?o
d
and thst ther
Z:
L
1
i
•
'
: ;
-,
k
? S*ne:.as duly recorded in f3ook_ ? ? ? i , ? • ,
?J RDS 0
_c AR
?i3W `1
?
.
? . . Registo?r?q?(? /De?eds. 10
0
'
i - ? • -
?5 .
?
I
, :.
.
?
' i 1 . .
BY n i . !
i
. DeV-?Y i ..
:- - - - - - - - - ---- - - - -
' . .
. .. , , t ? ..
. '
? '
?
' . .
, ? ? . . .
?? , ? ? . • ; .. i ? . ' , ? i . .
?KL?-? r" i? ' . ? ? •
ST279R23 ? • ?
K-W-1/4 /1
,
.._.. ----_.._._.---------r.
'.. :'_ 7 R. 23 ?t
Mir .? • • ?? ,
wu n uet ??? T? (?p ?n
NO. 26 ?s ? (LONE. IMINNE507AYDEPT. OF TR4NSPORTOTON RIONT OF WA-?
?? ? ` ???[Y? n?.v - ? ? / ?? ? ?wav urtY[n ? ?e? .. n>• ?y`
I . J Yr.
? ' ? l?' - ' ??R . ' • 010'1'
1 ? ?}?, C ??-?
b
1 ?
i 9• ? i! ? x. e? g
.; -
r ? ? s a ? ? , • .
010-27 ^ .
„? ?,,,..•. ti .«--..
v 9 \ OUTLOT A
/ ! \
O10'L6/ ?
010'L6 02
? ..?»
` n.
?.
.
?
, , .
.
.
i
._?
n ¢.
v Ox Nn ?422&7 _ .. . ? • `
.. •
?
VIEW ROAD
? s -- - .. ,°'.
? . - ?
.
"
??
-
'° " • ,
C. I
'
Date:
BUILDT?G PERi'3IT P.PPLZCATZO?d
LOT_&2???? BLOCK 1l7DITIOP7 Id.
PARCEL & SECTIOPd idUtSBER IF U"t7PLAR°i'ED
?O Gt?l?
.ADllRESS OF PARCEL .2,U`
E5T71tiiAi"ED COSR
AJDRESS
ADD:2ESS
-6)s'r i
ns!
TELEPHONE N0. / ZL7
TF.1.RP801VE YIO.
Note: Include site plan, building plans, and energy calculations with this
application
S igne c?--
OFFICE USE
VALUI1TIOtd
SAC
S?ATEI2 CO'.Si1EC^IOA
WATEIi !YETEs2
BUiLDING PF•RI•iIT FEE
S[7RCIjP.RGE FEE
PLti:i CF_ECK F"'t::
PARK DEDICIaTIO!>i FEE
OTEER
TOThL*
--
?
APYROVALS:
ASSESSiW:7T CLERK HUILDI.IG DEPT. POLICE DEPT.
TJATER & SEF3ER DEPT. FInr DTPT. PARK DEPT
3-26-99
Mr. Thomas Hedges
Administrator
City of Eagan
Dear Mr. Hedges,
This is just a note to confirm our conversation a couple of weeks age that you
"havn't forgotten" our street assessment situation and it would be best to have the
promised meeting after the April e workshop (concerning special assessments).
On Feb. 9h, I presented to the council some reseazch material, information and
some recommendations. It looks like much work needs to be done.
Si er y, ?
? a 0 pl ?
.
TO: Peg Carison, Council Member, City of Eagan 3-26-99
FROM: Larry Poppler
Thank you for your time over the phone about a week ago. As you know I have
been doing extensive research in the issue of"special assessments" imposed on residents.
I have come to the conclusion that the process is high subjective and lends itself to
abuse. My research indicates that similar projects are given different standards and
methodology to produce favorable or unfavorable "special assessments".
I have staRed my research because the "special assessmenY" for our street was
abusive. I would like to address your response and concerns in writing.
Issue: Time Lapsed. My request for reasonable reconsideration was established just
shortly after our assessment meeting. I was promised another meeting on our street
assessment. In fact, the city administrator reconfirmed it just a few weeks ago. I'm
concerned that you are not getting full information.
Issue: Given some city funding. The chairman of the Public Works Corrunittee stated (on
record) that the reduction at that time was from contractors refund. The engineering
charge doubled the estimate over the Feasibility Report.
Issue: Private Street. Really! Then why is that there aze public utilities, the street
maintained (piowed and swept) for about 20 YEARS. If that excuse holds then the city
maintained a private street. We went through a Public Hearing process and Public
Assessment meeting just as any other neighborhood. Incidentally, Towerview Project
was not charged a Feasibility Report for city water/sewer and the city engineers did it
(for their private project).
Issue: If reconsideration is given then others will come forward. If that is a real concern
then the process may warrant serious investigations. Is that really a reason for injustice?
Our charge for an uncomplicated street upgrade and on site storm sewer drain was
$8,545. Most neighborhoods are considerably lower. I was told from the Engineering
Department that since our street was rural width and no curbs, the city policy is no city
funding (and Country Home Hts. would be treated similar). However, at the next council
meeting Mr. Colbert recommended that Country Home Heights have some city funding
(on record).
Within the last couple of years, the city has given much city funding to other
neighborhoods. Oak Pond Addition was chazged only $7,500 for total street upgrade,
curbs, AND city water/sewer. The McKee Addition street upgrade had no curbs (merely
a 2 inch asphalt edging) and that received generous city funding. Agam, city policy says
no curbs-no city funding. The point is that someone in City Hall decides on what
neighborhood and individuals receive public funding and who doesn't. There are many
examples of -LACK- of "Equity of Process and Continuity" as required by STAT'E LAW.
1'm asking you to give some serious thought to our situation for a reasonable
reconsideration of our "special assessment".
Z?
i
SEVERSON,SHELDON,
DOUGHERTY 8c MOLENDA, P.A.
SUIT'P 600
7300 WEST 147TH STREET
APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA 55124-7580
(952) 4323136
TELEFAX NUMBER (952) 4323780
E-MAII, baueu@sevmonsheldon.com
TO: John Gorder, Assistant City Engineer
FROM: Robert B. Bauer, City Attorney ?
DATE: June 9, 2004
RE: Lot 2, Block l, POPPLER HOMESTEADS NO. 2
Aurelia M. Poppler - Easement No. 1028
Our File No. 206-4768
John,
Enclosed for the City's records, please find the original Drainage and Utility Easement dated
January 16, 2004 and recorded with the Dakota County Recorder on February 11, 2004, as
Document No. 2174629.
(d ? ?
t
F ,,•??;;i.?.l.,. ;kr?v.}?"i.
+-
3 D S`s P? ?apa ?N'?
T
V
D
?
,V
? - ? 2174629
oaw I o o ¢ p oir.
?Oa fV Cpi ? roL
LLI
y ? ?
Lu W N WU ?
C ?
Z = W 0
_ = N = Q ` ?..?
?-o 0 A U 2 LLI
o?3Na? t0
i ? Y ? [3
ea x = ? ?.u - "' w
W O ?- z ?+- S ? ?
G
CD S a
~ = W6 U
V S J
W s W ? -mg o R? ;° DA? REcEwED-r
c_+ ? ? v?,, U DAKOTA ?TY
W w v v
0 0 TF2EA `I?DfTOR
3 -?
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT
THIS EASEMENT, made this ??-L day of , 2004, between
AURELIA M. POPPLER, a single person, (hereinafter r ferred t as "Landowner"), and the
CITY OF EAGAN, a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota,
(hereinafter referred to as the "City").
WITNESSETH:
That the Landowner, in consideration of the sum of One Dollaz ($1.00) and other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby aclaiowledged, does
hereby grant and convey unto the City, its successors and assigns, a permanent drainage and
utility easement, over, across and under the following described premises, situated within Dakota
County, Minnesota, to-wit:
That part. of I,ot 2, Block 1, POPPLER HOMESTEADS NO. 2, Dakota County,
Minnesota, lying 5.00 feet either side of the following descriUed line:
Commencing at the southwest comer of said Lot 2; thence North 0
degtees, 40 minutes, 41 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the West
line of said Lot 2 a distance of 24.00 feet to the point of bea nning of the
line to be described; thence South 78 degrees 55 minutes 09 seconds East,
a distance of 121.74 feet to the easterly endpoint of the south line of said
I.ot 2 and there terminating.
The sidelines of said 10.00 foot wide easement aze to be prolonged or shortened so as to
begin on the West line of said Lot 2, and to terminate on the westerly right-of-way of
Poppler Lane and the South line of said Lot 2.
See also Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. RECEfNE() - MAic.
JAN 23 2004
?
t]FtKO-S`A C6UNl1''
iREASURER-AUJITOf2
R
The erant of the foregoing permanent easement for drainage and utility purposes includes
the right of the City, its contractors, agents and servants to enter upon the premises at all
reasonable times to construct, reconstruct, inspect, repair and maintain pipes, conduits and mains;
azid the further right to reinove trees, brush, undergrowth and other obstructions. After
completion of such construction, maintenance, repair or removal, the City shall restore the
premises to the condition in which it was found prior to the commencement of such actions, save
only for the necessary removal of trees, brush, undergrowth and other obstructions.
And the Landowner, her heirs and assigns, does covenant with the City, its successors and
assigns, that she is the Landowners of the prexnises aforesaid and has good right to grant and
convey the easement herein to the City.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Landowner has caused this easement to be executed
as of the day and year first above written.
elia M. Popp'?ler ?
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss.
COUNTY OF ,II/a k°r,4 )
The foregoing instnunent was aclrnowledged before me this &f4-day of
,N,,., _, 2004, by Aurelia M. Poppler.
JUDY M. JE?dK:.1:
rroratv PuUL
Mry Commbsbn Fxpites:aa :7, _LG3
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney's Office
Dated: I rL4-j v y
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
1c7c.._ 0'I2CC4:.
Public Works Deparhne
Dated: l - !C? -6?4-
m .
No P lic
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
? SEVERSON, SHELDON, DOUGHERTY &
MOLENDA, P.A.
7300 West 147th Street, Suite 600
Apple Valley MN 55124
(952) 432-3136
(RBB: 206-4768Basement No. 1028)
2
?
lJ?.l
r"=sa
An easement for drainage and utility purposes over that part of Lot 2, Block
1, POPPLER HOMESTEADS No. 2, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying 5.0
feet either side of the following described line: I I
Commi nc Ing at the southwest comer of said lot 2, thence North 0
degrees ,40 minutes, 41 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the
west line of said lot 2 a distance of 24.00 feet to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence South 78 degrees 55
minutes 09 seconds East, a distance of 121.74 feef to the easteriy
endpoint of the south line of said Lot 2 and there terminating. I I
I I
The sidelines of said 10.00 foot wide easement are to be prolanged or
shortened so as to begin on the west line of said Lot 2 and to terminate on
the westerly right-of -way of Poppler Lane and the south line of said Lot 2.
Revised Property Line
Proposed Dreinage &
Utility Easement
0
N 10'
?
IRTH
?
City of Eagan
S jgo
Lot 2
fp.
10' ? Existing Dreinage & Utility
A to be vacated I
0pp/erA/0
111esf
Lot 3 eaas4/02
W
?
?
.j
5..,
W
CL
C).
0
n
ñ
û
ú
þýý ü ü
ûýý òïÿ
ð
õõ Þ ë
ß
ÿî
ü
þýø
ùø÷öõ ó è ï ø öõ
ó öõ ó è ßèáõ
ë
õ Þ ø
ï ø ï îþî
øõ
ö
í
ùìø
ô
ëõ êë ë ìø ë
÷ ë é
õ ú
ë
ý
õ éï
õ
é
ï
÷ ë ç
ìø ÷ö
ëö ë é
ôåîäåþéÿéîÿ
÷û
ùø
æ
ø
åîäåéãéã
æ
ø
îúé
öÿõÿ
ø ôó
õõ
ë öÛô
þî õõ
û
âß
÷ö
ê
õõ
ë
ëõö
õõ
÷ù
â
ù
ø
ï ö
û
é
õõ
è ë ù
ø øö ù
ø
4,11
C!ty of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan MN 55122
Phone: (651) 675-5675
Fax: (651) 675-5694
Date: "7
Tenant:
r
Use BLUE or BLACK Ink
For Office Use �7
Permit #: (�'J U 7
_ T
Permit Fee: 71/12-- (/ �UB
Date Received:
Staff:
r 2012 MECHANICALZ,PERMIT APPLICATION
i ^ Site Address: tJv �-�� 1
Suite #:
rr
Name: ` C ,•-• Phone:
Address / City / Zip:
Name:
Acac[Q L v5ck11-k
c\--7“
Address:
License #:
City:Lok
State: V Zip: O�� Phone: 5 2E1 8 --
Contact: Contact:
Email:
New Replacement Additional V Alteration Demolition
Description of work:
NOTE Roof mounted and ground mounted mechanical equipment is required to be screene
Code. -Please contact the Mechanical Inspector for information on permitted screening met
RESIDENTIAL
//Furnace
V Air Conditioner
Air Exchanger
Heat Pump
Other
New Construction
Install Piping
Gas
COMMERCIAL
Interior Improvement
Processed
Exterior HVAC Unit
Under / Above ground Tank (_ Install / Remove)
RESIDENTIAL FEES:
$60.00 Minimum Add-on or alteration to an existing unit (includes $5.00 State Surcharge)
$100.00 Fire repair (replace burned out appliances, ductwork, etc.) (includes $5.00 State Surcharge) = $ `v-4 TOTAL FEE
COMMERCIAL FEES:
$75.00 Underground tank installation/removal (includes $5.00 State Surcharge)
$60.00 Minimum (includes State Surcharge)
- If the Permit Fee is less than $10,010, surcharge is $ 5.00
- If the Permit Fee is > $10,010, surcharge increases by $.50 for each $1,000 Permit Fee
(i.e. a $10,010-$11,010 Permit Fee requires a $ 5.50 surcharge)
OR
Contract Value $
=$
=$
=$
Permit Fee
Surcharge
TOTAL FEE
x 1%
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. Call Gopher State One Call at (651) 454-0002 for protection against underground utility damage. Call 48 hours before
you intend to dig to receive locates of underground utilities. www.gopherstateonecall.orq
I hereby acknowledge that this information is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City of
Eagan; that I understand this is not a permit, but only an application for a permit, and work is not to start without a permit; that the work will be in accordance
with the approved plan in the case of work which requires a review and approval of plans.
x Q2. kac1 5
Applicant's Printed Name
x
Applicant's Signature
FOR OFFICE USE a.
Required Inspections:
Underground Rough In
eviewed By:
Air Test . Gas Service Test In -floor Heat Final = HVAC Screening
Jy
441111
City atEagan
Date:
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan MN 55122
Phone: (651) 675-5675
Fax: (651) 675-5694
pc LAN)
Use BLUE or BLACK Ink
For Office Use '%
Permit #: V v 7 /
Permit Fee:
Date Received:.24-1 3
Staff:
2013 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
( I Site Address: 3L 'IC ►fit=1t� l -L f- N Unit #:
Resident/
Owner
Name: Irv\ INyV-4-6>`-L.VA T"1 S tit re., Phone:1q`1 -4 C4 -Li } 1 I C
Address / City / Zip: 3c)-1- (-3- poi-L-.,--y,_Lf\ty- "60 SS 1 I
Applicant is: X Owner X Contractor
Type of work
Description of work: 1 > � t-- >`r')S t�MC-- i iC:-c..L7 t "l--
Construction Cost: Multi -Family Building: (Yes / No i� )
Contractor
Company: Contact:
Address: City:
State: Zip: Phone:
License it Lead Certificate #:
If the project is exempt
N0T AAV Lie
from lead certification, please explain why: (see Page 3 for additional information)
x_04/ iii a-,F%��7 �°,�' ,..p.. or- butt cti- 19'ice,--ce \1-, I
In the last 12 months,
Yes No If
COMPLETE THIS AREA ONLY IF CONSTRUCTING A NEW BUILDING
has the City of Eagan issued a permit for a similar plan based on a master plan?
yes, date and address of master plan:
Licensed Plumber:
Mechanical Contractor:
Sewer & Water Contractor:
Phone:
Phone:
_- Phone:
NOTE: Plans and supporting documents that you submit are considered to be public information. Portions of
the information may be classified as non-public if you provide specific reasons that would permit the City to
conclude that they are trade secrets.
CALL BEFORg YOU DIG. Call Gopher State One Cellist (651)454-0002 for protection against underground utility damage. Can 48 hours
before you intend to dig to receive locates of underground utilities. www.qopherstateonecall.orq
J hereby acknowledge that this information is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City of
Eagan; that I understand this is not a permit, but only an application for a permit, and work is not to start without a permit; that the work will be in
accordance with the approved plan in the case of work which requires a review and approval of plans.
Exterior work authorized by a building permit issued IA accordance with the Minnesota State Buil
days of permit issuance.
x I t% \f ,1(\YiC-IL, 6eL.A.I-1.511fi"a
Applicant', Printed Name
Code must be completed w rp 180
Signature
Page 1 of 3
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
/0q077
SUB TYPES
Foundation Fireplace
Single Family
Multi
01 of _ Plex
Accessory Building
WORK TYPES
New
Addition
Alteration
Replace
Retaining Wall
DESCRIPTION
Valuation
Plan Review
(25% 100%
Census Code
#of Units
# of Buildings
Type of Construction
Garage
Deck
Lower Level
'6
Interior Improvement
Move Building
Fire Repair
Repair
ie oco
ople r L
Porch (3 -Season)
Porch (4 -Season)
Porch (Screen/Gazebo/Pergola)
Pool
Occupancy
Code Edition
Zoning
Stories
Square Feet
Length
Width
REQUIRED INSPECTIONS
Footings (New Building)
Footings (Deck)
Footings (Addition)
Foundation
Drain Tile
Roof: Ice & Water _Final
I Framing
Fireplace: Rough In Air Test _Final
Insulation
Sheathing
Sheetrock
Reviewed By:
Siding
Reroof
Windows
Egress Window
Storm Damage
Exterior Alteration (Single Family)
Exterior Alteration (Multi)
Miscellaneous
Demolish Building*
Demolish Interior
Demolish Foundation
Water Damage
*Demolition of entire building — give PCA handout to applicant
MCES System
SAC Units
City Water
Booster Pump
PRV
Fire Sprinklers
Meter Size:
Final / C.O. Required
Final / No C.O. Required
HVAC _ Gas Service Test Gas Line Air Test
Other:
Pool: Footings Air/Gas Tests _
Siding: Stucco Lath Stone Lath
Final
Brick
Windows
Retaining Wall: Footings Backfill Final
Radon Control
Erosion Control
, Building Inspector
RESIDENTIAL FEE'' ✓
Base Fee
Surcharge
Plan Review
MCES SAC
City SAC
Utility Connection Charge
S&W Permit & Surcharge
Treatment Plant
Copies
TOTAL
i®5
�. f
9w ;20.-•
oao 92
Page 2 of 3
Use BLUE or BLACK Ink
For Office Use
(A 1
1 ~ 1 ~~~'Y 1
Pe
City of Eajan I rmit#:
o
Permit Fee: 1
3830 Pilot Knob Road 1
_
Eagan MN 55122 1 Date Received: 1011115
Phone: (651) 675-5675 j I
Fax: (651) 675-5694 I staff' I
2013 RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING PERMIT APPLICATION
Date: 101011 Site Address: 3+~ PQVFLi ~ 6A*-16
Tenant: ►'Vl a Suite
Resident/Owner Name: TI►v1 4 ?~1 S1 EYi✓ Phone: )qA4 '10tr
Address / City / Zip: 3 Fbnftfie- 0,j,
bWi.>7✓i~ iS Name: y6 v e fgjjL~ License
bl t'4 PLLAJi -6 l~
U --C - ` Address: City: ~01~1S~J 12E
Contractor ,
State: My J Zip: Phone: 29 7
Contact: Email:
Type of Work New 4 Replacement _ Repair _ Rebuild Modify Space _ Work in R.O.W.
Description of workkPN 1~iDC!l.' (2Ct all S NkYVI f Wfff.C i,J(q~( ,
RESIDENTIAL IJ I.A( f LT~ T#VujaS W
_X_ Water Heater
X- Lawn Water Softener
Permit Type Irrigation RPZ PVB)
Add Plumbing Fixtures ( Main Lower Level)
Septic System
New Water Turnaround
Abandonment
RESIDENTIAL FEES:
$60.00 Water Heater, Water Softener, or Water Heater and Softener (includes $5.00 State Surcharge)
$60.00 Lawn Irrigation (includes $5.00 minimum State Surcharge)
$60.00 Add Plumbing Fixtures, Septic System Abandonment, Water Tumaround* (includes $5.00 State Surcharge)
*Water Turnaround (add $200.00 if a 5/8" meter is required)
$105.00 Septic System New ($10.00 per as built) (includes County fee and $5.00 State Surcharge)
TOTAL FEES $
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. Call Gopher State One Call at (651) 454-0002 for protection against underground utility damage.
Call 48 hours before you intend to dig to receive locates of underground utilities. www.gopherstateonecall.org
I hereby acknowledge that this information is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City of
Eagan; that I understand this is not a permit, but only an application for a permit, and work is not to start without a permit; that the work will be in
accordance with the approved plan in the case of work which requires a review and approval of plans.
x frN6' 1 tS~1~12~
Applicant's Printed Name Ya Signa e
FOR OFFICE USE Reviewed By: Date:
Required Inspections: Under Ground Rough-in Air Test _Gas Test Final
Use BLUE or BLACK Ink
r
For Office Use
j
Permit#:11! 1173H
ROD
City of EaEd I aa.~~ I
Permit Fee:
3830 Pilot Knob Road I n I
Eagan MN 55122 Date Received {O
Phone: (651) 675-5675
I I
Fax: (651) 675-5694 i Staff:
2013 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
Date: 13 Site Address: Unit M
Name: Nek!, Phone: 3)?
Resident/
Owner Address / City / Zip: 1- , v /j ) fq(, q VI
Applicant is: Owner Contractor
scription of work: NH..s W ivy Okl &411e - kh6 AlrAW -Z' 1,V L)Q aw~ ~nSt~
Type of Work rryccr~x ~,c~~~y~y 11+ os Q "Wa f 5.wke h r'- ~ x tz e ~„Jl ~v~ ✓e d ff,
Construc iotYCost: Multi-Family Building: (Yes / No )G" ry ! ,o
7 jU
Soho iu 5(
Company: G- ytrr(-r u c 10 L~ Contact:
ltm"e
Contractor Address: )1650 14 tS i oo_! rd fe city:
State: -W Zip: 53-0 i-y ` Phone: 6 t Z J Z /
License ~ Lead Certificate Nn~ ~Ct 5 y
If the project is exempt from lead certification, please explain why: (see Page 3 for additional information)
01
COMPLETE THIS AREA ONLY IF CONSTRUCTING A NEW BUILDING
In the last 12 months, has the City of Eagan issued a permit for a similar plan based on a master plan?
_Yes _No If yes, date and address of master plan:
Licensed Plumber: Phone:
Mechanical Contractor: Phone:
Sewer & Water Contractor: Phone:
NOTE: Plans and supporting documents that you submit are considered to be public information. Portions of
i the information may be classified as non-public if you provide specific reasons that would permit the City to
conclude that they are trade secrets.
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. Call Gopher State One Call at (651) 454-0002 for protection against underground utility damage. Call 48 hours
before you intend to dig to receive locates of underground utilities. www.gopherstateonecall.org
I hereby acknowledge that this information is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City of
Eagan; that I understand this is not a permit, but only an application for a permit, and work is not to start without a permit; that the work will be in
accordance with the approved plan in the case of work which requires a review and approval of plans.
Exterior work authorized by a building permit issued in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code must be completed within 180
days of permit issuance.
x s 6,% e f iro, kAf-~ L x
Applicant's Printed Name Appli a is Signature
Page 1 of 3
3oq 5 pai°lo/eIr t-,,
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE rf 73YY
SUB TYPES
Foundation _ Fireplace _ Porch (3-Season) _ Exterior Alteration (Single Family)
Single Family _ Garage _ Porch (4-Season) _ Exterior Alteration (Multi)
Multi _ Deck _ Porch (Screen/Gazebo/Pergola) _ Miscellaneous
01 of _ Plex _ Lower Level _ Pool _ Accessory Building
WORK TYPES
New _ Interior Improvement _ Siding _ Demolish Building*
Addition _ Move Building _ Reroof _ Demolish Interior
X Alteration _ Fire Repair _ Windows _ Demolish Foundation
_ Replace _ Repair _ Egress Window _ Water Damage
Retaining Wall *Demolition of entire building - give PCA handout to applicant
DESCRIPTION rr%
Valuation O O Occupancy MCES System
Plan Review Code jMr42 J SAC Units
(25%_ 100%Zoning City Water
Census Code Stories Booster Pump
# of Units Square Feet PRV
# of Buildings Length Fire Sprinklers
Type of Construction Width
REQUIRED INSPECTIONS
Footings (New Building) Meter Size:
Footings (Deck) Final / C.O. Required
Footings (Addition) Final / No C.O. Required
Foundation HVAC _ Gas Service Test Gas Line Air Test
Drain Tile Other:
Roof: -Ice & Water -Final Pool: -Footings Air/Gas Tests -Final
Framing Siding: -Stucco Lath -Stone Lath -Brick
Fireplace: -Rough In -Air Test -Final Windows f" J19 1J490A,,,
C Insulation Retaining Wall: Footings _ Backfill Final
Sheathing Radon Control
Sheetrock Erosion Control
Reviewed By: Building Inspector
RESIDENTIAL FEES
Base Fee
Surcharge
Plan Review f b
MCES SAC
City sac
Utility Connection Charge
S&W Permit & Surcharge
Treatment Plant `
Copies
AA 9V
TOTAL hj
Page 2 of 3
PERMIT
City of Eagan Permit Type:Building
Permit Number:EA140132
Date Issued:11/28/2016
Permit Category:ePermit
Site Address: 3045 Poppler Lane
Lot:021 Block: 1 Addition: Poppler Homesteads No 2
PID:10-58401-01-021
Use:
Description:
Sub Type:Reroof
Work Type:Replace
Description:Does not include skylight(s)
Census Code:434 -
Zoning:
Square Feet:0
Occupancy:
Construction Type:
Comments:Please print pictures of ice and water protection and leave on site.
Carbon monoxide detectors are required within 10 feet of all sleeping room openings in residential homes (Minnesota State
Building Code).
Valuation: 4,000.00
Fee Summary:BL - Base Fee $4K $103.25 0801.4085
Surcharge - Based on Valuation $4K $2.00 9001.2195
$105.25 Total:
I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the information is correct and agree to comply with all applicable State
of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances.
Contractor:Owner:- Applicant -
Timothy J Fisher
3045 Poppler Lane
Eagan MN 55121
(319) 404-4715
Kat Construction Llc
8833 79th St
Annandale MN 55302
(320) 266-3455
Applicant/Permitee: Signature Issued By: Signature
PERMIT
City of Eagan Permit Type:Building
Permit Number:EA140132
Date Issued:11/28/2016
Permit Category:ePermit
Site Address: 3045 Poppler Lane
Lot:021 Block: 1 Addition: Poppler Homesteads No 2
PID:10-58401-01-021
Use:
Description:
Sub Type:Reroof
Work Type:Replace
Description:Does not include skylight(s)
Census Code:434 -
Zoning:
Square Feet:0
Occupancy:
Construction Type:
Comments:Please print pictures of ice and water protection and leave on site.
Carbon monoxide detectors are required within 10 feet of all sleeping room openings in residential homes (Minnesota State
Building Code).
Valuation: 4,000.00
Fee Summary:BL - Base Fee $4K $103.25 0801.4085
Surcharge - Based on Valuation $4K $2.00 9001.2195
$105.25 Total:
I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the information is correct and agree to comply with all applicable State
of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances.
Contractor:Owner:- Applicant -
Timothy J Fisher
3045 Poppler Lane
Eagan MN 55121
(319) 404-4715
Kat Construction Llc
8833 79th St
Annandale MN 55302
(320) 266-3455
Applicant/Permitee: Signature Issued By: Signature
For Office Use
♦ ♦ ° , ::: '.- - EA AN
Date Received:
3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD I EAGAN, MN 55122-1810
(651)675-5675 I TDD:(651)454-8535 I FAX:(651)675-5694 Staff:
buildinoinspectionst tcitvofeagan.com L
2020 RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING PERMIT APPLICATION
Date: 5/19/2020 Site Address: 3045 Poppler Lane
Tenant: Tim &Angela Fisher Suite#:
Name: Tim & Angela Fisher Phone: 651-808-2334
Resident/Owner 3045 Poppler Ln. Eagan, MN 55121
Address/City/Zip:
Name: Homeowner-Tim Fisher License#:
Contractor Address: City:
State: Zip: Phone:
Contact: Email: �)� S 0.---6/1/4/4I( ,«`1'J
Type of Work 1 New '1Replacement _Repair ✓ Rebuild _Modify Space Work in R.O.W.
Description of work: Tear out old bathroom and rebuild. Plus add kitchenette.
Tankless Water Heater
Lawn Irrigation(i_RPZ/—PVB)
Standard Water Heater
Description ✓ Add Plumbing Fixtures( Main/ ✓ Lower Level)
P Water Softener
Description: Update bathroom, kitchene
Septic System
New Abandonment Connection to City Water from Well
RESIDENTIAL FEES
$60.00 Water Heater, Water Softener, or Water Heater and Softener(includes State Surcharge)
$60.00 Lawn Irrigation(includes State Surcharge)
$60.00 New fixtures, adding or removing piping (includes State Surcharge)
$60.00 Septic System Abandonment
$100.00 New Residential(fee collected with Building Permit)
$116.00 New Septic System (includes County fee and State Surcharge)
$60.00 Connecting to City Water from Well*+$290 for Meter and$200 for Radio Read=$550
*Sewer&Water Permit also required for connection charges /
TOTAL FEES$ (40 r CO
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. Call Gopher State One Call at(651)454-0002 for protection against underground utility damage. Call 48 hours before you
intend to dig to receive locates of underground utilities. www.00pherstateonecail.orq
You may subscribe to receive an electronic notification from the City of proposed ordinances by signing up for an email update on the City's
website at www.citvofeanan.comUsubscrlbe.
I hereby acknowledge that this information is complete and accurate;that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City of
Eagan; that I understand this is not a permit, but only an application for a permit, and work is not to start without a it; that the work will be in
accordance with the approved plan in the case of work which requires a review and approval of plans.
xAngela Fisher Critt
Applicant's Printed Name Applicant's nature
���JJJ Page 1 of 2