The URL can be used to link to this page

3990 Rahn RdINSPECTION RECORD Control No. CITY OF EAGAN PERMIT TYPE: ???IL? ?N43 3830 Pilot Knob Road Permit Number: 0#1$ 13 Eagan, Minnesota 55123 Date Issued: 11 / 1 r ??2 (612) 681-4675 SITE ADDRESS: r. „; : 1 Eftr)(h. rA APPLICANT: 14990 RAilN RI1 FIESTERN RFMLiQELIMB CEDAR GiitlVF Cl'H (612) 646•-1411 , PERMIT SUBTYPE: TYPE OF WORK: sF (Mis[;: ) Al.TERATION aEscRIa710H S6rF1vfFasc1A/tR1K NFMAFrKS: RUr,E'tP1' # C021677 I Permit No. Permft Hoider Date Telephone If S/W PLUMBING HYAC ELECTRIC ELECTRIC Inspection Date Insp. Comments Footings 1 Foundafwn Framing Roofing Rough Plbg. Rough Htg. isul. f Freplace Final Htg. Orsat Test Final Plbg. Pibg. Inspector - Notify Plumber Const. Meter EngrJPlan Bidg. Final Deck Ftg. Deck Final Well Pr. Disp. CITY OF EAGAN Remarks * Cedar Grove Acauisiti.on Addition CEDAR GROVE #5 Lot 11 Blk 3 Parcel 10 16704 110 03 L , Owner (? ? I , f i?z t Y ? C I(? Street 3990 Rahn Road State?gdri, MN 55122 _t-laI n Improvement Date Amount Annual Years Payment Receipt Date STREET SURF. 1967 600.00 60 ?0 10 Paid STREET RESTOR. GRADING SAN SEW TRUNK L 1967 100.00 5.00 20 Paid SEWERLATERAL 196 665.00 33.20 20 Paid WATERMAIN * WATER LATERAL 1972 607.00 24.28 25 ? WATER AREA STORM SEW TRK 1970 70.00 3.50 20 ,y! do STORM SEW LAT CURB & GUTTER SIDEWALK STREET LIGHT WATER CONN. BUILDING PER. sac 200.00 903 8-12-68 PARK CITY OF EAGAN 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55123 (612) 681-4675 INSPECTION RECORD?? ? PERMIT TYPE: Permit Number: Date Issued: `4 SITE ADDRESS: , , . , . . . , i . . , i PERMIT SUBTYPE: APPLICANT: TYPE OF WORK: : r r'A t r? .. ?,.?: ?;??;•? ??,t?r3ar?«? INSPECTION .. . „ ??Fi!-it ? i? 11 ? •• , ? (E.'. i F?..?. . . .. ? ? . ? . .. . . ? . . . . ? . . . . .... . . . ? J Permit No. Permit Holder Date Telephone # SM/ PLUMBING HVAC ELECTRIC ELECTRIC Inspection Date Insp. Comments Footings I FoundaYion Framing Roofing Rough Plbg. Rough Htg. Isul. Fireplace Final Htg. Orsat Test Final Plbg. Plbg. Inspector - Notify Piumber Const. Meter Engr./Plan Bidg. Final Deck Ftg. Deck Final Well Pr. Disp. i i;!y I-e ,. ` EAGAN TOWNSHIP BUILDING PERMIT owae= .... l?!?-?`'?'`Q----- --------------?---------------------------------.....------ ••--•••----....---t`!..•--•• ........................ Address (preseni) ....1 ??-,9----0 ....... .-- ? Buildes ............1s4-1 ---- ....•• .........................••-•••----•._..........-•-••--.....---• Address ...................................................•----.........---•-•••-•................... DESCRIPTION 11T° 2246 Eagan Township Town Hall Dale .... ?/1..? ?...-•--•......-•-.... 5tosies To Be Used For Froni Depth Heigh! Est. Cos! 'Permit Fee Remarks LOCATION Street, Road or other Description of Localion I Lo! Block Additfon or Trao! ( / i This permit does not aulhoriae the use of streets, roads, alleys or sidewalks aor does it give !he owner or his agent the right to create aay situation which is a nuisaace os which presenis a haaard !o the health, sefety, convenience and geaeral welfare !o anpone in !he communiiy. THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ?ON_ THE PREMI3E WHILE THE WORK IS IN PROGRESS. This is to certify. 3hal.........._.`....l.P`:`?'.^..-? ................ has permission !o erect a...... .?'?....•J '.....?`.. :.............upoa !he above described premise subject to !he provisions of the 8uilding Ordinance for Eagan Township adopted April 11, 1855 ........................ :? ..??-..?....-?"._.?... ................... Per ...................................... ............................................................ . Chair an of Tnwn Board ? Building Inspector Is EAGAN TOWNSHIP BUILDING PERMIT Owner ._.:.,?_....?4'r...-••---•-- Address (Preseni) ???-'---•?=-•=--•?.?.?,c.?/-----?..?-?=Y''•'- Builder ---.---._..C1.??.: .--..4--------------- ........... .. ...• ----._....-•--------.--....- --- Address ....... ------------------------------------------------------ -................. --------•------ DESCRIPTION N° . 1839 Eagan Township Town -Hall Date ...................... 52ories - To Be Used For Froni - Depih Height - Est. Cos! Permit Fee Remarks -- ? .aL-`r?/?.? ?t.c .? .? ,?n .. ?u_ - - -- _. ' LOCATION Street, Road or other Descripiion of Locaiion I Lo! Block Addiiion or Trac! This permit dces not suthorize the use of streets, roads, alleys or sidewalks nor does ii give the owner or his agent the righ! !o cresie any situaiion which is a nuisance or which presents a hazard to the health, safely, convenience and general welfare !o anyone in the communify. THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISE WHILE THE WORK IS IN PROGRESS. This is !o ceriify, ihai---?,;.---.. al=....... ••- ?`--•....-••- :•- -.?-°. • ............... ? ?f r"''?Z- --? has permission to erect a---??-:u ?.'r.:.'-??-....... ..upon the above described premise subjeci !o the provisions of the Building Ordinance for Eagan 'SI'ownship adoed April 11, 1955. ............. .1?`-6c?........? ............................. Per ---- -- ---- ----1'-?`--j o-c.._...__.?-?-?-?: i r.............. .........- - (/ C rman ofG T?n Board ? Buildinq Inspeclor ? C94307 i -- --. -?-- ----- -- i ? Permit #: I Li qo-- ? ? Permit Fee: ? ? Date Received: j I ? I Staff: ? I ? ?__----___-_----_J 2008 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Date: Site Address: Tenant: Suite #: RESIDENT / OWNER Name: b- -Qb tr honelg L452- q-3 e Address / City / Zip: Applicant is: Owner Contractor 79 TYPE OF WORK Description of work: Construction Cost: ? Multi-Family Building: (Yes / No ? CONTRACTOR Name: ??..? (o) ? License #: dN)t919 ?19 1 Address: r? IP/YIorai 11Y2 I U• City: ? 1'cJ?iX71 ? State: Mw-Zip: S0080 Phone: ?O J? '-I ?? •`1 ?J?Q Contact Person: 1\(1f'PA COMPLETE THIS AREA ONLY IF CONSTRUCTING A NEW BUILDING _ Minnesota Rules 7670 CategorYi Minnesota Rules 7672 Energy Code • Residential Ventilation Category 1 Worksheet • New Energy Code Worksheet Category Submitted Submitted (4 submission type) • Energy Envelope Calculations Submitted 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: Mechanical Contractor: Sewer & Water Contractor: Phone: Phone: Phone: 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 Q6? podelell) X &&Xjj- Applica'nfs Printe Name ApplicanYs Signat e Page 1 of 3 , ? ? ?, ,• ? ,,, c/?? . f.? ?_' .I . _ . . ? ' . ??_?. . _ . . "' -+.?? ??. ??-?- ? - - ? ? ? ? ??' ? ? q ? ? a ? ? l?? ??? ?, ? ? ? ? A ._ _ ' _. _ . . . . ? ? '_ ' ?i J? _' ' _ . _ - ' ` Y . . _ ' " . _ _ ' . _ . . . . ? '_ . 4 • _ ? - ? MASTER CARD ? LOCATION ?qD OWNER ? aJ?fl ? STRUCTURE AND LAND USED AS Permit No. Issued Issued To Contractor Owner BUILDING PLUMBING ? .-y ° : CESSPOOL - SEPTIC TANK V'?ELL ELECTRICAL HEATING GAS INSTAILING SANITARY SEWER OTHER OTHER . Approved Items (Initial) Date FOOTING FOUNDATION FRAMING FINAL ELECTRICAL HEATING GAS INSTALLATION SEPTIC TANK CESSPOOL DRAINFIELD PLUMBING WELL SANITARY SEWER r 2) -f4 -? 6•i/ ° ? Remarks Distance From Well SEPTIC CESSPOOL T FT. ww? DEPTH oor OF WELL Violations Noted on Back COMMENTS: PERMIT NO. CONDITIONS OF CONSTRUCTION AT THIS INSPECTION ? NO EVIDENCE OF NON-COMPLIANCE OBSERVED. ? ACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTIONS OR DEVIATIONS. DATE OF INSPECTION ? NON-COMPLIANCE. BUILDER WILL COMPlY WITHOUT DELAY. ITEMIZED AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ? REINSPECTION REQUIRED REINSPECTION REVEALED NON-COMPLIANCE. BUILDER DOES NOT INTEND TO COMPLY. ? COMPLETION OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE DELAYED BY CONDITIONS BEYOND CONTROL. DATE OF REINSPECTION CE RTI FICATI ON - I certify that I have carefully inspected the above in which 1 have no interest present or prospective, and that I have reported herein ali significant conditions observed to be at variance with ordinances of the Town of Eagan, approved plans and specifications, and any specific require- ments for off-site improvements retating to the property inspected. F-I ALL IMPROVEMENTS ACCEPTABLY COMPLETED BUILDING INSPECTOR COMMENTS: COMPLIANCE INSPECTION REPORTS TO BE USED ONLY IN EVENT OF OBSERVED VIOLATIONS DATE 0 O 23 CITY OF EAGAN 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55123 (612) 681-4675 INSPECTION RECORD PERMIT TYPE: Permit Number: Date Issued: BUILDING 022402 10/29f93 SITE ADDRESS: L q T: 3999 RAMN RD GEDAR CRQVE 5TH PERMIT?SUBT}(PE: 11 B L 0 C K: 3 APPLICANT: MINNESOTA EXTERIORS (612) 493-5590 TYPE OF WORK: REPAIR DESCRIPTION (SIDIidG) INSPECTION .. . .ATE INSPTR. FRAMING RqUGW IN PLBG ROUGH IN H7G FINAL m ? ? 4f ? . ? < ? o si ? p ; `` : a q > .??_1-?e _A °CITY OF EAGAN 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55123 (612) 681-4675 SITE ADDRESS: P.I.N.: 10-16704-110-03 (szorNG) Permit Type SF (MISC.) ? E rk Type REPFIIR PERMIT ? 3990 RAHN RD LQT: 11 BLQCKs 3 C.ECIAR GROVE 5TM BUILDING 022402 10/29/93 i DESCRIPTION: citV oF cagan REMARKS: FEE SUMMARY Base Fee Surcharge Tratal Fee VAL.UATION PERMIT TYPE: Permit Number: Date Issued: $4,000 $63.00 2.00 $66e00 VVI? I f7AV ? VR. MIh1NESqTA EXTERIORS 8600 JEFFERSON HWY assEa mN 55369 (612) 493-5500 14935500 0002877 BECK JASQid 3990 RAHN Rp EAGaN MN 55122 (612)452-7609 nNia 6111 APPLICANT/PERMITEE SIGNATURE SSUED B: SI NATUR REACTIVATE _ PERiRIT ? illiti-7 CITY OF EAGAN 1993 BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION ? ?? , ?? ss1-a67s SINGLE & MUL7I-FAMILY 2 sets of plans, 3 registered site surveys, 1 copy of energy calcs. COMMERCIAL 2 sets of architectural & structural plans, 1 set of specifications, 1 copy of energy calcs. Penalty applies: 1) when permit is typed, but not picked up by last working day of month. in which request is made, 2) address is changed or 3) lot change i.s requested once permit is issued. Date Val uat i on of work Site Address: A? STREET SUITE # Tenant Name: (commercial only) LOT ?_. BLOCK _3 SUBD. r.u P.I.D. N ' Descri tion of work: 1 ` ' The applicant is: O Owner ? Contractor ? Other co«??ibe>. Name ' Phone 74 c22=2 Property LAS - F,RST - Owngt' Address ?? STREET STE # ? e . St ate ? 1 i p City Company / Phone --?? Contractor Address Z?m License #4??a???7 Exp. Citv State Zip 151 - --?? - -------,----- Company Phone Architect/ Engineer Name Reg i strat i on # Address City State Zip Sewer 6 water licensed plumber . Processing time for sewer & water permits is two days once area has been approved'. I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the information is correct and agree to comply with 11 applicable State of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances. Signature of Applicant: . .. OFFICE USE ONLY BUtLDING PERMIT TYPE ? Ol Foundation .0( 02 SF Dwg. ? 03 Sf Addition ? 04 SF Porch ? 05 SF Misc. WORK TYPE O 06 Duplex O 07 4-Plex 0 08 8-Plex O 09 12-Plex [3 10 Multi. Add'1. ? ll Apt./Lodging ? O 12 Multi. Misc. O 13 Garage/Accessory 0 14 Fireplace O 15 Deck O 35 Tenant Finish ? 36 Move ? 31 New [3 33 Alterations ? 32 Addition ? 34 Repair GENERAL INFORMATION YV^s:• I?CtL31\ ?• i (Allowable) UBC Occupancy Ioning # of Stories length Depth APPROVALS Raecmant eq. ft. lst F1. sq. ft. 2nd fl. sq. ft. Sq. Ft. total Footprint Sq. ft. On-site well On-site sewage Planning Building ? Engineering Yariance REQUIRED INSPECTIONS ? Site . O Footing ? Wallboard 0 Fina1 0 Framing ? Draintile, O Insulation ? Fireplace Permit Fee v.Luac;«,: g Surcharge Plan Review L j:.%.., $e ' MWCC SAC City SAC Water Conn. Water Meter Acct. Deposit S/W Permit S/W Surcharge . Treatment P1. Road Unit Park Ded. Trails Ded. Copies Other Total : SAC % SAC Units - ? ?. 0 16 Sasemen Finish O 17 Swit?`n ??ool O 18 Coam./Ind. O 19 Corom./Ind. Misc. 0 20 Public Facility O 21 Miscellaneous 0 37 Demolish M!WCC System City Water PRY Required Booster Pump Fire Sprinkler Census Code SAC Code Assessments CITY OF EAGAN 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55123 (612) 681-4675 INSPECTION RECORD Control No. 1311 PERMIT TYPE: ? ? ? ? DING Permit Number: 001813 Date Issued: 11/ 17 /9 2 SITE ADDRESS: LoTe 11 3990 RRHN RCl GcDAR GRfJVE 5`fH BLn CK o 3 APPLICANT: WESTEFtN REh10DELING (612) 645-1411 PERMIT SUBTYPE: TYPE OF WORK: SF (Mzsco) aL-rEaATxon DEscRIP-rIaN so??IT/FascxA/TR..r.M e e REhIARKS o RECcTPT # C021677 PERMIT Control No. 1311 i ITY OF EAGAN 3830 Pilot Knob Road PERMIT TYPE: 8 t.a 11_ 0 x i? r Eagan, Minnesota 55123 Permit Number: ?? p? 18 ?, :3 (612) 681-4675 Date Issued: I I / 1. , / g ? SITE ADDRESS: 3990 RAHn? ?D LOT, 11BLa CKe 3 rEDAR GROv? ?'T'H DESCRIPTION: i HiiYi S F (MISC e ) A L'1`EhATION 5? ?? ? ? A?? ? ?? ?? ?-?? ? ????e ? ? REMARKS: RECExPr 4t c021677 FEE SUMMARY: VRLUATI:ON $3,000 Base Fee Surcharge 1'ota1 Fee ?54 ? 0 0 145P $55.50 %+VIVIRAVIVR. - ? I . '--""W YYIrL-R. I,JESTERN REMODFI_ING 16451411 0003847 NAINES 2520 W LARPENTEUR 3990 ST PaUL MN 55113 EAr?AN (612) 645-1411 ????ELL RAHN RD M N 'n &J I rh2f APPLICANT/PERMITEE SIGNATURE SUED Y: IGNAT RE PERMIT # REPoCTI'rA 191.S CITY OF EAGAN 1992 BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION 681-4675 e_ SINGLE & MULTI-FAMILY 2 sets of plans, 3 registered site surveys, 1 copy of energy calcs. COMMERCIAL 2 sets of arcbitectural & structural plans, 1 set of specifications, 1 copy of energy calcs. Penalty applies when typing of permit is requested, but not picked up by last working day of month in which re uest is made or lot chan e is re uested once ermit is issued. Date Val uat i on of work Site Address• _ 3 D 1Z4-`2vo tD STREET SUtTE # Tenant Name: (cortuoercial only) IAT BIACR SUBD °---__ P . I . D . 0 Descri tion of The appl icant is: O Owner?-o-Contr-actor -E""Other coe ? tbe) Name Z2?divtJko./' Phoi-t4 Property LAST FIRST Owner Address ?4h STREET STE # CitY State Zip - Company Phone c{ ? C011tt'eCt01' Address '#ton 3A? ExpJ~ 3/L City State Zip Company Phone Architect/ Engineer Name Registration # Address City State Zip Sewer b water licensed plumber . Processing time for sewer & water permits is two days once area has been approved. I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the information is correct and agree to comply with all applicable State of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances. Signature of Appl icant: OFFICE USE ONLY BUILDING PERMIT TYPE O 01 Foundation 0 02 SF Dwg. ? 03 SF Addition O 04 SF Porch ,IJ 05 SF Misc. WORK TYPE O 06 Duplex O 01 4-Plex 0 08 8-Plex ? 09 12-Plex ? 10 Multi. Add'1. 11 11 Apt./Lodging D 12 Multi. Misc. ? 13 Garage/Accessory O 14 Fireplace El 15 Deck ? 31 New 10 33 Alterations ? 32 Addition :::-LOJ_3_4`"Re? GENERAL INFORMATION Const. (Actual) (Allowable) UBC Occupancy Zoning t of Stories Length Depth APPROVALS O 35 Tenant Finish O 36 Move Basement sq. ft. lst F1. sq. ft. 2nd F1. sq. ft. Sq. Ft. total Footprint Sq. ft. On-site well On-site sewage Planning Building Engineering Variance REQUIRED INSPECTIONS ? Site ? Footing ? Wallboard ? Final ? Framing O Draintile ? Insulation ? Fireplace Permit Fee Surcharge Plan Review License MWCC SAC City SAC Water Conn. Water Meter Acct. Deposit S/W Permit S/W Surcharge Treatment P1. Road Unit Park Ded. Trails Ded. Cop ies Other Total: _ I vatuec;«,: $ ,. .. ? 4L ? 16"tasement rinish 0 17 Swim Pool [1 18 Comm./Ind. El 19 Comm./Ind. Misc. O 20 Public Facility ? 21 Miscellaneous O 37 Demolish MWCC System City Water PRV Required Booster Pump Fire Sprinkler Census Code ? SAC Code Assessments SAC 9G SAC Units MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS . . : -- . . a. .. , ?. FROM: CITY ADMIrTISTRAT4R HEDGES DATE: MARCH 17, 1992 SUBJECf: ADMINISTRAITVE AGENDA FOR iViARCH 17, 1992 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY ATTORNEY There are no items for an executive session at this time. However, ihe Mayor, City Council and City Attorney have reserved ihe right to call an executive session to address any matters of pending litigation if desired. CITY ADMI1vISTRATOR ltem 1. Rahn Road Appellants' Motlon for Costs--Judge Mansw has granted the Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs in the sum of $5,593. Please refer to a+oopy of the memo from the Ci Attorney's office entitled "Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs" enclosed on pages jadthrough Qa' ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS lTEM: To approve or deny the issuance of a check to the appellants in the sum of $5,593 as ordered. by Judge Mansur. Item 2. Heller v. City of Eagan Assessment Appeal--T6e City has received a Stipulation and Order resolving the Heller v. City of Eagan assessment appeal which in summary causes the Heller parcel to be reassessed from its levied assessment of $49,277.80 to $40,000 and to be proportionately divided up among all of the assessed items as presented in the enclosed memo. Enclosed on pages= throughQ?U is a copy of a memo from Annette Margarit entitled "Heller v. City of Eagan Assessment Appeal," a resolution adopting the settlement agreement and a copy of the Stipuladon and Order. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS iTEM: To approve or deiry a resolution that the Heller parcel be reassessed from its leyied assessment of $49,277.80 to $40,000 which in essence approves a Stipulation for Settlement resolving the Heller assessment appeal. Item 3. Northview-Building F"uv Restoration Contract/Defanlt to Contractnal Obligations-- As the City Council recalls, the Northview Park Building sustained considerable damage as a result of a lightening strike and fire during tbe suauner of 1991. Beacon Builders Incorporated were awarded a bid in the amount of $8,883 to correct the damage and assured staff that the 60 day completion timeframe was adequate to finish the -project. Unfortunately, the 60 day construction period expired and staff is of the opinion that the contractor did not meet its contractual obligations which are now impending the City's operational needs for the building. For additional information on why staff is requesting ?/ ? e i TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDIIM Tom Hedges, City Administrator- Annette M. Margarit March 4, 1992 Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs 1670,1- ild - 03 Enclosed please find a copy of Judge Mansur's Order granting the Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for costs in the sum of $5,593.00. This Motion was heard by Judge Mansur on February 28, 1992. We opposed the granting any of Appellants' costs on the basis that the City Council had followed the Legislature's process in adopting the appraisal and the City should not be punished by having to pay expenses for the Appellants when they have already been afforded their remedy namely,, vacation of the assessment. A problem with our position, however, is that Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 concerning special assessments specifically awards costs to a prevailing municipality but is silent to whether a prevailing property owner is entitled to costs. In a 1979 case involving Burnsville, however, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that it "could see no logical reason why a prevailing municipality should be entitled to costs but not a prevailing landowner." See Villaae of Burnsville Assessments, 287 N.W.2d 375, 377 (Minn. 1979). The Court futher noted that awarding costs is up to the discreation of the trial judge. Id. In light of that case law, it is not surprising that the Judge awarded the Appellants their costs. I ask that this matter be placed on the March 17, 1992 City Council Agenda for approval of the issuance of a check to the Appellants in tr.e sum of $5,593.00 as ordered by Judge Mansur. , If you have any questions or need any further information, please contact me. ANIlM/wkt cc: Tom Colbert lA..t•1W ({'a9l . ? Matiw d FLr+q, EfyrY. Doc." Ynp rH OG1ARD GROVES A7TY AT LAW 260 SRYLINE SQIIARE BLDG STATE OF MINNESOTA 12940 HARRIET AVE S COUNTY OF Dakota (BRNS MN 55337 , NOTICE OF: _ [- ? FtLINQ OF OROER ANNETTE M MARGARIT ATTY AT LAid XIS1 ENTf?Y OF JUDGMENT 600 MIDWAY NAT BANK BLDG 7300 FT 147TH ST . X3 DOCKET'ING OF JUDGMENT LAPPLE VALLEY IiN 55124 Court Flle No.: C5-91-7756 _ !N RE: ZN ?: ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584 IINOWN AS RAffiQ ROAD RECONSTRIICTION ETC. ? )rbu ur hereby notlflad that on was duly llled ln tha abova enUilad marier. 19._.__ an Ordar ? You arn hereby notlfled that on MARCH 2-1992 Amended we.a duty enterod fn the above ontltlad mattor. ? 9 a Judgment ? You arn horoby notlflad that on ?? 2-1992 @ S? , 18 a Judgment was du ly dockelad In the above enlltlad matter in the amount o! $ 5593. 00 AGAINST CITY OF EAGAN A true and correct copy of this Notice has been sarved by mall upon the partles namad heretn at tha last known address o( each, pursusnt to Mlnnasota Rules of Civll Procedure, Rule 77.04. Dated• MARCH 2ND 1992 RoCER W. SAHES Court Admtn(strator ? by • Oepury Fli B ft- day 01tg -2,?. ROGEA W. SAMES, Coutt Adnunistrato? BY c? urr STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT In Re: Assessments for Project File No. C5-91-7756 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction, adopted by the City of Eagan on FINDINGS AND ORDER June 18, 1991: ? AKUDID JDDGMENT ?r Name Address P.I.N. Nathan R.'Benoy 4372 Rahn Road 10-707775-020-01 Gregory/Cindy Cox 4369 Rahn Road 10-16703-250-01 Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road 10-16703-220-01 Dean/Karen Goche 4065 Rahn Road 10-16702-170-07 Darrell/Pat Haines 3990 Rahn Road 10-16704-110-03 Robert/Antoinette K eeney 4370 Rahn Road 10-70775-010-01 Vernon/Janet Nelson 3996 Rahn Road 10-16704-100-03 Paul/Deb Notermann 4374 Rahn Road 10-48050-104-01 Brian/Carrie Olwein 4363 Rahn Road 10-16703-240-01 Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road 10-16703-200-01 Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn Road 10-16702-080-03 Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft 4345 Rahn Road 10-16703-210-01 Appellants, vs. City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, Respondent. Motion of Appellants for an award of costs and disbursements was heard by the undersigned as a telephone conference on February 28, 1992, at the Hastings, Minnesota. Dakota County Judicial Center, The Appellants were represented by Howard Groves, their attorney. The Respondent City was represented by Annette M. Margarit, its attorney. 1 ROGER W. SAMES, Court Aenun:rratot BY ISSUE Appellants seek an award of costs and disbursements in the aggregate amount of $5,593. Based upon the trial, the arguments of counsel, the Memoranda submitted, the file and proceedings heretofore had, the Court FINDS 1. That there is no issue as to the award of $193.00 of costs per statute and service of process fees. 2. That the protracted hearings were necessary because the appeal was of twelve (12) individual properties consolidated for trial by Order of this Court dated October 28, 1992. 3. That the appraisal costs of $350 per parcel is reasonable, as is the cost of $100 per parcel for attendance at trial by Appellants' expert. 4. That Appellants are entitled to reimbursement in the aggregate sum of $5,593. ~ ORDERS 1. That Appellants are entitled to Judgment against the Respondent City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, in the sum of $5,593.00. 2. That the following Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. 3. There being no justifiable reason for delay, the Court Administrator shall enter Judgment forthwith. 2 DATED: 2-28-92 BY THE COURT: . AIEMID c JIIDGMENT I hereby certify that the above Order modifies the AFtTIN J MAN R Judgment ente:ecl Jan 24-1992 and along with that " 4Judge Dis rict Court Judgment constitutes the Amended Judgment of the Court.` Date: Marcfi 2nd 1992 MEMORANDUM Roger W. Sames, Crt Admr By Deputy (Seal) Costs an is urse nts - At oral argument the issue was not the amount or the reasonableness since it is slightly n?ore than $450 per parcel; rather, whether under the relevant statute and case law the Appellants are entitled to reimbursement for expert appraisal services and testimonial costs. In Village of Burnsville Assessments, 287 N.W.2d 375 (Minn. 1979) the Minnesota Supreme Court stated "...we' can see no logical reason why a prevailing municipality should be entitled to costs but not a prevailing land owner..." In addition, Minn. Stat. 549.04 provides, in part, as follows: "In every action in District Court, the prevailing party...shall be allowed reasonable disbursements paid or incurred, including fees and mileage for service of process by the sheriff or by a private person." The taxation of costs is governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure and by Chapter 549 of Minnesota Statutes. The City cites Minn. Stat. 645.21, Subd. 1, as a basis for the preclusion of awarding of costs and disbursemeats. However, a full reading of Minn. Stat. 645., and more specifically, 645.26, Subd. 1, leads this Court to conclude that when a general provision in a law is in conflict with a special provision in the same or another law the two shall be construed, if possible, so that 3 effect may be given to both. In addition, this Court concludes that where a conflict between two provisions is irreconcilable, the special provision shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision. Finally, in this particular case, the provisions of Minn. Stat. 549.04 and 429.081 are not irreconcilable and, pursuant to the specific provisions of Minn. Stat. 645.26, this Court construes each so that effect may be given to both of the aforementioned statutes. • While the City's argument is one of inerit, under the facts of the case the Court is persuaded that the Appellant land owners are entitled to reimbursement and it is so ordered. 9 4 I MEMORANDUM TO: Deanna Kivi FROM: Annette M. Margarit DATE: March 9, 1992 RE: -Rahn Road Assessments Enclosed please find the Waiver of Notice provided by attorney Howard Groves on behalf of the Rahn Road Appellants in which they waive any public hearing for the purpose of reassessing the parcels. With this document, you may proceed to direct Dakota County to reassess the parcels. I have also included a copy of the Court's Order and post-trial Order indicating that the parcels should be reassessed in the sum of $0. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to call. ANIlK/wkt cc: Tom Hedges Gene VanOverbeke STATE OF MINNESOTA . DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: 10 OTHER CIVIL (SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEAL) In Re: Court File No. C5-91-7756 Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction WAIVER OF NOTICE adopted by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991: Name Address Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road Gregory/Cindy Cox 4369 Rahn Road Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road Dean/Karen Goche 4065 Rahn Road Darrell/Pat Haines 3990 Rahn Road Robert/Antoinette Keeney 4370 Rahn Road Vernon/Janet Nelson 3996 Rahn Road Paul/Deb Notermann 4374 Rahn Road Brian/Carrie Olwein 4363 Rahn Road Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn Road Mark/Kathy Weidenhaft 4345 Rahn Road Appellants, vs. City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, Respondent. P.I.N. 10-70775-020-01 10-16703-250-01 10-16703-220-01 10-16702-170-07 10-16704-110-03 10-70775-010-01 10-16704-100-03 10-48050-104-01 10-16703-240-01 10-16703-200-01 10-16702-080-03 10-16703-210-01 Y, The above-named Appellants, by and through their attorney, hereby waive notice of any meetings to be held by the Eagan City Council and waive any public hearing as required by Minnesota Statutes §429.071 for the purpose of adopting a resolution or taking any other necessary action pursuant to the Judgment and Decree entered in the above matter on January 24, 1992 vacating and I setting aside the assessments against the above-described parcels and said Appellants further hereby specifically consent to the adoption of any resolutions or the taking of any other action which may be necessary to vacate and set aside the assessments against the above-described parcels. DATED: ? - `/1 ? a" Howard J. Grov Attorney for Appellants 260 Skyline Square Building 12940 Harriet Avenue South Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 (612) 890-2477 Atty. I.D. No.: 38313 2 uCS•tcn (4.441 • ?+oft. d Fxg. LAry, ooa.uv rMR HOWARD J GROVES ATTY AT LA.GI STE 260 SKYLINE SQ , 12940 HARRIET AVE S L BURNSViLLE MN 55337 [-MS ANNEZTE M MARGARIT ATTY AT LAW 600 MIDFTAY NAT BANK BLDG 7300 W 147TH ST L PLE VALLEY MN 55124 ` STATE OF MINNESOTA couNrr oF DAROTA NOTICE OF: Iff FILlNG OF ORDER BZ ENTRY OF.IUDGMENT ? DOCKErING OF JUDGMENT Court Flle No.: C5-91-7756 ' ASSESSMEAI'rS FOR PROJECT 584, KNOWN AS RAHN RD RECONSTRIICTION ETC. 1N RE; NATHM R BENOY ETAL V CITY OF EAGAN ETC. ? 13X ltbu are hereby notltled that on JANUARy 24TH,1992 19an Ordar was duly (lied ln the above entltled matter. XM You a,re hereby notlflad that on' JANIIARY 24TH 1992 , 19 a Judgment waa duly enterod in tha above entltted matiar. - ? You are hereby notlfled that on . 18 a Judgment was duly docketed ln the above entltled matter In the smount ot $ A true and corroct ccpy of thla Notlca has been served by mall upon the partles named hereln et the laat known addresa of each, pursuenf !o Mlnnasots Aulas ol Clvll Prxsdure, Rule 77.04. Dnted• JANUARY 24Tg 1992 ROGER W SA14'EES • Court Administrator Oeputy WG aoi9 . Fli e this da3? , 0},?4 M`.l 19 ROGER MESColln AQmini;irator 8 y _- _.?? .' STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT In Re: Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction, adopted by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991: Name Nathan R. Benoy Gregory/Cindy Cox Irene Gillespie Dean/Karen Goche Darrell/Pat Haines Robert/Antoinette Keeney VernonJJanet Nelson Paul/Deb Notermann Brian/Carrie Olwein Mary Rock Ron/Lorri Trenary MarkJKathy Weidenhoft File No. C5-91-7756 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JUDGMENT Addsess P.I.N. 10-70775-020-01 10-16703-250-01 10-16703-220-01 10-16702-170-07 10-16704-110-03 10-70775-010-01 10-16704-100-03 10-48050-104-01 10-1"6703-240-01 10-16703-200-01 10-16702-080-03 10-16703-210-01 4372 Rahn Road 4369 Rahn Road 4351 Rahn Road 4065 Rahn Road 3990 Rahn Road 4370 Rahn Road 3996 Rahn Road 4374 Rahn Road 4363 Rahn Road 4339 Rahn Road 4137 Rahn Road 4345 Rahn Road Appellants, vs. City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, Respondent. The above-entitled motion for amended findings or in the alternative, a new trial came on for hearing on calendar at 9;00 a.m. on January 21, 1992 at t Judicial Center in Hastings, Minnesota before appeared for Appellants. the Special. Term judge of district court. Annette M. Margarit, appeared on behalf of the City. Howard Groves, :he Dakota County the undersigned Attorney-at-Law, Attorney-at-Law, Based on the arguments, the memoranda, affidavits and the Fte thls day aocER W. snnEs, co,n Aau,L-uu« gy OEPBTY • 'ile, the Court FINDS 1. That it is not necessary for the Court to adopt the :ity's proposed amended findings. 2. That no new facts have been presented which could :esult in a new trial. oRDERs 1. That the Respondent City's Motions be and the same are zereby denied in their entirety. 2. The following Memorandum is hereby incorporated by reference. 3. That the Court Administrator shall forthwith enter judgment accordingly. DATED: January 23, 1991 BY THE COIIRT: ? I TIN J. r ud ge of is t Court I I Those proposed "technical" amended Findings which are not germane to the determination of the trial's outcome have not been addressed herein. The Court recognizes that there are two sides to this issue, and the City's case was fully, competently and fairly presented ? I ? 2 to the Court. Appraisal of the properties was di the qreatest : import to the Eaotfindex. Aa art3culated in this Msmorandum and in the Decembar 181 1991 Findinc.?s, order and Memorandum, in the factfincler's visw, the facts tend to support Appe11ants. _ The crux of Appellants' olaim is that the City unfairly assezged them Por street improvemants. Tha standard for valid apeoial assessments is: (1) the ].and mugt receive a npecial benefit from the a.mprovsment being aonstxuctad; (2) the as3assment must be uniform upon the same elass of property, and (3) the assessment may not exceed the speaial benef it . Clrlso - Lang R?al?.y Co. v. City of 'Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 369, 240 N.W.2d 517, 519 (Minn. 1976). Special benefit fs maagured by the increase in the markst value oP the land owing to the improvement. id, zn appraising the subject property, an appraiser datermines what 'a willing buyex would pay a willing seller for the property before, and than after, the improvement has been constructed. ?c. While thegavernment entity ica presumed to have aet the assessment legally, an appellant may overaoutie the presumption by intraduQinq cpmQetent evidence that the assessment is greater than the inorease i.n market value o£ the property due to the impxavement. Id. These 1re the criteria which the Court applied to the Pacta presentad at trfnl. It ahoul.d be noted that in its Memaxandum supporting its motion for a new - trial or amended f indings, the City 'rel.iea an Villaue_ f Ed3na v. ZQaggh, 254 MiriT1. 84, 199 N.W.2d 809 (1962). zn that case, the residents whose property abutted the i.mproved 3 ?i=Ii ? i?JJlhl?o-1d?IC?o lDIJl:;IQ 0o tilCl>it+Q 9ti : ?T Z6iL?iti? length of France Avenue objected to special assessments for ; widening and paving of the street. Minnesota's Supreme Court stated the law in Villaqe of Edina, without setting out a standard or formula, by saying that "[t]he basis and justification of a special assessment are benefits to the property affected... [b]enefits which may be demonstrated by a mathematical exactness are not always required in order to support an assessment." Villaae of Edina v. Joseph, 119 N.W.2d • at 818. -, Minnesota has also adopted a specific test, as cited in Carlson-Lanq Realtv Co., above, which this Court has chosen to apply. While the City asserts that Village of Edina controls and that the December, 1991 decision fails to abide by it, it appears that the decision is consistent with both cases and in conformity with Minnesota law. I Both parties attempted to establish evidence of the ? I properties' market value. Appellants' expert, Mr. Daniels, • appraised each property based on individualized, detailed inspection of the properties and analysis of "comparables". His written appraisals were for both "before" and "after" values. Mr. Daniels factored into his appraisals his analysis of the . effect of the Rahn Road improvements. There was also evidence that many prospective buyers refused to make offers for purchase of Rahn Road property after the improvements, and because of them, and testimony about the actual sales data ayailable for those properties. Some of that data indicated that average sale prices of 4 Eagan homes in 1991 were 11.5% higher than 1988 averages. Yet, . ? an assessed Rahn Road home whose owner did not participate in this action, which was bought in 1988 (before improvements) and sold in 1991 (after improvements) failed to achieve that 11.5% increase. The City used this home in its effort to show that some increased value occurred. But the home's appreciation plus the cost of the improvements was significantly less than the price needed to justify the 11.5% average sale price plus the assessment cost. Mr. Daniels's credentials, his testimony and his exhibits were persuasive. That evidence indicated that the Rahn Road improvements had not only not benefitted the Appellants' properties but that the real market value of the properties had been adversely effected. Where no benefit is conferred by the , improvement, no special assessment is permitted. The City, on the other hand, offered evidence which was less persuasive. The City's well-qualified expert, Mr. Metzen, testified based upon more general presumptions. about the individual properties. He did not inspect or appraise the specific homes which were assessed but rather relied on square . footage and frontage statistics to determine.comparable prices. He further generalized from his comparables, using smaller homes, based on square footage, to generalize fair market value for larger homes. In its position as the finder of fact, the Court must choose one party's evidence over the other. Appellants' more specific 5 testimony was simply more convincing. , The determination of Rahn Road as a"collector" street and the width of the improved road could be relevant as to whether the improvements directly caused increased traffic, if the Court had relied on that information alone, which is not the case. The Court found, based on testimony from residents and real estate experts, that Rahn Road changed after the improvement from a quiet street to one on which traffic increased. Determination of the date that it was designated' a"collector" street and the exact width of the street are not significant to the Court's decision. Again, the criteria for the assessment must be whether the improvement benefitted the property, and the evidence indicated it did not. Finally, the method of assessment is not pertinent to the. Court's conclusion that there is no benefit to the homeowners from the improvement. Any asssessment, regardless of its formula, is invalid. , 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT ? COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ----------------------------------------------------------------- In Re: Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction, adopted by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991: , Name Address Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road Gregory/Cindy Cox 4369 Rahn Road Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road Dean/Karen Goche 4065 Rahn Road Darrell/Pat Haines 3990 Rahn Road Robert/Antoinette Keeney 4370 Rahn Road Vernon/Janet Nelson 3996 Rahn Road Paul/Deb Notermann 4374 Rahn Road Brian/Carrie Olwein 4363 Rahn Road Mary Rock 4339 Rahn' Road Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn Road Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft 4345 Rahn Road Appellants, vs. corporation, File No. C5-91-7756 City of Eagan, a municipal FINDINGS OF FACT. CONCLIISIONS OF LAW. ORDER FOR JIIDGMENT P.I.N. 10-70775-020-01 10-16703-250-01 10-16703-220-01. 10-16702-170-07 10-16704-110-03 10-70775-010-01 10-16704-100-03 10-48050-104-01 10 16703-240-01 10-167 03-2 0 0-01 10-16702-080-03 10-16703-210-01 Respondent. --------------------------------------------- r --- yv RL'iiER 1'Y. SIUdfS. Caut WnGsisaatur Oy ' ------ ----------- ? The above-entitled appeals from the assessments levied by the City of Eagan have been consolidated for the purposes of the trial and were heard by the undersigned on the Court calendar and without a jury on Friday, November 15, 1991, and Friday, November 22, 1991, at the Dakota County Judicial Center, Hastings, Minnesota. The Appellants appeared in person and were represented by Howard Groves, their attorney. The Respondent City was 1 represented by Annette M. Margarit, its attorney. , The Court having considered the evidence adduced at trial, having examined the evidence offered by the respective parties and all the records of the proceedings and being fully advised, . makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the above-named property owners appealed from a Special As'sessment levied by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991, for Project No. 584. The Project as proposed by the city council included the widening, grading, base and bituminous resurfacing, curb and gutter and utility improvements on Rafin' Road between Beau 'D Rue Drive and Shale Lane. • 2. That Appellant Nathan R. Benoy is the owner of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and.legally described as: Lot 2, Block 1, Sons Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellant has 85, feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 per tront foot for a total of $2,617.15, and the highest and best use of said parcel is residential. . 3. That Appellants Gregory and Cindy Cox are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described.as: Lot 25, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. 2 • ' . • i Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the . amount of the assessment'levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for,a total of $2, 309. 25. The parcel is zoned for residential use, and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 4. That Appellant Irene Gillespie is the owner of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally S described as follows: Lot 22, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. ?-• Said Appellant has 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 5. That Appellants Dean and Karen Goche are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 17, Olock 7, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota.. Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied` against such property, was.$30.79 per front foot for a total of $4,178.20. The parcelis zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is- for residential use. . 6. That Appellants Darrell and Pat Haines are the owners of 3 a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and . legally described as follows: . . Lot 11, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. • Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $3,694.80. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 7. That Appellants Robert and Antoinette Keeney are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Sons Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 125 feel of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $3,848.75. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 8. That Appellants Vernon and Janet Nelson*are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: - Lot 10, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 5, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 4 per front foot for a total of $3,694.80.' The parcel is zoned for ' residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel if for residential use. 9. That Appellants Paul and Deb Notermann are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side af Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 104, Block 1, Meadow Land, First Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 90.98 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,801.58. The par&--l is zoned for residential use and the.highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. ° 10. That Appellants Brian and Carrie Olwein are the owners of a parcel of land• abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 24, Block l, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied againstsaid property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 11. That Appellant Mary Rock is the owner of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: 5 Lot 20, Block l, Cedar Grove No. 4,,Dakota County, Minnesota. ? Said Appellant has 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 ?.. per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. • . ? • 12. That Appellants Ron and Lorri Trenary are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 8, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 195.21 feet of frontage'on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $6,010.52. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel _is for residential use. 13. That Appellants Mark and Kathy Weidenhaft are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 21,'Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County Minnesota. Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage.on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best xise of said parcel is L for residential use. 14. Upon the trial of the above enumerated appeals the City's value'witnesses offered testimony as to the amount of the assessment that would be reasonable and did not specifically address the before and after value as to each property that is the subject of this appeal. Enumerated herein is a summary of the City's value witnesses. i Citv's Value • Witness's OD inion Amt of Name Sa.ft. lhouse As to Amt of Benefit Assmt. Benoy \ 1,176 $ 2,500.00 -$-2,617.15 Cox 1,120 21309.25 2,309.25 Gillespie 912 2,309.25 2,309.25 Goche 990, 2,500.00 4,178.20 Haines 864 2,500.00 ? 3,694.80 Keeney 2,184 2,500.00 3,048.75 Nelson 11'066 . 2,500.00 3,694.80 Notermann 1,112 2,500.00 2,801.58 Olwein 1,008 2,309.25 2,309.25 Rock' 1,236 .2,309.25 2,309.25 Trenary 912. 21500.00/3,000.00 61010.52 Weidenhaft - 11232 2,309.25 2,309.25 14. That the- Appellant's value witness testified follows: Name Defore Value After Value Benoy $ 99,500.00 $ 99,500.00 Cox 89,000.00 89,000.00 Gillespie 72,500.00 . 72,500.00 Goche 80,000.00 ,80,000.00 Haines 72,500.00 . 72,500.00 Keeney. , 130,000.00 . 130,000.00 Nelson 95,000.00 95,000.00 Notermann ' -110,000.00 110,000.00 Olwein 84,000.00 84,000.00 Rock 85,000.00 , • 85,000.00 Trenary . 74,500.00 74,500.00 Weidenhaft 95,000.00 95,000.00 as 7 15. That the abutting properties enumerated herein have borne prior street resurfacing, curb and gutter a.ssessments. ? 16. That prior to the improvement, Rahn Road was a quiet, residential street. 17. That the improvement established Rahn Road as a heavy capacity roadway, invited and did, in fact, substantially increase truck and other vehicular traffic. 18. ?That the increased traffic flow, change in the type of traffic and its attendant characteristics create hazards, noise and pollution, all of which are detrimental to abutting residential properties. 19. That the overall evidence shows that the fair market value of the Appellants' property did not change in the before and after value following in the installation of the improvement, that is, the improvements did not increase the value of the Appellants' property. . • 20. That by reason thereof, the City of Eagan Improvement Project No. 584 did not specifically benefit each of the Appellants' properties. CONCLIISIONS OF I,AW 1. That the assessments levied against the Appellants' properties be and the same are hereby vacated and set•aside. 2. The fol].owing Memorandum is incorporated herein by ref erence . . 3. Let judgment be entered accordingly after a stay of 30 8 , days. , DATID: 12-18-91 BY THE COIIRT: TIN SDR Judge o Di trict Court The assessment of benefit to Appellants' properties as indicated in the assessment roll was sufficien'?il,y countered by Appellants to require the fact issue as to the reasonable value of the property assessed before and after the improvement, and to what extent the properties may have benefitted. In considering the evidence of the before and after value, greater weight was given to the testimony of the Appellants' witnesses. Mr. Daniels formed his conclusions as to the market value of the respective properties in the year the assessment roll was adopted. His opinion as to the properties was further supported by realtors active in the sale of residential homes in the area, one of whom testified that the improvements of Rahn Road changed the character of the neighborhood, and this change impacted in•a- negative manner as to value of the Appellants' properties. In addition, one or more of these realtors cited actual sales listing experiences to further support their testimony. . , • Mr. Metzen's opinion as to value is based upon his knowledge 9 as to the builder of the homes in the area, and the type of homes . the builder constructs. He elected not to inspect the subject homes. Additionally, the city offered no testimony in the before and after value of the individual parcels. Its expert testimony was based on a sale or sales that were not too remote in time but were not within the affected time frame; that is, at or near the improvement, or subject to the improvement. Mr. Metzen took into ; • consideration his knowledge, his experience, the type of homes that the builder whom he was acquainted with constructs, and then the sale or sales that he relied on as comparables*to the subject properties in forming.an opinion as to whether the assessment, as adopted by the city, met the statutory requirements. One should note that his opinion is that the assessment as adopted by the city did not for the most part meet the statutory requirements. As his testimony indicated, for most of the parcels he formed an . opinion that if there was a benefit, it was less than the assessment levied by the city. Both value witnesses considered the rate of inflation and the flat real estate market in arriving at their conclusions. ' It is this Court's view that the difference between the conclusions reached is that the eity's value witness considered the availability of the use of the improvement rather than the increase in value. Additionally, it should be noted- that the Appellants' value"witness submitted written appraisals for each parcel in support of his opinion as to value in the before and the after,- whereas the city's value witness testified from his 10 _ • , ? ? : knowledge of the area, the builder whom he was acquainted with, • and some comparables, and then he concluded that the properties benefitted in the amount that he testified without regard to the before and after value as to each. It should be noted that five of the parcels have 75 foot frontage and the square footage for each of the dwellings ranges from 912 square feet to'a high of 1;232 square feet. This approach appears to treat each parcel i the same, regardless of size, whereas in addition to the' differences noted with the properties that have 75 foot frontage, one need only review Finding No. 14 to see the further disparity. ' Finally, the Court has determined the assessments must be vacated for the reasons set forth herein. Therefore, it is not . necessary to determine whether the method employed by the City in computing the assessment is statutorily proper. 3 11 J!j r uv•ioo(4 -") . ?1DrCf1 a 14-4 EfkY.. pOt,l1 V4 - rflOWARD J GROVES ATTY AT LAW STE 260 SKYLINE SQ 12940 HARRIET AVE S (BURNSVILLE MN 55337 ?? ? lef 76f(• // 0-Q .3 8TA7E OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAROTA NOTiCE OF: . x FILINQ OF ORDER O ENTRY OF JUODMENT • ? DocKErwa oF JuoaMEKr Court FlI• No.: C5-91-7756 J i ? ? f "- ?ANNETTE M MARGARIT ATTY AT LAW 600 MIDWAY NATL BANR BLDG 7300 W 147TH ST LAPPLF. vALLEY MN 55124 0 IN FiE: NATHAN R. BENOY ET AL VS. CITY OF EAGAN ETC. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLIISIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JIIDGMENT ?`r'rw nre heroby noUtlod thnt on nFrRMFR t 8TH 419 91 en Order we3 duty filed ln lhe ebove entltled matior. ? Ybu ere horoby nollMed lhat on ? 19 e Judgment we.s duly enlered (n Ihe,e,bove entlUed matter. ? You ero heroby nollNed thei on - 18 a Judpmsnl . - waa duly dxketed In Ihe ebove enUUed maHet In ths amounl of $ A true nnd corrocl copy of lhle Noltce ho?e been eerved by mall upon the pshlea nemsd heretn &t the lasl known eddreaa of oach, purovnnl to Mlnneaola Rulee of Clvll Procedure, Rule 77.04. Oeied, DECIIMBER 18TH 1991 tb ff+h a of_ kji-,e -) ts.l1> . Rt)cFA w. sAME:s. oarc aomlMrda . eY - cFJ7Y ROGER W. SAHES Courl Adminlstre:tor by ? Deputy wc?? aM / P. ? - c,?-'4 Lx s?\ - 0%9 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ----------------------------------------------------------------- In Re: Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction, adopted by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991: Name Address Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road Greqory/Cindy Cox 4369 Rahn Road Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road Dean/Karen Goche 4065 Rahn Road Darrell/Pat Haines 3990 Rahn Road Robert/Antoinette Keeney 4370 Rahn Road Vernon/Janet Nelson 3996 Rahn Road Paul/Deb Notermann 4374 Rahn Road Brian/Carrie Olwein 4363 Rahn Road Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn Road Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft 4345 Rahn Road File No. C5-91-7756 ZINDINGS OF FACT. CONCLiJSIONS OF LAW. QRDER FOR JUDGMENT P.I.N. 10-70775-020-01` 10-16703-250-01' 10-16703-220-01•. 10-16702-170-07 10-16704-110-03 10-70775-010-01 10-16704-100-03 10-48050-104-01 10-16703-240-01 10-16703-200-01 10-16702-080-03 10-16703-210-01, Appellants, vs . RaGEa W. saMES. coA MMMT&W City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, ?y ?- Respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------- The above-entitled appeals from the assessments levied by the City of Eagan have been conso2idated for the purposes of the trial and were heard by the undersigned on the Court calendar and without a jury on Friday, November 15, 1991, and Friday, November 22, 1991, at the Dakota County Judicial Center, Hastings, Minnesota. The Appellants appeared in person and were represented by Howard Groves, their attorney. The Respondent City was c 1 t represented by Annette M. MargariI-., _ its attorney. The Court having considered the evidence adduced at trial, having examined the evidence offered by the respective garties and all the records of the proceedings and being fully advised, makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the above-named property owners appealed from a Special Assessment levied by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991, for Project No. 584. The Project as proposed by the city council included the widening, grading, base and bituminous resurfacing, eurb and gutter and utility improvements on Rahn Raad between Beau 'D Rue Drive and Shale Lane. 2. That Appellant Nathan R. Benoy is the owner of a parcel af land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as: Lot 2, Block 1, Sons Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellant has 85 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,617.15, and the highest and best use of said parcel is residential. 3. That Appellants Gregory and Cindy Cox are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as: Lot 25, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. 2 Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontagn on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use, and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 4. That Appellant Irene Gillespie is the owner of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 22, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellant has 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 5. That Appellants Dean and Karen Goche are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as folZows: Lot 17, Block 7, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road 1and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $4,178.20. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 6. That Appellants Darrell and Pat Haines are the owners of t 3 'a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 11, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $3,694.80. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 7. That Appellants Robert and Antoinette Keeney are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Sons Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 125 feel of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $3,848.75. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 8. That Appellants Vernon and Janet Nelson are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: - Lot 10, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 5, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 4 per front foot for a total of $3,694.80. The parcel is zoned for ; residential use and the highest and best use.of said parcel if for residential use. 9. That Appellants Paul and Deb Notermann are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 104, Block 1, Meadow Land, First Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 90.98 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,801.58. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 10. That Appellants Brian and Carrie Olwein are the owners of a parcel af land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 24, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 11. That Appeliant Mary Rock is the owner of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: 5 . Lot 20, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4,,Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellant has 75. feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 ? per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 12. That Appellants Ron and Lorri Trenary are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 8, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 195.21 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $6,010.52. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 13. That Appellants Mark and Kathy Weidenhaft are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and Iegally described as follows: ; Lot 21, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County Minnesota. Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best ilse of said garcel is 6 for residential use. 14. Upon the trial of the above enumerated appeals the City's value witnesses offered testimony as to the amount of the assessment that would be reasonable and did not specifically address the before and after value as to each property that is the subject of this appeal. the City's value witnesses. Enumerated herein is a summary of City's Value Witness's opinion Amt of Name Sa.ft. /house As to Amt of Benefit ssmt. Benay 1,176 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,617.15 Cox 1,120 2,309.25 2,309.25 Gillespie 912 2,309.25 2,309.25 Goche 990 2,500.00 4,178.20 Haines 864 2,500.00 3,694.80 Keeney 2,184 2,500.00 3,048.75 Nelson 1,066 2,500.00 3,694.80 Notermann 1,112 2,500.00 2,801.58 Olwein 1,008 2,309.25 2,309.25 Rock 1,236 2,309.25 2,309.25 Trenary 912 2,500.00/3,000.00 6,010.52 Weidenhaft 1,232 2,309.25 2,309.25 14. That -the Appellant's value witness testified follows: Name Before Value Benoy $ 99,500.00 Cox 89,000.00 Gillespie 72,500.00 Goche 80,000.00 Haines 72,500.00 Keeney 130,000.00 Nelson 95,000.00 Notermann 110,000.00 4lwein 84,000.00 Rock 85,000.00 Trenary . 74,500.00 Weidenhaft 95,000.00 After_Value $ 99,500.00 ; 89,000.00 72,500.00 80,000.00 72,500.00 130,000.00 95,000.00 110,000.00 84,000.00 • 85,000.00 74,500.00 95,000.00. as 7 ' 15. That the abutting properties enumerated herein have borne prior street resurfacing, curb and gutter assessments. 16. That prior to the improvement, Rahn Road was a quiet, residential street. 17. That the improvement established Rahn Road as a heavy capacity roadway, invited and did, in fact, substantially - increase truck and other vehicular traffic. 18. That the increased traf f ic f low, change in the type of . traffic and its attendant characteristics create hazards, noise and pollution, all of which are detrimental to abutting residential properties. 19. That the overall evidence shows that the fair market value of the Appellants' property did not change in the before and after value following in the installation of the improvement, that is, the improvements did not increase the value of the Appellants' property. 20. That by reason thereof, the City of Eagan Improvement Project No. 584 did not specifically benefit each of the Appellants' properties. • CONCLIISIONS OF LAW 1 1. That the assessments levied against the Appellants' properties be and the same are hereby vacated and set aside. 2. The following Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. 3. Let judgment be entered accordingly after a stay of 30 8 days. DATED: 12-18-91 BY THE COIIItT: TIN SIIR Judge o Di trict Court The assessment of benefit to Appellants' properties as indicated in the assessment roll was sufficiently countered by Appellants to require the fact issue as to the reasonable value of the property assessed before and after the improvement, and to what extent the properties may have benefitted. In considering the evidence of the before and after value, greater weight was given to the testimony of the Appellants' witnesses. Mr. Daniels formed his conclusions as to the market value of the respective properties in the year the assessment roll was adopted. His opinion as to the properties was further supported by realtors active in the sale of residential homes in the area, one of whom testified that the improvements icf Rahn Road changed the character of the neighborhood, and this change impacted in a negative manner as to value of the Appellants' properties. In addition, one or more of these realtors cited= actual sales listing experiences to further support their testimony. Mr. Metzen's opinion,as to value is based upon his knowledge 9 as to the builder of the homes in the area, and the type of homes the builder constructs. He elected not to inspect the subject homes. Additionally, the city offered no testimony in the before and after value of the individual parcels. Its expert testimony was based on a sale or sales that were.:not too remote in time but were not within the affected time frame; that is, at or near the improvement, or subject to the improvement. Mr. Metzen took into consideration his knowledge, his experience, the type of homes that the builder whom he was acquainted with constructs, and then the sale or sales that he relied on as comparables to the subject properties in forming an opinion as to whether the assessment, as adopted by the city, met the statutory requirements. One should note that his opinion is that the assessment as adopted by the city did not for the most part meet the statutory requirements. As his testimony indicated, for most of the parcels he formed an opinion that if there was a benefit, it was less than the assessment levied by the city. Both value witnesses considered the rate of inflation and the flat real estate market in arriving at their conclusions. It is this Court's view that the difference between the ? conclusions reached is that the city'.s value witness considered the availability of the use of the improvement rather than the increase in value. Additionally, it should be noted that the Appellants' value witness submitted written appraisals for each parcel in support of his opinion as to value in the before and the after, whereas the city's value witness testified from his 10 knowledge of the area, the builder whom he was acquainted with, ? and some comparables, and then he concluded that the properties benefitted in the amount that he testified without regard to the before and after value as to each. It should be noted that five of the parcels have 75 foot frontage and the square footage for each of the dwellings ranges from 912 square feet. to a high of 1,232 square feet. This approach appears Lo zreaz eacn F711LC:C1 the same, regardless of size, whereas in addition to the differences noted with the properties that have 75 foot frontage, one need only review Finding No. 14 to see the further disparity. Finally, the Court has determined the assessments must be vacated for the reasons set forth herein. Therefore, it is r?ot necessary to determine whether the method employed by the City in computing the assessment is statutorily proper. ? . I 11 . t . t?1ec????cl ?-c?? i ? Ct,iz ` • C? O? STATE OF MINNESOTA ? DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ? CASE TYPE: 10 OTHER CIVIL ? ??SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEAL ) ---------------------------- ---- ------------------------ ?? In Re: ??\00Court File No. Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction adopted by the City of Eagan kOTICE OF APPEAL on June 18, 1991 T0: THE ABOVE-NAMED COURT AND THE CITY OF EAGAN: NOTICE is hereby given pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 429.081 that each of the property owners listed below hereby appeal the adoption of the above-referenced Assessment Roll as the same relates to property owned by each of the parties set forth below at the address and property identification number set forth next to their respective names, all of which property is located in the City of Eagan, County of Dakota, and State of Minnesota. Written objections to said Assessments were duly made to the City by each of the property owners listed below prior to or at the hearing at which said Assessments were adopted. Said Assessment Rolls were adopted by the City Council of the City of Eagan at its meeting held on June 18, 1991 as evidenced by a copy of the Minutes of said meeting which are attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof. The bases for this appeal with regard to each of the properties listed is as follows: 1. There is no special beriefit to the property as a result of ? the "improvements". 2. The market value of the property has not been increased in the amount of the assessments adopted. 3. The assessment was not regularly and properly adopted. The property owners making this Appeal and the address and property identification number of their respective properties are set forth below: NAME ADDRESS P.I.N. Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road 10-70775-020-01 Gregory Cox and 4369 Rahn Road 10-16703-250-01 Cindy Cox Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road 10-16703-220-01 Dean Goche and 4065 Rahn Road 10-16702-170-07 Karen Goche Darrell Haines and 3990 Rahn Road 10-16704-110-03 Pat Haines Robert Keeney and 4370 Rahn Road 10-70775-010-01 Antoinette Keeney Vernon Nelson and 3996 Rahn Road 10-16704-100-03 Janet Nelson Paul Notermann and 4374 Rahn Road 10-48050-104-01 Deb Notermann Brian Olwin and 4363 Rahn Road 10-16703-240-01 Carrie Olwin Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road 10-16703-200-01 Ron Trenary and 4137 Rahn Road 10-16702-080-03 Lorri Trenary _ Mark Weidenhaft and 4345 Rahn Road 10-16703-210-01 Kathy Weidenhaft I 2 Dated this 1? ? day of July, 1991. Howar J. Grove Attorney for Pr?erty Owners on Rahn Road 260 Skyline Square Building 12940 Harriet Avenue South Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 (612) 890-2477 Atty. I.D. No.: 38313 3 - - EXHIBI: A Page 6/EAGAN CrTY COUNCIL MINIJTES June 2$, 1991 PROJEC'? ?84?71?1AL?.As SE'SsM.£NT HEARING RAHN ?iOAD RECONSTRUCTION A.fter introduction by Mayor F„g?is and City Administrator Hedges, Diredor of Public Works Tom Colberi provided a brief overview of the assessments and the neig,hborbood meeting 6eld on lune 11,1991. He aaid seventy properties with dirut access onto Rahn Road reaived notices of assessment on this project. Mayor Egan then opened the public 6eariag to public comment. Mr. Charies MacDonald, of 4145 Rahn Road, said he had filed written objetdou:fb:the assessments against his property. Mr. MacDonald said the value of hi3 home had actually dropped because::ot the upgrado ot Raha Road and the resultant 6eavy traffic. He said evidence of that is the Dakota County Aisessor'a 6ELte lowering the value ot bis 6ome by a S percent due to Rahn Road. .... Mayor Egan asked Mr. Bill PetEts?a??o?tbc ??oiiti?ry:A35C'ssor'a oftice to explain the 5 percent deduction Gom property taxes because a number of homeowners had referenced it in connection witb the Rahn Road improvements. Mr. Peterson said a misunderstandiag exists among the 6omeowers as to the meaning ot the S percent modit'ier. He said the modifier has been used sincs 1983 and was used for property along Rahn Road. lt was done, however, for 1990 valualions aad, t6erefore, precteded reconstruction of Rahn Road. T6e Dakota County Assessor's off;ce u.ses mass sppraisal and deaLs aitb anragea and norms. He aaid they use a standazd site value and t6en look at each property and add or syb0-46;:fr66 this standard value considering a number of factors, including being located on a major,strceC': k#c "Wd the County Assessor'a oftiee uses mod.ifiers quite irequentl}• and is not implyiag that the irttipr.'pvcmtiits on:Rahn Road 6ad any impad on tbeir valuations. Mr. Mark Weidenhah, of 4345 Ra?`itiad, 5aid..widenitsg and improving Rahn Road had compounded the negative ef(ect of the road on their property. Ht??t3?e.d the State Attorney General bas ruled tbat to be assessed for improvements, the City has to prove benefit io:the property. He said his property could not be worth more aitb more Uafric. Mr. Darrell Haines, of 3990 Rahn Road, complained about the policy used for assessmenis, the loss of bomc value and said additional properties on Bluestone, Carneliaa, Jsdc, Flint, dc. a6ould ahare in the costs. Ms. Laurie Lucoaic, oi 4137 Rahn.-.R6K:.Wd shc'64.46he aa informal survey of other cides and [ound that many do not assess by [ront [ootage:;.:?bE also?aouipltiined'"use the lacJc of double sUipiag on the road bas led mcxorists to believe that passiag.?:permissahl?: Mr. Gerard Bents, representuig:mnunt G?vity l.utberan Cburch, objected to the asses.sment against the ealire cburcb property ai the public:fsciiltie's`:ratti:: HiE:?ted out tbat this rate xas the aame ts that of eommercial propcrty. He said tbey have?msaetbeicliiffcb?evai?alile to organizations tor meetings free of charge and 6ave, as a result, generated additional traIIic. He pointed out, 6vwever, tbat approxdmstely 190 [eet ot the frontage on Rahn Road belongs to the parsoaage and felt it sboWd be sssessed at a single-fami)y rate. Mr. Bents wished to note that the 544,000 assessment coastitutes LS peroent of the c6urcb's aanual budget. Director of Public Works Cotberl said the entire puctl has.qme.7eo. description aad it wras assesud at one rate based on the zoning. Mr. Coibert aaid t6at the Cow,+.calU"i4 :i?id'ttM '««ments Cm ! differenE cast at the last City Council meeting and had determined that ag6's.'sments sboat$:bt;based on Zoniag. Mr. Bents asted that the City Conncil malce an tueptiao. ..... ... Councilmcmber Pawlenty then 04.ssed the situation'Merred to by Mr. Colbert. in that instana, it the Ciry Coundl had asussod at a higher;i.U&pt?pettrpi?ets?:pti?ild have 6ad'ass?ss+eat-bac]ced e?edations' for a higher and better use of the propeity;:::?e thVi?starieti'?ttte a a higber zoning aod the property owner is asking for assessments based on a bwer use. D'uecior of Public Works Colbert noted Wat if the property Page 7/EAGAN CT7Y CO[JNCIL MINUTFS )une 28, 1991 is assessed at a lower rate and is Wtimaltly 'put to a higher use, the City aould not have the opportunity, once the asscssments are levied, to teassess Mr. Terry Stovcr, o[ 3906 Itahw?:Road, objected to the assessmenta kvied egainst Oudot A of the Wood6aven Addition. He said that oodoc:tloes aot have asse,ss onto Rahn Road and, furtber, the development plan tor the property indicates that accts's*must be og Beau de Rue Drive. Mr. Stover said any possibility of access onto Rahn Road was a virtua( imposu'bitity due 1o tbe:new elevadoe of the road. He referred to the [au that several properties along Rahn Road were aot assessed because t6ey had no driveaay as.uss onto Rahn Road and said be beGeved Ouelot A was the only one witbout access beiag assessed. He said his property bas already beea assessed tor improvements to Beau:de Rue. •' Mr. Stover then pointed out h4:p3rcel's loas:of value because of e permanent storm sewer easement ganted to the City. While he had rectiv,o4:38,000 far;the easement, 6e said an appraistr had estimated the loss to his property at between $17,000 and 518,000. Ms. L.ettie Knutson, of 2014 Shak,1.4triesaid:sht'ba,t':b;:garage wit6 access oPf Rahn Road but her home has its drivew•ay access on Shale Laae. Ms: AKdutson`poinfed oiit t6at two yeara ago her home aas appraised at S98,000 and aow tbe County tax assessor 6ad iadicated the value as $91,000. She asked wby her property values 6ad gone dowv. Mr. Paul Notterman, ot 4374 Rahn Road, said it only took common sease to realiu that values had gone dowv with the widening and repairing of Rahn Road. . Mayor Egan then asked City Attotpc?Ji&:S3ieldoe ?to explain the process for objezting to assessmcnts. Mayor Egan said the City Council.had iw.c6oice"tii?t to malce this road improvement as Rahn Road in its previous condition was no longer functioa?: e:]Wd:it:.i,t,qne of the first reconstruction projects in the City and the City Council has tried to adopt a cost formiila ai.:tbey..believe equitable to all t6ose eoncerned. McCrea moved, Wachter seconded a motion to close tbe public bearing, approve the 6na1 assessment roll for Project 584 (Rahn Road Reconstruction) aod aulhoriu artitication to Dakota County. Councilmember Gustafson asked, in regard to assessments based oa pazcels rather than front footage, i[ Mount Calvary Lut6eran Churcb oould hav?:the.,issue of,4ingk family and pubGc fadlities frontage resolved by the City or whether the court would 6a?c??tti:m:?ce:that.?aelG?iaatioa. D'uedor of Public Works Colbert said an assessment bearing judge would not ?valuate tbetdt#bod used to urive at the assessmcnts, however, sucb method would be the prerogative of the CiCy Council:''S'tatute does require that the City Ueat all Wce properties in a similar manner and there ooutd be a:?allenge 6r.om the Baptist C6urcb J the Gty Couad assessea Mount Calvary Lutheran Churcb at a lesser ratC:?:?:?...:•::::.?:?'.::.:::::::: Recogniziag that tbere was a motion ? aad• second'6e6e the C"tty Coundl, Mayor Egan asked City Attorney Sheldon whctber the City Counal could incorporate some discretionary poUry in regard to the Mount Calvary Lutheran C6urcb property. Mr. S6eldon said the C;ity Conncil oDWd oomplete the motion and send it on in lhe process and tben remove Mount Calvary I.utheran C6urcb from the proceas at a later date or t6ey could request that staR make a roview o[ that.p.artipuF2i:Ji,fmadon and return aitb tLe'v 6ndiags at the next City Counril meeting. . T6e motion betote the Councii wa??lhen tevivA to rMcCYa moved, Wachter seconded a motion to close the public beazing, approve the rVaat;assessment roll [orPlvject 584 (Rahn Road Rocoastrueiioa) noling all written objections, aut6orize its certifK?tma to Dakota.?oueit)%.aith spedal instructioas to stat'[ to review the situation involving the Mount Calvary 1;c?iaa;t:?tty witb particutar atteation being paid to any precedent-settiag action. .... ............ ......:. 04-Jun-91 ASSESSMENT COST BREAKDOWN PROJ NAME RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJ NUM P584 SA NAME ST584 F RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION SA NAME ST584 SAi! 2183 YEARS 15 SF 30.790 /FF INT RATE.085 MF 75.160 /FF MOS 1ST YR INT 18 CI 75.160 /FF YEAR 1991 YC 15.400 /FF ASSESSMENT REC PROPERTY GROSS NET UNITS PRO-RATA RATE AMWNT NMBR JDENT# CL UNITS CREDITS SUBTOTAL fA ASSIBLE SHARE --==-===---- -=-=-====-= 1 10-01900-050-09MF 0 0 0 1 0 1 75.160 0.00 2 10-01900-031-10MF 1245 0 1245 1 1245 1 75.160 93574.20 3 10-01900-020-10CI 220 0 220 1 220 1 75.160 16535.20 4 10-01900-010-10CI 150 0 150 1 150 1 75.160 11274.00 5 10•84700-020-07SF 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61 5 10-84700-030-01SP 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61 . 10-84700-040-01Sf 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61 8 10-84700-050-01SP 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61 4 70-84700-060-01SF 61.4 0 61.4 1 61.4 1 30.790 1890.51 10 10-84700-070-01SP 112.76 0 112.76 1 112.76 1 30.790 3471.88 11 10-84700-010-OOMF 299.7 0 299.7 1 299.7 1 ` 75.160 22525.45 12 10-16700-010-09SF 137.88 0 137.88 1 137.88 1 30.790 4245.33 13 10-16700-020-09SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15 14 10-16700-030-09SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15 15 10-16700-040-09SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15 16 10-16700-050-09SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15 17 10-16700-060-0911C 0 0 0 1 0 1 15.400 0.00 18 10-16700-110-11SF 116.18 0 116.18 1 116.18 1 30.790 3577.18 19 10-11700-010-02MF 155 0 155 1.. 155 1 75.160 11649.80 20 10-224T0-010-01MF 388.87 0 388.87 1 388.8T 1 75.160 29227.47 21 10-32800-010-01MF 583.3 0 583.3 1 • 583.3 1 75.160 43840.83 22 10-48050-104-01SF 90.99 0 90.99 1 90.99 1 30.790 2801.58 23 10-T0775-010-01SF 125 0 125 1 125 1 30.790 3848.75 24 10-70775-020-01SP 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15 25 10-16701-300-01SF 115.7 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.790 3562.40 26 10-16701-310-O1SF T5 0 75 1 75 1 30.T90 - 2309.25 27 10-16701-320-01Sf 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 28 10-16701-330-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.T90 2309.25 29 10-16701-340-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 30 10-16701-350-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.T90 2309.25 31 10-16T01-360-01Sf 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 -2309.25 N p4er ,r+a r1 IL.e.en ?y 8e.ne? 04-Jun-91 ASSESSMENT COST BREAImOWN PROJ NAME RANN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJ NUM P584 SA NAME ST584 F RANN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION SA NAME ST584 SA# 2183 , YEARS 15 SF 30.790 /Ff INT RATE .085 MF 75.160 /FF ' MOS 1ST YR INT 18 CI 75.160 /ff 1'EAR 1991 WC 15.400 /FF ASSESSMENT REC PROPERTY GROSS NET UN1TS PRO-RATA RATE AMOUNT ? NMBR IDENTlt CL UNITS CREDITS SUBTOTAL fA ASS'BLE SHARE =---=======- -========--- -"?-' 32 10-16701-370-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.T90 2309.25 % ,; 33 10-16701-380-01SF 75 0 75 1. 75 1 30.790 2309.25 34 10-16701-390-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25` ' 35 10-16701-400-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 36 10-16701-410-01Sf 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 17 10-16701-420-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 ,8 70-16701-430-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790. 2309.25 - 39 10-16701-440-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 40 10-16701-450-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 41 10-16701-460-01SF 95.73 0 95.73 1 95.73 1 30.790 2947.53 3 42 10-16701-470-01SF 90 0 90 1 90 1 30.790 2771.10 ` 43 10-16703-180-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 44 10-16703-190-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 ? ? 45 10-16703-200-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 R o? _rlVje r?ei`?'a?•?- 46 10-16703-210-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 - 47 10-16703-220-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 48 10-16703-230-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 ` 49 10-16703-240-01Sf 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 O 1-w'? n 50 10-16703-250-01SF T5 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 C,o X' 51 10-16703-260-01SF 90 0 90 1 90 1 30.790 2771.10 = 52 10-16703-010-02WC 121.96 0 121.96 1 121.96 1 15.400 1878.18 ' 53 10-16702-080-03SF 195.21 0 195.21 1 195.21 1 30.T90 6010.52 ?yQ 54 10-16702-110-04SF 115.7 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.790 3562.40 ? 55 10-16702-120-04SF 115.7 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.T90 3562.40 56 10-16702-170-0TSF 135.7 0 135.7 1 135.7 1 30.T90 4178.20 G U ?h Z 57 10-02000-010-28MF 589.43 0 589.43 1 589.43 1 75.160 44301.56 58 10-02000-010-29MF 775.52 0 175.52 1 175.52 1 75.160 13192.08 ` 59 10-16704-100-03SF 120 0 120 1 120 1 30.790 3694.80 ' Ne(sa? 60 10-16704-110-03SF 120 0 120 1 120 1 30.790 3694.80 n e- s 61 10-02000-011-52MF 262.01 0 262.01 1 262.01 1 75.160 19692.67 62 10-16704-090-04SF 95 0 95 1 95 1 30.790 2925.05 . ' RECrLfVn t:. ??,? C i?_^a ? MEMORANDIIM TO: Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works FROM: Annette M. Margarit DATE: November 4, 1991 RE: Rahn Road Assessment Appeal 0*40 SSy Enclosed please find Judge Mansur's Order and accompanying memorandum denying our motion to sever the twelve assessment appeals for Rahn Road that are combined into one action. The Judge seemed to basically buy the argument that because the parties are raising the same issue, namely, that increased traffic has diminished the value of their properties, the combination is appropriate. The trial is currently scheduled for November 15, 1991. I understand that you will be on vacation on that date. Rather than continuing this trial because there are so many appeals that have been set for December and into January, I would prefer to have Mike Foertsch testify or get someone from Bonestroo to be available for this trial. I will contact Mike to see if he is available on that date. ANIIM/wkt ? . .W . . ` ' • • . -a . . . ' W100 (1-ft) .. ?+..o+ .r r Mo. t?-r, cea, r„e : FIOWARD J. GROVES . . . ' . . . ATTORNEY AT LAW ' - . SUITE 260-SKYLINE SQUARE . ' BTAT? O? MINNESOTA 12940 HARRIET AVENUE SOUTH _ COU MY O F DAKOTA LBURNSVILLE MN 55337 . . ' , NO71CF. OFt- . X'FILINCi OF ORDER . r'ANNETTE M. MARGARIT ATTOR?EY AT LAW 0 F_N7RY OF JUDaMEN7 . 600 MIDWAY NATIONAL BANK BLDG . . 7300 WEST. 147TH ST ? DOCKETINC3 OF JUDOMENT APPLE VALLEY MN 55124 L„ Couri FlI• Nc•1 C5 91 7756 IN pF; ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584 KNOWN AS RAHN-ROAD RECONSTRUCTION ECT. t ? u era heroby noUllod t?inl on , OCTOBER 29 _ 19,.4L an Otder 1'b wcw duly nled ln tllo abovo ontltlod mntlnr, . ? 1bu aro horoby noUtiod lhal on , 19.__ n.1udgmenl . waa duly ontorod in.tha above enllllod mattor.' "" . _...? s Judpme?t ? You ere horoby noUtiod Ihat on 1 e . , . .. wu duly docketod 1n Ihe.nbove enUqad maller Itt lh• e,mounl ot ` ?true oddro?a of oact?, Nolloo 1 to Minnoooln El loo of Civll Procodure Rulo 77aOdin ai lhe In3? kn n , Puro OCTOBER 29, 1991 ROGER W. 5AHES . Dntod: . • ' Court Adminlatralur • • ,• bY . Dop ty . ,.r • • Fde th?s . oi ts ?' . _ . ' ROGER W. }SE ? Coun Aa? ata/7 /wc? ah BY • 14 Fle th?s d? c°._ ... 19V, ROGEIi 1!. SluMES, Caurt Adrtunistratof STATE OF MTNNESOTA By pEp DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ----------------------------------------------------------------- In Re: Assessments for Project 584, File No. C5-91-7756 known as Rahn Road Reconstruction adopted by the City of Eagan on ORDER June 18, 1991 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the undersigned on the Special Term calendar of the Court on Monday, October 28, 1991, at the Dakota County Judicial Center, Hastings, Minnesota. Annette Margarit, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Howard J. Groves, Attorney at Law, appeared on , behalf of the Petitioners. The issue is the assessment for the improvement of Rahn Road. The parties who are identified as the Petitioners represent 12 property owners on Rahn Road and have filed a joint appeal from the assessment promulgated by-the Respondent City. The City moves for severance and for separate trials for .? each of the Petitioners. Based upon the file, the record made, the file and proceedings heretofore had, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. That the Respondent-City's motion be and the same is hereby denied. 2. That the following Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. DATED: 10-28-91 BY T E OURT: ? ARTIN . UR. Judge f D strict Court 1 '? • . MEMORANDUM Fle ttiis day oi R06ER W. SAMES, Coun Adrtunistrator By OEPUN 0 The property is unique and, as such, the issue of benefits versus costs of improvements must be determined for each property exclusive of the other. Here the Petitioners apparently are residents on Rahn Road in the city of Eagan and have joined together in appealing the assessments that have been certified by the City against their subject properties for what the City alleges to be improvements by the widening of Rahn Road. The Petitioners contend that the improvements were initiated by the City to serve the primary interests of the Target store and Cub Foods store and to provide for better access to these locations. Further, the Petitioners allege that their subject property has diminished in value by reason of the widening of the road, the increased traffic to the business entities referred to herein. There being a common theme that forms the basis of the .,. appeal from the assessments, it is this Court's view that the severance would not serve the interest of all parties, including the City, but rather, would allow for an expeditious disposition of the Petitioners' appeals and if either party is aggrieved by the Court's decision, allow for the appellate process to go forward without further delay. To grant the City's motion could involve different judges for different property owners and could possibly entail different results. This would cause confusion for all and would not serve the best interest of all parties, including the City. 2 . a MEMORANDIIM TO: Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works FROM: Annette M. Margarit DATE: October 30, 1991 RE: Motion to Sever Rahn Road Appeals On October 28, 1991 I appeared before the Honorable Judge Martin Mansur to argue the City's motion to sever the twelve assessment appeals currently filed as one action. The appellants' attorney Howard Groves also appeared. Enclosed please find a copy of the papers Mr. Groves had filed for the purposes of this motion. Judge Mansurs' opening comments indicated his train of thought as he told Mr. Groves that all parcels were unique, and inquired as to why Mr. Groves believed the assessment appeals should be joined. Mr. Groves argued that the properties are very similar in location and basically are arguing the same issue that the project has not benefitted them at all but in fact has been a detriment to their property. Through some of his other questions, it seemed apparent the Judge was not totally supportive of Mr. Groves' position. The Court asked for the City's position and I reiterafied the Judge's own comments namely that each parcel is unique and by the very nature of the special assessment, the City may not levy an assessment greater than the benefit to that particular parcel. I pointed out to the Court that the parcels were not all assessed the same amount indicating that they differed in some respect. I also argued that, in the event the Court did not agree that the properties had been benefitted to the amount of the assessment, the Court would need to be able to arrive at some equitable means of determining a reduction in the assessment. Without knowledge of the individual characteristics of the properties, the Court would have to resort to a blanket type of reduction which would be unfair to the City and likely also the°landowners. The Court noted that appellants paid only one filing fee. The Judge stated that he would take the matter under advisement and issue an order. ANIIMf wkt i i. ; Nj ? MEMO _ city of eagan TO: D1ANE DOWNS, UTILITY BILLING CLERK FROM: ED KIRSCHT, SR. ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN DATE: AUGUST 231 1993 SUBJECT: STREETLIGHT ENERGY COSTS-CEDAR GROVE NO. 5(208 LOTS) This memo is to inform your department to begin to invoice the energy costs at the single family rate effective August 1, 1993 to the property owners in Cedar Grove No. 5 Addition. Block 1, Lots 1-22 22 Biock 2, Lots 1-19 19 Block 3, Lots 1-11 11 Biock 4, Lots 1-16 ' 16 Block 5, Lots 1-25 25 Block 6, Lots 1-22 22 Block 7, Lots 1-25 25 BIoCk 8, Lots 1-5 5 Block 9, Lots 1-2 2 Block 10, Lots 1-23 23 Block 11, Lots 1-14 14 Block 12, Lots 1-9 9 Block 13, Lots 1-15 15 208 The City is currently being billed by Dakota Electric for streetlighting in the above listed subdivision. ? Edward J. rsc t Sr. Engineering Technician cc: Mike Foertsch EJK/je /6?0 f /lo 0 3 RECEIVED 1 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works FROM: Annette M. Margarit, Assistant City Attorney DATE: August 31, 1993 --- -- -- RE: Sale Price of?,-3-990-RahnRoad ? <----=----- - A Pursuant to your request, we asked Tom Metzen's office to obtain the sale nrice of the parcel at 3990 Rahn Road which was owned by Darrel and Pat Haines at the time of the kah;. Raau 41--ria,-'. F--cm the r?ctures in the appraisal, this appears to be the parcel located next door to the Fire Department. Larry Danich of Metzen's office informed me that the house sold for $87,400.00. Iie said the house had been greatly improved with new windows, and extensive interior updating and decorating. The realtro who sold it said the home looked like a model home. Interestingly, at trial, Mr. Daniels opined the parcel was worth $72,500.00, both before and after the improvements. ANIIK/wkt cc: Michael G. Dougherty EAGAN T014NSHIP 3795 Pilot Knob Road 5t. Paul, Mianesota 55111 Telephone 454-5242 PERMIT FOR SEWER SERVICE CONNECTiON DATE: ?? ? J q. Iq, Nvrr4BEa ? OWNER ? ,•,?.aa_?:?tica?<-,?-«?7??• ea Address????? /K'144r) pew op - _......,...? . -PLUMBER ji"n,z? TYPE C1F PIPE ? DESCRIPTION OF BUILDING Industriall Commercial( Residential { Multiple Dwelling I No, of units Location of Connections: Connection Charge cgj---d ? ? ?? 9?11'44JP Permit Fee '74-v r' SCreet Repairs Tota 1 cgLe 7° _-e Inspected by: DaCe Remarks• By ChiAf InspecCor In consideratioa of the issue and delivery eo me of the above pexmit, I hereby agree to do the progosed worlt in accordance with the rules and regulations of Eagan Tox•inship, Dakota County, Minnesota? By ?? Please notify when ready for inspection and coanection aad befare any portiea af the wark is covered. , IV - of Eaou 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan MN 55122 Phone: (651) 675-5675 Fax: (551) 675-504 ----------------- - i Pertnit ? Pennit Fee: ?.. 1 i i ? Date Received: i t I StatF -- ?- I ?----------------- 2008 REStDENT1AL BUILDING PERMtT APPLICATiON DWe: q WD% S;W AMMS: 39q 0 R?- s,ift TenBM: bEl3 ? D I?Sf? Phone: RESIDENT 101NNER Name:-- Address / City t Tap: Applicant is: Owner ? Contraator 14 SQ TYPE OF WORK Description of wark: -TEA-IZ OK- i? ? 5 t OE ? c)o L4 C100 Muiri-Eamily Buttdtng: {Yes j No,Kj Construction Cost: , . COAffRAGTOR Name; ? License #: Address: 9W1 K-0?' ??Zip: 55 state: _L Cky: _ . Phone: ('J' 1 ' '" 1 A9• `"f3P Contact Person: finMe - COMPLETE THIS AREA ONLY IF Cl?NSRUC?NG A NW BUILDING •n cnt R?Ip?•-l767,f?, (`,atea,ON 1 ? Minnesota R 16?? F.ltergy COd@ • Residentlal Veftlation.Cate9ory i Walcshe6t • New EneW Cede Wo?csheet category : Submitted 8t?brrtitted (4 submission type) • Energy Ernelope Caicutaadions Submitited . in the last 12 moMhs, has the CitY of Eagan issuad 8 permit for a Sirnilar plan 1589ed on a ma,ster ptan? Yes No {f yes, date and address of master plan: Licensei Plurnber: Phone: Nlechanical Contractor: Sewer & Water Contractor. Phone' Photle: ,_... r..?d,....?w.?....,?. .. . _.. _. . _...?_ _ i hereby ad?9e that tti?s infortnffiion is c?omplete and axurffie; that the vwrk wi8 be io ?Mortnare with the ortiinances anci oodes of ttre ?r ot Eagam that t understand this is rat a perm?, but oniy an 2pptication tor a perm?, and work is not to:start rvfttwut a permit; tfia? the work wi8 be in accordance wM the approved ptan in the case of wals wtuch requires a review and approval of Piam X M 0-A1 1 1WL'LCA . Appiicant's Printed Name X r " l - \...lJ??Y'? APPlicarit's Signature Pege 1 of 3 y~ ai I IF i~ r - _ i --&:j y q f 4 0 Ary a.- zt F.~ 4 t ;T i ~r• q < A a 3~ _ d 4 rf J° t INU ..`j ' st va;,< * 8 xro, r kx.at Y Report Name: City of Eagan Printed: 06/11/2009 Inspection Results Page: 1 Inspection Results EA084950 - 3990 Rahn Rd Permit Type: Sewer & Water Sub Type: Residential Date Inspection Type Inspected By Result 08/06/2008 Sewer Only Leon Weiland Pass Replaced 4'4" PVC pipe to corect the root problem. III øíø þÿï ýüü ÿ ûîû ÿ úüüþí òôáãî ó ò ýüø ÿþýüû ÿÝô øýüû÷ö ÿÝô Üÿ ûíðÿí îÿþâ ûàåäß ü óóäæó âí àúûí ßè ë æ ëó ææ ÷ú ÿî êèë å ëäå öùùõ øôó ûû õíüôçí â äóû Ø òåå úîú üíÿîâ÷óóâ÷ää àßò îþüöîîãî ûû îîùí íûüöîûûþ ùâ ÿ ôüùï ë ûûìí ÿ ÿü ÿ Use BLUE or BLACK Ink For Office'Use / I 4i~- 01 j Permit#: I' l % S j City of Ea I Permit Fee: / I ' 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan MN 55122 Date Received: l rD y 13 j I I Phone: (651) 675-5675 Fax: (651) 675-5694 1 Staff: I I 013 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Date: Site Address: ^4/~/7 Unit Name: L, ;~/Gl ~l$P Phone: Resident/ f~ Owner Address / City / Zip: 37~E~it Applicant is: Owner-Contractor z Type;of Work Description of work: ~r0a Construction Cost: 7 - Multi-Family Building: (Yes _ / No j- Company: Contact: 402gpz"P~ Contractor Address: ~z?r~ C- ,`,y ( City:2=~° State: ///-(It Zip: l~J Phone: License Lead Certificate If the project is exempt from lead certification, please explain why: (see Page 3 for additional information) 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 subnut are considered to be pub/rc lnfo`rma one o io s of the'information maybe classified as iion puhhc ~f you provide specific reasonstha 2wo~>d:perm. o conclude that They are frade`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.gol)herstateonecall.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 B 'n must be completed within 180 days of permit issuance. X il~ '0 x A plicant's Printed Name acrif s nature Page 1 of 3 Use BLUE or BLACK Ink For Office Use I I Permit Z0 I Y A Cl of Ea a~ I I I Permit Fee: I 3830 Pilot Knob Road 1 V I Eagan MN 55122 Date Received: Phone: (651) 675-5675 I 1 Fax: (651) 675-5694 1 Staff: I I 2014 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Date: Site Address: Unit Name; C'~im ~ ~ Phone Resident/ C• Owner Address / City / Zip: ,c~~1f1 2acr Applicant is: Owner Contractor Description of work: Type of Work I C' , Construction Cost; 0c) 0 ~ Multi-Family Building: (Yes / No Company: Se Iccf- emreea (O11&ti.d 11 Contact, _ 1G) 6`~ G6 ~1 ~7 w Contractor Address: 011 CLiir ~ > City: i I I VI[~wr L of G StalT Zip: Phone: (O's Y License P-7 ~c11 [ Lead Certificate If the project is exempt from lead certification, please explain why: (see Page 3 for additional information) 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 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 7ae Building Code must be completed within 180 days of permit issuance. r Applicant's Printed Name Applic9 t' Signature Page 1 of 3 �� c�� o�c�� l�� i 3 9Sy �� ` ��°� �� Use BI.UE or BLACK Ink � Fo�Oifice Use ,.�' n n j Permit#: �'� � �� 1 Cl�� O� .U��U� I Permit fee: (.�� a v � 3830 Pilot Knob Road I I Eagan MN 55122 � Date Received: j Pho�e:(651)675-5675 I I Fax:(651)675•5694 i Staff: i �----�-------------� 2015 RESIDENTIAL. BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Date: 6�s2o's Sita Address: �B0 R°n"R°'d � Unit#: .,;,� ��`f'� N81'►1@: KimandDebMots! PhOne: 952-281-2833 !,k��s�d'�F4fi�':, ;; � �� Address/C' /Zi �ao Renn Roeo,ea9an MN ss+2a ��.1R�FIG•r� �Y P� ?;;`�'''�;;;`��i'`°;r�;h-��"i'`';'it-f�,;':,�' Applicantis: Owner X Contractor ;'°. :,,t�a?;i.,��;..;,.,5• - - -�;.,Rf;ti;;•;z,• .di;;;"•"�';I ,r,��c(,Ev;:,.�;�.':i;�i`':i.:�:,;»,!r,;: `"��1""� Oeseription of work: R9p18e6 onb�IieFn window wilh&peek9l t I£ie9m6n6 B&nB BiE9 d�tl BI 9 ineitl9lhB exie4n ap9nin '';'.,.,;r�{;.;;�:;��::..::.; •�i 9 e0 Y� 0 9 ;:;7';. ''eio�^;�I;o�'.�Ci��: ,,Y�, � Construction Cost s+aa3,so Multi-Family 6uilding:(Yes /No") � . , ;:� � � �' HOmMI¢ctl RMnodeling&Con^.ulling LLC pnCrpw ;�•': ��' Gompany: Contact: ,;:;:,`.,;'' ;.+;`,,,";.,'�!AY;; 't�+;;,; 'i,.,;,�%''ii;2;��,;;��,�;!��c��'°i' A a1e suneowM ceurt cennon Peas v:.' Y; �;�t"f'��df��E�"c��"tiD�,fii�}�" ddress: Cit n''+1�`(��";�•i s::ri�y;i:•;S'��.r�`��,�:i(Ir�v MN 55008 651.a93.3012 ana�¢w�eanestcaamn.wm ;;;i'•; ;��i;, :• �•�'�� State: Zip: Phone: Email: '�t`��w;;` ' ��?' License#: B0�'3°� Lead CeRificate#: �T�F��831.� If the project is exempt from lead certification, please explain why: COMPLETE THIS AREA QNLY IF CONSTRUCTING A NEW BUILDING In the last 12 months,has the Clty ofi Eagan is�ued a pe�mit for a similar plan based on a rnaster pian? Yes _No If yes,date and address of master plan: Licensed Plumber: Phone: Mechanical Contractor: Phone: Sewer&Water Contractor: Phane: Fire Suppression Contractor. Phone: ,,:•: : .: �..;:,,,.::•::�.,,•::•:.,,,..,;..., ,.�...:•. •:.,..;..,n:.::,,,,,:,.,... . � �<.��;x ��:• ��rA:•. r.��r• rt��. 1'' w7i'.e.�nm..y r��.�.�Ijl.: �.�' ,:��1'£�,P :�s� rt�n'' .d,�a e�.�'s,� �'i�'�� o�`;�'s�',� ,w�'o ��L1�d�:t�• e, �pF`�'�'::�"';.o'r•��'�:. o �a�«� �4�';� ... �''�'�'�' �� 9,Fa ,» .�?,.. �r`{1�,. ,��. �,:., , .� � .� , ,.: � H ��► � ....,:,,......:........................., ...,..�,::c�,�.:.,:.. ,,..., �.,,,..,;��.�,.;;..:,..,..�„�:��,,;,�a.��.,,,,:��.,., r�. a�n,..,..p..:r,we �:•�:�,.�� .,.,r•�.W. r•!:•?.L•s�•+r�� ,r ..,.,. ,,..,, , .:•.�..,,.:.: ,r,�'y�airi,.�,..�., ...��...,. ,,a.� ,,,t.,,. .;�.. ,�;, ,.,�.,��.N6„uriC;r," �� ••%h!Y;.,r�t� ,«,, �t� 'i�` � '��i;`r. �4,Q� ... �...;.,...,rx., ��,;�. �, .. ;� •,... � ,�..r►.A.. . � ...�.. : .:.,p.r.,�- •� �".�- . ��?,�. ��a�. ;:tf�e�,r fo: a',Frb'�:r�►'a�Z�.iti'e�+.r�'.,ssFf e,�►1 .P`.�b,�"��, .oup r,��/ ',�S.i�c f��,�f,,�s' `;�� ,kt!.'. ,;e' t '� �;i�,:#�'i:�;;�:;: :•7�•1 ,S1:.a.�.�yf'�qr, q:d.,�.�a, 11, "t. E ry..dlq� �s., rvr.,r S.t�� 'ty�!;�.�� ..{,.r.>;t��:0(.�:L.. � . ;`I.i ..�.•�a}'�...�i.{�..M�.. .'f� ..A0�.�1��.�(�i.�N$��I��Ai�lf.�� ::L�...��}�. .,..��.,t.r r.«iY :!:°"v.. ,rl. � '•;f�'1:.ii': ;f��i i'�r� l�a:�H�d:°c^dfC^..n ,t�`...�.1�',�. :.t„'.....1�7:.ti.lt.l w � ..�y: M::i�; `11' i I.. .f..' �.� {i!�:,li'" . 1'• H.4�' V i '�JrrF•1�` . •C: r Y ��fl.i.�. �' �CN !:.�qh '�1� :�. !:•..` �F' 4 eF '{b `..�"•�, i%:�i �7 �' �. 1.4 �rv.� ;� .'��`:,,. .t ..>r,!a..G. �, �;C��.�1 �'�� ,d�� `�S!; ..�,o�,�:�r.<!�;�•,�:,1�.1�,�,.1�..,.��?�a�..'f.........,.,�......... �n.. .�l:. �'��.��.b'3 �� .�, i CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. Cau Gopher Stats One Call at(6S1)a5d-0002 fo�protectlon against underground utility darnage. GaA 48 hours befare you inlend to dig to receive locates of underground utiiities. vwwv.aooherstateonec I. ra I hereby acknovNedge that this Information is complete and accurate;that the work will be in conformance witn the ordinances and codes of the City of Eagan;that I understand this is not a permit, but only an application for a pecmit, and work is not to staft 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 autAorised by a building pertnit issuad in accordance with the Minnesota Stato Building Code must be co�npleted wichin 180 days of permit issuaoce. x ANDaEW iwKKELSON x �J ApqlicanYs PMnted Name A licant's Sign ture Page 1 of 3 Z00l100'd SXV�) 8E�Ol SLOZ�S0I90