Loading...
3996 Rahn RdCITY OF EAGAN Remarks * Cetiar r.r_?ve?rquisitinn Addition CEDAR GROVE #5 Lot 10 Blk 3 Parcei 10 16704 100 03 Owner ?/-?/lj?'3r-•?`v? ??'?? Street 3996 Rahn Road State_ E3g?,'?Il, MId 55122 ? /? L7r?n n:t Improvement Date Amount Annual Years Payment Receipt Date STREET SURF. 1967 600.00 60.00 10 Paid STREET RESTOR. GRADING SAN SEW TRUNK V,%?, 1967 100.00 5.00 20 Paid SEWER LATERAL ?; - 196ti 665.00 33.20 ZO Pdld WATERMAIN WATERLATERAL 1972 607.00 24.28 25 461.32 00410 5-24-77 AREA STORM SEW TRK 1970 70.00 3.50 20 42.00 004102 -- STORM SEW LAT CURB & GUTTER SIDEWALK STREET LIGHT WATER CONN. BUILDING PER. sa,c 200.00 833 9-26-68 PARK CITY OF EAGAN Remarks * Ceddr e:mvg ACcpiisit pn Additiovn / CEDiAR GROVE #rJ Lot 10 Blk 3 Parcel 10 16704 100 03 Owner v-'Q//7-e?'%'- Street 3996 Rahn Road State EAqan, IrIld 55122 Improvement Date Amount Annual Years Payment Receipt Date STREET SUFiF. 1967 ()00.00 60.00 10 Paid STREET RESTOR. GRADING SAN SEW TRUNK 3,7- 1967 100.00 5.00 20 Paid SEWERLATERAL 3 1968 665.00 33.20 20 Paid WATERMAIN * WATER LATERAL ? 1972 607.00 24.28 25 461.3 - - WATER AREA STORM SEW TRK 1970 70.00 3.50 ZO 42.00 004102 - - STORM SEW LAT CURB & GUTTER SIDEWALK STREET LIGHT WATER CONN. dUILDING PER. s,nc 200.00 833 9-26-68 PARK CITY OF EAGAN 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 N2 5 814 PHONE: 464-8100 BUILDING PERMIT Receipt # To be used for Est. Value Date , 19 Site Address Erect ? Occupancy Lot Block Sec/Sub. Aiter ? Zoning Parcel # Repair ? Fire Zone Enlarge ? Type of Const. W Name Move ? # Stories Z Address 3 Demolish ? Front ft. ? Ci Phone Grade ? Depth ft. w Name Approvols Fees uO ? Address Assessment Permit Water & Sew. Surcharge ~ Cit Phone Police Plan check F FW Name Fire SAC ?? Address Eng. Woter Conn. aW Ci Phone Plunner Water Meter Council Road Unit I hereby acknowledge thot I hove reod this application and state that gldg. Off. - the information is correct ond agree to comply with all opplicable APC Total State of Minnesota Stotutes and Ciry of Eagan Ordinances. Signature of Permittee A Building Permit is issued to: on the express condition that all work shall be done in accordance with all applicable Stute of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eogan Ordinances. Official ildin B g u Pennif # Date laued Permittw Plumbin9 Mechanical INSPECTIONS DATE INSP. Rough-In Fincl Footings Date Insp. Date Insp. Foundation Plumbing Frame/ins. Mechanical Final - z?? j I Remarks: Minnesota State Board of Electricity 1954 University Ave., St. Paul, Minn. 55104-Phone 645-7703 REQUEST FOR ELECTRICAL INSPECTION CHECK BELOW WORK COVERED BY THIS REQUEST ?Y 4P-de S 26822 Type of Building.New Add. Rep. Check Applian ces Wired For Check Equipment Wired For Home ? ? ? Range ? Temporary Wiring ? Duplex ? ? ? Water Heater ? Lighting Fixtures ? Apt. Bldg. ? ? ? Dryer ? Electric Heating ? Commercial Bldg. ? ? ? Furnace ? Silo Unloader ? Industrial Bldg. ? ? ? Air Conditioner ? Bulk Milk Tank ? Fazm ? ? ? List hers? List hers? Other ? ? ? He Re COMPUTE INSPECTION FEE BELOW Sezvice Entrance Size: # F ee, Feeders&Subfeeders: # Fee Cucuits: # Fee 0 to 100 Am s. / ", yZ 0 to 30 Am eres 0 to 30 Am eres 101 to 200 Amps. 31 to 100 Amperes 31 to 100 Am eres Above 200 Amps. Above 100 Amps. Above 100 Amps. Transformers Remote Control Circ. Partial or other fee r Signs Special Inspection Minimum fee $5 64Z) Remarks TOTAL FEE + 00 I, the Electrical Inspector, hereby certify that the above inspection has been made. (Rough-in) Date (Final) ate This request void 18 months from ? ? : cs-v ?a?-?. This request void 18 months from / ?(Q O? Date of this Request7 8 Q 2 6 8 2 2 I, as O Licensed Electrical Contractor Owner, do hereby request inspection of the above electri- cal wiring installed at: Street Address or Route No ? C? / 6, City ? ? Section Township Range County _ ? Which is occupied by C!?) ? (Name of Occupant) ? Is a roughin inspection required on this job? No b Ye&K Ready Now ? Will Call Power Supplier Address Electrical Contractor ???'?-?- Contractor's License No. ,?-- - (Company Name) Mailing Address Cont Authorized Signat'!R _6. !-'?.?'! (Electrical- C tor or T E BOAO'KhD COPY nsta g`?-- Phone Installation) This inspection request will not be accepted by the State Board unless proper inspection fee is enclosed. `'I CITY OF EAGAN Include 2 sets of plans, ? ` 1 site plan w/el.evations & BUILDING PERMIT APPLICI?TION I set of energy ans. To Be Used For C.'-"lrr ,.erT u? Valuation EJU s? Date ? site Address: 4 oFFIGE uSE ONLY Lot I0 BlocJc ? Sec./Sub. C Erect ? Occupancy ? Alter Zoning Parcel # : Repair Fire Zorbe Owner: Enlarge Type of Const. Nbve # Stories ---- -- - - - - - -- - - --- Address: Demolish Front ft. City/Zip Code :'E Grade Depth f t. Phone 4/5^ -2 - 3"'6 06 Contractor: Address: City/Zip Code: Phone #: Arch. /Fng. . Address: City/Zip Code: Phone #: APPROVALS - FEES Assessments Pernnit 6 ? Water/Sewer Surcharqe S Police Plan Check Fire SAC Eng. Water Conn. Planner Water Meter Council Road Unit Bldg. Off. APC To?r? ? ?? ? CITY OF EAGAN _ 3795 Pilot Knob Rood Eagan, MN $5122 N2 5814 ,. PHONE: 4 54-8100 ? S BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Receipt # Cement Driveway 800.00 May 12 80 To be used for Est. Value Dote 19 Site Address 3996 Rahn Road Erect Xo Occuponcy R3 Lot 10 Block 3 Sec/Sub. CG #5 Alter ? Zoning Rl Repair ? Fire Zone III Parcei .# E l f Co t T n arge ? ns . ype o Nome Vern Nelson Move ? #' Stories ` W 3 Address 3996 Rahn Road Demolish ? Front ft. Eagan, NIlV phone 452-5606 Grade ? Depth ft. ? o Name S?e Approvals • Fees ?F ?? Address ~ Ci Phone ?? WW Name FW ?z Address Q W CiN Phone t hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the informotion is correct and agree to wmply with all applicable State of Minnesota Statut s and ity of Eagan Ordinances. Signature of Permittee A Building Permit is issued to: Vern NelsOU all work sholl be done iri accordanq ?h o?ppl' e State of Mii Assessment Wiater & $ew. Police Fire Eng. Planner Council BIdg.Off. 5 12 80 APC Permit > . vv Surcharge • 50 Plan check SAC Water Conn. Water Meter Road Unit Total 5.50 on the express condition that and City of Eogan Ordinances. Building Official EAGAN TOWNSHIP BUILDING PERMIT Owner ...... &-fi.......y?..----.t,:sFrr.!-s4?:.?-•---d ......... Addresa (Preseni) :,.. ........... Builder ..............------------------------------------------------------ .._. Address --------•--••-•...••-----•------•------•-•----••-•------•--•--...-•••----•--•---•-••.._.__.._. DESCRIPTION N° 1806 Eagan Township Town Hall Date _a,K•?^t.`.'-• ..... 7}•?-96-.-. O 5tories To Be Used For Fron! Depih Heigh! Esi. Cos! Permi! Fee Remarks Sireet, Road or ?- LOCATION of Localion ? /7 or Trac2 This permi2 does ao2 sulhoriae the use of sireets, roads, alleys or sidewalks nor does it give the owner or his agent the righ! !o create any siluaiion which is a nuisance or which presenis a hazard to the healih, safety, convenience and gene:al welfare !o aayone in the communiiy. THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEP ON THE PREMISE WHILE THE WORK IS IN PROGR?/ESS. , This is to cerlify, iha!.... '__.__? .............. haspermission to erect a__ "z?. ,42--4??'? , ......?...........upon the above described premise subjec! Yo the provisions of the Building Ordinance for Eagan _ .. ?wnship adbpied April 11, 1955. .•• ??-c•r-•--• ?-?!G.J . _..••-•-•-•-•• --' -?-?..?•-•••-•- 1?--- ---• ?=? .6.•--... f ------------- Per ------- ......... ? ?t --••- Chaiinan of Tnwn Board Building Inspector ? • ? 1999 BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION (RESIDENTIAL) CITY OF EAGAN ?130 14'?-] 6 Z 3830 PILOT KNOB RD - 55122 2 ` 651-681-4675 New Construction Reauirements Remodel/Repair Reauirement? ? 3 registered sNe surveys showing sq. ff. of lot, sq. ff. of house and cll roofed areas (207a maximum lot coveraae ollowed) ? 2 coples of plans (show beam 3 window sizes; poured fnd. des(gn; etc.) ? 1 set of energy calculations ? 3 copies of tree preservation plan if lot platted after 7/1/93 DATE: ,/ ^_23_ DESCRIPTION OF WORK: STREET ADDRESS: LOT: I C) b BLOCK: SUBD./R:I.D. #: 1t a 0- PROPERTY OWNER CONTRACTOR ARCHITECT/ ENGINEER Name• ? ? ? y m Phone #: Q6-!o 46?7- last First Street Address: ? ??b g? RCI• City State: Ni Zip: Company: LuvG?OA 1 51?fw-7 Phone #: .? (area ?de) Street Address: Yl ii ?? d??- ?+? • License #190' 39P I Exp. _ City R `,I rT ? State: m N Zip: 6-51.? 'Q- Company:. Telephone #: area code ( ) Name: Street Address: Registration #: City Sewer 8 water licensed plumber (reauired for new construction onlv): 2 copies of plan 1 set of energy calculations for heated additions 1 site survey for exterior addHions 8 decks CONSTRUCTION COST: 50 ? 3 State: Zip: Penalty applies when address change and lot change is requested once permff is issued. I I hereby acknowledge that 1 have read this application, state that the information is co ect, and agree to comply with all applicabl State of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances. Signature of Applicant: OFFICE USE ONLY Certificates of Survey Received Yes No ?- Tree Preservation Plan Received Yes No Not Required . ? OFFICE USE ONLY ' BUILDING PERMIT TYPE 0 01 Foundation ? 06 4-plex ? 11 10-plex ? 16 Fireplace ? 21 Porch (3-sea.) ? 02 SF Dwelling [3 07 5-plex ? 12 12-plex 0 17 Garage ? 22 Porch/Addn. (4-sea. ? 03 1 of _ plex ? 08 6-plex ? 13 16-plex ? 18 Deck ? 23 Porch (screened) ? 04 2-plex ? 09 7-plex 0 14 Apartments ? 19 Lower Level ? 24 Storm Damage ? 05 3-plex ? 10 8-plex ? 15 Lodging ? 20 Pooi'', ? 25 Miscellaneous WORK TYPE ? 31 New ? 35 ? 32 Addition ? 36 ? 33 Alteration ? 37 ? 34 Repair ? 38 GENERAL INFORMATION Tenant Impr ? 39 Move Bldg. ? 40 Demolish Bldg.* 0 41 Demolish (Interior) ? 42 * Give PCA handout to appl Gas Line Only ,, ? 43 Siding/Soffits/Fascia Gas Insert ? 44 Windows/Doors Wood Stove !? 45 Fire Repair Reroof icant for demolition'`permit Const. (Actual) Basement sq. ft. Census Code (Allowable) Main level sq. ft. 5AC Code tJBC Occupancy sq. ft. No. ;?of Units Zoning sq. ft. No.'?of Bldgs # of Stor'?,es sq. ft. MClES System Length sq. ft. City Water Width Footprint sq. ft. Booster Pump PRV Fire Sprinklered APPROVALS Planning Building Engineering ' Variance Permit Fee Valuation: $ ' Surcharge ? Plan Review License MC/ES SAC City SAC Water Conn. Water Meter Acct. Deposit S/W Permit S/W Surcharge Treatment PL Park Ded. Trails Ded. Other Copies TotaL• IL i SAC Units % SAC CITY USE ONLY LOT ? BL _?; PERMIT #: ? o ?1);) q SUBD. - - Cle-ir G`('O?'* _ RECEIPT #: I a ?J 7 ? ? RECEIPT DATE: I- I D' 0() 2000 MECHANICAL PERMIT (RESIDENTIAL) CITY OF EAGAN 3830 PILOT IQ108 RD EAGAN 1rIld 55122 Date• 651-681-4675 Complete this section onlv if you are installing HVAC in a single family dwelling, townhome or condo under eonstruction and not owner/occupied. • HVAC: 0-100 M B T U ADDITIONAL 50 M BTU • Gas outlets (minimum of one required @$3.00 ea.) ? Air conditioning Other State Surcharge .50 Total $ Complete this section onlv if you aze remodelinQ, addin?to, or repairine an existing single-family dwelling, townhome, or condo. Please indicate if it is a new item, alteration, or repair. New _ Alteration ? Repair _ Other Furnace Air exchanger Reminder: Call for inspections SITE ADDRESS: OWNER NAME: INSTALLER NAME: $ 30.00 6.00 Fee State Surcharge Total $ 30.00 ?A PHONE #: q (AREA C DE) PHONE #: - (AREA CODE) 414 STREET ADDRESS: I?E CITY: STAT'E: ZIP: ag&ltlCh?- SIGNA F PERMITTEE CITY USE ONLY L BL SUBD. APPROVED BY: , INSPECTOR PERMIT #: RECEIPT#: RECEIPT DATE: 2000 MECHANICAL PERMIT (COIrMERCIAL) CITY OF EAGAN 3830 PILOT IQi08 RD EAGAN, MN 55122 651-681-4675 Please complete for: all commerciaUindustrial buildings muiti-family buildings when separate permits are not required for each dweiling unit DATE: WORK TYPE: New construction Install U.G. Tank Interior Improvement Remove U.G. Tank Processed Piping When installing/removing underground tank, call 651-681-4675 for inspection by fire marshal and plumbing inspector. Description of work: Fees: 1% of contract price OR $30.00 minimum fee, vi+hichever is greater. Underground tank removaUinstallation = minimum fee . Contract price: $ x 1%= $ (Base Fee) State surchazge calculate at $.50 for each $1,000 Base Fee TOTAL SITE ADDRESS: $ OWNER NAME: PHONE #: - (AREA CODE) TENANT NAME (IMPROVEMENTS ONLY): WAS TI-iERE A PREVIOUS TENANT IN THIS SPACE? Y N. NAME: INSTALLER: ?.^&;,. . " ' - ADDRESS: '-PH0NEk#:' ? y '(AREAtODE) _ , . .; CIT'Y: STATE: ZIP: SIGNATURE OF PERMITTEE "; :?;? MEMO _ cifiy of eagan TO: DIANE DOWNS, UTILITY BILLING CLERK FROM: ED KIRSCHT, SR. ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN DATE: AUGUST 23, 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 Block 8, Lots 1-5 5 Block 9, Lots 1-2 2 Biock 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 streetiighting in the above listed subdivision. ?d Edward J. irsc t Sr. Engineering Technician cc: Mike Foertsch EJK/je I6704 !o0 03 -T -??- . ? EAGEiN T014NSHIP 3795 Pilot Kuob P,oad St. Paul, Minnesota 55211 Telephone 454-5242 PERMIT FOR SEWER 5ERVICE CONNECTION DATE: NUMBER d OWNEF.??? Address a PLUMBER TYPE OF PIPE DESCRIPTION OF BUILUING Industrial Commerrial Residential Multiple Dwelling No. of units ? Locatfon of Connections: Connection Charge PermiC Fee SCreeC Repairs Tota 1 Inspected by: Date Remarks: By Chief Insgector In consideration of the issue and delivery to me of the above permit, I hereby agree to do the proposed work in accordance with the rules and regulations of Eagan Toc-inship, Dalcota CounCy, Minnesota By_.? Please notify when ready for inspection and connection and before any porCion of the wark is covered. MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS . FROM: t'ITY ADMIrTISTRA'POR HEDGFS DATE: MARCH 17, 1992 SUBJECT: ADMIrTISTRATIVE AGENDA FOR iVIARCH 179 1992 REGI.TLAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY ATTORNEY There are no items for an executive session at tbis time. However, the Mayor, City Council and City Attorney have reserved the right to call an executive session to address any matters of pending litigation if desired. CITY ADMIrTISTRATOR Jtem 1. Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs--Judge Mansur bas granted the Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs in the sum of $5,593. Please refer to a copy of the memo from the Ci Attomey's office entided 'Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs" enclosed on pages ?adthrough Q25- ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: 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 The City has received a Stipulation and Order resolving the Heller v. City of Eagan assessment appeal whicb 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= ttiroughQj,i is acopy of a memo from Annette Margarit entitled "Heller v. City of Eagan Assessment Appeal," a resolution adopring the settlement agreement and a copy of the Stipulation and Order. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deiry a resolution Lhat the Heller parcel be reassessed from its levied assessment of $49,277.80 to $44,000 which in essence approves a Stipulation for Settlement resolving the Heller assessment appeal. Item 3. Northview-Bvilding Fire Restoration Contract/Defanlt to Contractual Obligations-- As the City Council recalls, the Norihview Park Buildi.ng sustained considerable damage as a result of a lightening strike and fire during the summer of 1991. Beacon Builders Incorporated were awarded a bid in the amount of $$,883 to eorrect the damage and assured staff that the 60 day compleiion timeframe was adequate to finish ihe -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 Gity's operational needs for the building. For additional information on why staff is roquesting 120 ? MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: 1670q -/ae - 03 Tom Hedges, City Administrator- Annette M. Margarit March 4, 1992 Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs ` 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 conr:?erning 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 Village 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 t'JIL':e sum of $5,593.00 as ordered by Judge Mansur. If you have any questions or need any further information, please contact me. AMM/wkt cc: Tom Colbert UCF• f 00 (4*9) Wum d F14.p, lr+MY. 00ck.rinp rHOGTARD GROVES A7TY AT LAW 260 SKYLINE SQUARE BLDG 12940 HARRIET AVE S (BRNS MN 55337 r- ANNETTE M MARGAItIT ATTY AT LAW 600 MIDWAY NAT BANK BLDG 7300 W 147TH ST , LAPPLE VALLEY MN 55124 f SYATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF Dakota NOTICE OF: ? F1UN0 OF ORDEA %?1 ENTRY OF JUDGMEM' X3 DOCKETING OF JUDGMENT Court Flle No.: C5-91-7756 !N RE: IN RE' ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584 KNOWN AS RAHN ROAD RECONSTRIICTION ETC. 13 1'bu an hereby nodtlad that on 18 an Order wa3 duty nred tn u,e above entitied maner. ? You are hersby notiflad that on MARCH 2-1992 wna duty ontorod (n ihe above onlitled matior. Amended 19 ' a Judgment ? Ycw are heroby notlfled that on MARCH 2-1992 @ .19 a Judgment was duly docketad In the above enlitled matter In the amount ot a5593.00 AGAINST CITY OF EAGAN A true and correct copy o( thFs Notice has been served by mall upon the partlas named heretn al the last known address ot each, pursusnl lo Minneaota Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 77.04. Dated• MARCH 2ND 1992 ROCER W. SAHES ' Court AdmJnlstrator by ' Deputy , a..u ..as Fle ft daY or ?? 19 ROGEH W. SAMES, Court Aennntstrazat BY )"q-) uTY STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT In fte: 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: ' ODGMENT AND. AMUiDID J 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 ftoad 10-16702-170-07 Darrell/Pat Haines 3990 Rahn Road 10-16704-110-03 Robert/Antoinette Keeney 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 ftoad 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 Dakota County Judicial Center, Hastings, Minnesota. The Appellants were represented by Howard Groves, their attorney. The Respondent City was represented by Annette M. Margarit, its attorney. ---z ? ?- -_-o?.- ? s-- ot ry- ) 1 R06ER W. SAMES, Court Adnun:strztot •-- ?:? ,. rr 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 foll_ewino MPmnran(ium ic innnrrnrataA hcrPin hv reference. 3. There being no justifiable reason for delay, the Court Administrator shall enter Judgment forthwith. 2 DATED: 2-28=92 BY THE COURT: . AMENDID .TUDGMEIdT ? I hereby certify that the above Order modifies the ABTIN J MAN R Judgment ente:ed Jan .24-1992 and along with that ' .Judge Dis rict Court Judgment constitutes the Amended Judgment of the Court.' Date: March 2nd 1992 MEMORANDUM Roger W. Sames, Crt Admr By??J ?-Chief Deputy (Seal) Costs an is urse nts - At oral argument the issue was not the amount or the reasonableness since i:t is slightls more 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 disbursements. However, a full reading of Minn. Stat. 645., and more specifically, 645.26, Subd.,l, 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. • Whi.le 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 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. ANIIM/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 Appellantsj 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 setting aside the assessments against the above-described parcels n 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 : ? - 411 7 a"' f c? - 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•100 c.-Ml • ?+"m o+ fA+o, wy, o«"" r MR HOWARD J GROVES ATTY AT LAGT STE 260 SRYLINE SQ 12940 HARRIET AVE S ( BIIRNSVILLE MN 55337 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DARQTA NOTfCE OF: ? FtLlN(3 OF ORDER [?MS ANNETTE M MARGARIT ATTY AT LAW BZ EM'RY OF JUDGMENT 600 MIDiiAY NAT BANK BLDG : 7300 w 147TH ST ? DOCKETING OF JUDGMENT L PI.E VALLEY MN 55124 ` . Court Flle No.: C5-91-7756 ' ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584, KNOWN AS RAHN RD RECONSTRIICTION ETC. lN RE: NATHN R BENOY ETAL V CITY OF EAGAN ETC. \ LX ltw ar'e heraby notlfled that on JANUARy 24TH 1992 19an Order was duly filad ln tha above entltled matter. ? You are hereby notlfled that on' JANUARY 24TH 1992 , 19 e Judgment wea duly anterod in tha above ontltted matter. - ? You aro heroby notlflad that on . 1 S a Judgment waa duly docketed !n the above enllUed matter In the amount of $ A true and corroct copy of thte Notice has baen served by mail upon the part(as namad hereln at the laat known addresa of each, pursuant to Mlnnesota Rufes of Clvll Procadure, Rule 77.04. ?ated• JANUARY 24TH 1992 ROGIIL W SAMES Court Admintstrator by ? -,k- ?_ ' Deputy MACA 4,49 FlIQ uµ1Cf Of _MEM'.J ROGEA W. AS, Coun a sy `_ day _ 19 dminESUator ???? 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 Vernon/Janet Nelson Paul/Deb Notermann Brian/Carrie Olwein Mary Rock Ron/Lorri Trenary Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft Address 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. 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 The above-entitled motion for amended findings or in the alternative, a new trial came on for hearing on the Special Term calendar at 9:00 a.m. on January 21, 1992 at the Dakota County Judicial Center in Hastings, Minnesota before the undersigned judge of district court. Annette M. Margarit, Attorney-at-Law, appeared on behalf of the City. Howard Groves, Attorney-at-Law, appeared for Appellants. Based on the arguments, the memoranda, \ 1 File No. G5-91-7756 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. ORDER FOR JUDGMENT affidavits and the Fie thfs da1? ot l.. 19 ?. ? ROGEA W. SAMES. Court aamu,isvuar By Q n 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 ?ereby denied in their entirety. 2. The following Memorandum is hereby incorporated by -eference. 3. That the Court Administrator shall forthwith enter judgment accordingly. )ATED: January 23, 1991 BY TSE COURT: .? I TIN J. S udge of is ict Court MF?IORANDIIM 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 ? 2 to the Court. Appraisll ot the properties was of the greatest ` import to the Eacifinder. As articulated in this Mamorandum and in the December 18, 1991 Findingg, Order and Memorandum, in the tactfincleris view, the FaatG tend to support Appellants. The crux of Appellants' olalm is that the City unfairly assegged them for strset improvements. The stnndard for valid speoial-assessmants is: (1) the land must receive a spacial benafit from the a.mpr'ovement being a4nstructed; (2) the assessment musi: be uniform upon the same alass ef property, and (3) the assessinent may not exceed the special benefit. carlson_ Lancr k?a1ty Co. v. City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 369, 240 N.W.2d 5170 519 (Minn. 1976). Special benafit is measured by the inc:rease in the market value of the land owing td the improvement. id. In appraising the subject property, an appraiser determineg what 'a wi7.ling buyer would pay a willing seller for the property before, and than after, the improvement has been conatxucted. ?c. While the government entity is presumed to have set the assessment legally, an appellant may overcoine tha presumption by introduaing cpmpetent evidence that the assessment is greater than the inorease in market va3.ue o£ the property due to the impxovement. ,?. These are the crfteria whivh the Couxt applied to the Pacta pxesentad at trial. It should be noted that in its Memoxandum sunporting its motion for a naw trial or amended . findings, the City 'relies on Villac(Q . F.lina v. blostnh, 264 Miril1. 84, 199 N.W.2d 809 (1962). Yn that aass, tha residents whose praperty abutted the i,mproved 3 cCIO lUd1FI3'J-ldnuD loIJlsIQ 0o d10>it+Q 9ti :ST Z6iLZiTO length of France Avenue objected to special'?' assessments for , widening and paving of the street. Minnesota's Supreme Court stated the law in Village 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." VillaQe of Edina v. Joseph, 119 N.W.2d at 818. •\ Minnesota has also adopted a specific test, as cited in Carlson-Lang Realty Co., above, which this Court has chosen to apply. While the City asserts that Villaqe 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 1aw. ` 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 available 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 i 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, testif ied 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 tYie 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 tne improvemenz =rom d 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 File No. C5-91-7756 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction, adopted by the City of Eagan on FINDINGS OF FACT. June 18, 1991: CONCLi7SIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JIIDGMENT Name Address P.I.N. Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road 10-70775-020-01 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 Keeney 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. rats? 0l 193/, FtJuER W. SAttitE5. Caut Adnbti?s:rxtur City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, py ' fi?i•J i Y ------------------- Respondent. --------------- -------- --------------------- 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 FACT1. 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 Projeat as proposed by the city council included the widening, grading, base and bituminous resurfacing, curb and gutter and utility improvements on Rahn' 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 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 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 i 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 Roadand legally described as follows: Lot 17, plock 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 parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest ancl 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 Iegally 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 af $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 o€ 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 ot the assessment levied against said property was '$30.79 4 r ' 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 l, 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 pardel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is.. Por 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 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 Poot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcelJis 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 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 legally described as follows: Lot 21, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County Minnesota. . • Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage.on Rahn 22oad and the amount of the assessment Ievied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,3,09.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best i ise of said parcel 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. Enumerated herein is a summary of the City's value witnesses. Citv's Value • Witness's Opinion Amt of Name SQ.ft. /house As to Amt of Benefit Assmt. Benoy 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' 11236 21309.25 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 testif ied follows: Name Iiefore 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 7 as 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 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 N,o. 584 did not specifically benefit each of the Appellants' properties. • CONCLIISIONS OF T,AW 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 ref erence . . 3. Let judgment be entered accordingly after-a stay of 30 8 days. , DATED: 12-18-91 BY THE COIIRT: ?..-:. TIN SIIR Judge o Di trict Court I+IEMORriNDIIH 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 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 city's value witness considered the availability ot 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 _ • . < < , ; ? : r T • , 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. ? , 11 ; uv•ioo(4 -") . ? Nor?o? o? ( IN4 [n1ry; Detuho . ? ? rHOWARD 1 GROVES ATTY AT LAW STE 260 SRYLINE SQ 12940 HARRIET AVE S LBURxsvILLE MN 55337 ' rANNETTE M MARGARIT ATTY AT LAW 600 I+IIDWAY NATL BANR BLDG 7300 W 147TH ST LPPLF. VALLEY MN 55124 /o.?G?o?- ieo •03 8TA7E OF MiNNESOTA C O U NTY O F DAKOTA NO71CE OF; ? FILING OF ORDER O EPtTRY OF JUDGMENT O DOCKETINC3 OF JUDC3MENT Court FlI• No.: C5-91-7756 0 IN RE: NATHAN R. BENOY ET AL VS. CITY OF EAGAN ETC. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLIISIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JIIDGMENT ? Yc,u ere heroby noUtlod thot on nFrF3xFx tRTu - 19 91 .. sn Order " was duly fiied ln the above enUtled matior. ? Ybu ere horoby notlMed lhnl on , 19_____ e Jud9ment wn.e du(y enierod In the,a.bove enllltad matter. ? You nre heroby noUned lhei on - - 19_._, s Judpmsnt w&e duly dxkeled in the ebove enlltled meNer In the amounl ol S .? .? A Irve nnd correcl copy o( thlt Nolloe hne been eerved by mati upon the partlee nsmsd hsretn a1 the ? lest known eddri"s of oach, pureunnt to Minneeote? Rulee ol Clvll Procedure, Rule 77.04. Oaled* DECENNIBER 18TH 1991 /8 rll ?; • roWR w. saMEs. oarc a~90r eY cFJiY ROGER W. SAM:S Court Adminislrator by ? ?-M-1 - Deputy "Gt arM t +3 « ? ?? -)# 64C vb!: ,. q, > STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL flISTRICT ----------------------------------------------------------------- In Re: Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction, adopted by the City of Eaqan on June 18, 1991: Name Address Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road Gregory/Cindy Cox 4369 IZahn 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 MarkjKathy Weidenhoft 4345 Rahn Road File No. C5-91-7756 FTNDINGS OF FACT. ?'ONCLIISIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JITDGMENT .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. ? 19'9(. RfluER iY. SAMES. Court Adminls;rata City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, By ? Respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Margari",,-.,_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 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, curb and gutter and utility improvements on Rahn 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 front foot for a total of $2,617.15, and the highest and best : use of said parc.el 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 frontaga 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 follows: Lot 17, Block 7, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. ; Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontaqe 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 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 3 '. a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot il, 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 of 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 groperty 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. il. That Appellant Mary Rock is the owner of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and leqally 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 pr.operty 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 itse of said parcel is 6 I 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. Name Benoy Cox Gillespie Goche Haines Keeney Nelson Notermann olwein Rock Trenary Weidenhaft 14. follows: Name Benoy Cox Gillespie Goche Haines Keeney Nelson Noterimann Olwein Rock Trenary Weidenhaft Enumerated herein is a summary of City's Value Witness's Opinion Sq_ ft. j house As to Amt of Benefit 1,176 $ 2,500.00 1,120 2,309.25 912 2,309.25 990 2,500.00 864 2,500.00 2,184 2,500.00 1,066 2,500.00 1,112 2,500.00 1,008 2,309.25 1,236 2,309.25 912 2,500.00/3,000.00 1,232 2,309.25 Amt of Assmt. $ 2,617.15 2,309.25 2,309.25 4,178.20 3,694.80 3,048.75 3,694.80 2,801.58 2,309.25 2,309.25 6,010.52 2,309.25 That -the Appellant's value witne.ss testified as Before 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 ter 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. 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. 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 accordinqly after a stay of 30 8 days. DATED: 12-18-91 BY THE COIIRT: - , Z. TIN ' SIIR Judge o Di trict Court ?El+IORANDDl? 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 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 consiaerea 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 testi.fied 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 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. ? 11 . , STATE OF MINNESOTA •?? ? ? lece???.cl ??c ?? i 1 DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA ? FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ? CASE TYPE: 10 OTHER CIVIL ;*?rSPECIAL ) ? ASSESSMENT APPEAL --------------=--------------- -ao ---?------------------------- In Re: 010'\%Court File No. Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction adopted by the City of Eagan Q OTICE OF APPEAL on June 18, 1991 TO: 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 th:is appeal with regard to each of the properties listed is as follows: 1. There is no special benefit to the property as a result of r 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 2 Dated this 1? ? day of July, 199-1. Howar J. Grove Attorney for Pr4erty Owners on Rahn Road 260 Skyline Square 8uilding 12940 Harriet Avenue South Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 (612) 890-2477 Atty. I.D. No.: 38313 3 EXHIBI:': A Page 6/EAGAN CTTY COUNCIL MD?[TT'ES June 28, 1991 PRO]ECC?384fF11VAL?ASSE§SIN£NT HEARING RAHN XOAD RtCONSTRUC770N After introdudioa by Mayor Egas aad City Administrator Hedges, Director ot Public Works Tom Colbert provided a brief overview of the ass<«<*+ents and the neighborhood meet.ing bcld on )une 11,1991. He aaid scventy properties with direct access onto Rahn Raad ruxived noticxs of assessment on this projed. Mayor Egan thcn opened the public 6earing to public eomment. Mr. Charles MacDonald, of 4145 Rahn Road, said 6e bad filed written objectioq:W:tbe asstssments against his property. Mr. MacDonald said the value of his home had actually dropped because::ot the upgriAe of Rahn Road and the resultant heavy trafiic. He said evidence of that is the Dakota County AssesSOr'a ttfart lowering the value ot bis 6ome by a S percent due to Rahn Road. • • . • . Mayor Egan asked Mr. Bill PetEtstia??p?thc:??ou?iry?As?C'ssor'a officc to explain the S percent deduccion Gom propert}• taxes because s number of Lomeowners had referenced it in eonnection wit6 the Rahn Road improvements. Mr. Petersoa said a misuaderstanding exdsts among the bomeowers as to the meaniag of the S percent modifier. He said the moditier bas been used since 1983 and was used for propcrty along Rahn Road. It wu done, however, for 1990 valuations and, therefore, preceeded reconswction of Rahn Road. The Dakota County A.ssessor's office u.ses mass appraisal and deaLs witb avCragea and norms. He said they use a standard site value and then look at each property and add or subtr. ct;frtim tbis standard value considering a number of factors, including being located on a major.sireet:?::??c s?3d ihe County Assessor's office ttses modificrs quite irequentl}' and is aot implying Lhat the itlapfciycmctits on :ltahn Road had any impad on their valuations. Mr. Mark Weidenhah, oi4345 Ra?:ktiad, asid..widening and improving Rahn Road had eompounded the negative effect of the road on their property. l3? fd?ed 1fiat,.the State Attorney General bas ruled tbat ro be assessed for improvements, the City has to prove beneCt io:tbe property. He said his property eould aot be aortb more witb more Uaftic. Mr. Darrell Haines, of 3990 Rahn Road, complained about the poliry used for essessments, the toss of 6ome value and said additional properties on Bluestone, Caroelian, Jade, Flint, etc. abould ahare in the costs. Ms. Laurie Luconic, of 4137 RahA:R64*?.4id shcUd, t3aiie an informal survey of otbcr aties and iound that many do aot sssesc by [ront [ootage:;0edlso?ooct?pl??tined:6eca use the 1ac]c of double airiping on the road has kd motorists to belicve that passing permissabF?: Mr. Gerard Bents, representin&buat Cs?vi,'ty Lutberan C6urch, objected to the assessmeat against the entire cburcb property at the public:t?iilts':ratt:::;HiE;:pddAted out that this rate was the same ts t6at oi eommercial propcrty. He said they have?maaelbrieliu'rcb?availalile to organi:adons tor meetings fret of cbarge and have, as a result, generated additional traHic. He pointed out, 6oaever, that approxdmately 190 feet ot the frontage on Rahn Road belongs to the parsoaage and telt it sboWd be assessed at a single-family rate. Mr. Bents wiched to note that the f44,000 assessment constitutes iS perant of the c6urcb's annual budget. Diredor of Public Works Coibert said the entire pircxl haS .qme.ico..d?xiptioe and it ?vas assessed at one rate based on the zoning. Mr. Colbert said tbat the Conpc3l'; ?a4;Ce asses.cments on a different eau at the last City Council moeting aad had determined that a?s'saiients aboiil$:tit;based on zoning. IuU. Benta asted tbat the City Council make an ex:oeptioo. ..... ... Councilmember Pawlenty tbea ?`4ugused the eituation'Merred to by Mr. CoTbert. ln that instance, if the Ciry Council had assesud at a higber;ittt'-pbpetf6ave had'assessment -bac]ced expedadons' tor a higher and better tue of the propeity;:::Ia&te is a bigher zoning and the property owner is asking for a.ssessments based oe a tower uu. D'uecior o[ Public Worhs Colbert noted that if the property Page 7/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINIJTFS June 28, 1991 is assessed at a lower rate aad is ullimattiy'put to a higher use, the City would oot have the.opportunity, once the atsessments arc levied, to reassess at?a:: Mr. Terry Stover, o[ 3906 Rabn,.:Road, objecled to the assesaments kvied against Oudot A o[ the Woodhaven Addition. He said that ontlo't;:does not bave asusa onto Raha Road and, furl6er, the development plan tor the property iadicates that accessmust be oB Beau de Rue Driva Mi. Stover said any posvbility of access onto Rahn Raad was a virtua( impossibiiiry due to thc-new elevation of the road. He referred to the [act that several properties along Rahn Road were not assessed because they had no driveaay assess onto Rahn Road and said he believed Outlot A was the only one witbout access being asussed. He said his property bas alrcady been assessed for improvements to Beau:de Rue. • Mr. Stover then pointed out his'parceTs loss?of value because oI a permanent storm sewer easement granted to the City. While be had rutivo4 ;38,000 iiv;tbe easement, he said an appraiser had estimated the loss to his property at between $17,000 and 518,000. Ms. l.ettie Knutson, of 2(?14 Shak??; saia:sbta:?gaiage wit6 access oB Rahn Road but her home has ils driveway access on S6ale Lane. Ms: K6utson- pviDfed otit that two years ago ber 6ome was appraised at $98,000 and now the County tax assossor had iadicated the value as $91,000. Sbe ssked why her property values bad gone dowa. Mr. Paul Notterman, of 4374 Rahn Road, said it only took common sense to realiu that values had gone dowv with the widening and repairiag of Rahn Road. . Mayor Egan then asked CityAtto;S#ieldos?to explain the process for objecting to assessments. Mayor Egan said the City Council had ito.cboice"6ut to make this road improvement as Rahn Road in its previous conditioa was ao longer funclioa3l: 0:*04.it:.i,sne of the fust teconsvudion projeds in the City and tbe Ciry Council has Uied to adopt a cost [ormiila tliai;tli?y..qbeUeve equitable to all those concerned. McCrea moved, Wachter seeonded a moGon to close the public bearing, approve the 5na1 assessment roll for Project 584 (Rahn Road Reconstroction) and authoriu eertification to Dakota County. , Counc'?lmember Gustafson asked, in regard to assessments based on parcels rather than [ront footage, if Mount Calvary Lutheran Church oould 6ve:i6e..issue of,san,gte family and public faciliGes [rontage resolved by the City or whether the court would have*:to:riii&C:ibat:aCttt.ttimation. Diroctor ot Public Works Colbert said iit6od used to urive at the asscssmcnts, however, suc6 an assessment hearing judge would noi ?valuate the.??'t method would be the prerogative of the City Council:'atute does tequire that the City trest all like properties m a similaz manner and there oould be a:"enge frc?w the Baptist C'hurch if the City Council assessea Mount Calvary Lutheran Churcb at a lesser ratC:?:? ?.. Recogniring that tbere aas a motionanda aecond'before the City Couadt, Mayor F.gan asked City Attorney Sheldon w6ct6er the City Couaci! could incorporate some disceGonary policy in tegard to the Mount Calvary Lutheran C6urc6 property. Mr. Sheldon said the City Council coWd oomplete the motion and send it oe in the process and then remove Mount Calvary Lutberan C6ureb from the process at a Iater date or they could request that stafl make s review of that.p.a TC1puW:iltRadon and return witb tbe'u 6ndings at the neid City Council meeting. , 76e motion before the Couna'I wiil.hen teviud to ra?; McGYea moved,_ Wachter seoonded a motion to dose the public hearing, approve the rpat;assessmeat roU [orPbjed 584 (Rahn Road Ruonstrud;on) notiag all written objections, authoriu its arlif'it?f6n to Dakota.Cotttif?;.aitb speaa) iastructioac to ataff to review the situation involving the Mount Catvary L?if?fjiii;?b?:?tty wilh particular attenlioa beiag paid to any precedent-sett.ing aciion. .... ............ ......:. 04-Jun-91 ASSESSMENT COST BREAIm0WN PROJ NAME RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJ NUM P584 SA NAME ST584 F RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION SA NAME ST584 . sa# 2183 YEARS 15 SF 30.790 /FF INT RATE .085 MF 75.160 /FP MOS 1ST YR 1NT 18 CI 75.160 /FF TEAR 1991 WC 15.400 /Pf ASSESSMENT REC PROPERTY GROSS NET UNITS PRO-RATA RATE AMWNT NMBR IDENT# 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 10-01900-010-70CI 150 0 150 1 150 1 75.160 11274.00 5 10-84700-020-01SF 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61 ? 10-84700-030-01SF 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 10-84700-050-01SF 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61 4 10-84700-060-01SF 61.4 0 61.4 1 61.4 1 30.790 1890.51 10 10-84700-070-01SF 112.76 0 112.76 1 112.76 1 30.790 3471.88 11 10-84700-010-OOMP 299.7 0 299.T 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 10-16700-060-09WC 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 35T7.18 19 10-11700-010-02MP 155 0 155 1, 155 1 75.160 11649.80 20 10-22470-010-01MF 388.87 0 388.87 1 388.87 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.T90 2801.58 23 10-70T75-010-01SF 125 0 125 1 125 1 30.790 3848.75 24 10-70775-020-01SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.T90 2617.15 25 10-16701-300-01SF 115.7 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.790 3562.40 26 10-16701-310-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 27 10-16701-320-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 28 10-76701-330-01SP 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 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 30.790 2309.25 31 10-16701-360-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 IV O'!'er 'n 4 n ILee.n e.y 8e.ney 04-Jun-91 RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION SA NAME 5T584 SA# 2183 YEARS 15 INT RATE .085 MOS 1ST YR INT 18 TEAR 1991 REC PROPERTY 6R05S NMBR IDENTtt CL UNITS 32 10-16701-370-01SF 75 33 10-16701-380-01SF 75 34 10-16701-390-01SF 75 35 10-16701-400-01Sf 75 36 10-16701-410-01SF 75 17 10-16701-420-01SF 75 .,8 10-16701-430-01SF 75 39 10-16701-440-01SF 75 40 10-16701-450-01SP 75 41 10-16701-460-01SF 95.73 42 10-16701-470-01SF 90 43 10-16703-180-01SF 75 44 10-16703-190-01Sf 75 45 10-16703-200-01SF 75 46 10-16703-210-01SF 75 47 10-16703-220-O7SF 75 48 10-16703-230-01SF 75 49 10-16703-240-01SF 75 50 10-16703-250-01SF 75 51 10-16703-260-O1SF 90 52 10-16703-010-02WC 121.96 53 10-16702-080-03SF 195.21 54 10-16702-110-04SF 115.7 55 10-16702-120-04SP 115.7 56 10616702-170-O7Sf 135.7 57 10-02000-010-28MF 589.43 58 10-02000-010-29MF 175.52 59 10-16704-100-03SF 120 60 10-16704-110-03SF 120 61 10-02000-011-52MF 262.01 62 10-16704-090-04SF 95 ASSESSMENT COST BREAKDOWN PROJ NAME RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJ NUM P584 SA NAME ST584 F SF 30.790 /FF MF 75.160 /FF • CI 75.160 /ff WC 15.400 /Ff ASSESSMENT NET UNITS PRO-RATA RATE AMWNT CREDITS SUBTOTAL FA ASSIBLE SHARE 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.z5 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 T5 1 30.790 2309.25 0 95.73 1 95.73 1 30.790 2947.53 0 90 1 90 1 30.T90 2771.10 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 R D?? ?i- 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 Gi'k-5P' "-' 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 7309.25 D Lw; n 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2304.25 Co x 0 90 1 90 1 30.T90 2771.10 0 121.96 1 121.96 1 15.400 1878.18 0 195.21 1 195.21 1 30.790 6010.52 ?r2 n:i ?1/ 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.790 3562.40 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.T90 3562.40 0 135.7 1 135.7 1 30.790 4178.20 G fl?h ?- 0 589.43 1 589.43 1 75.160 44301.56 0 175.52 1 175.52 1 75.160 13192.08 0 120 1 120 1 30.790 3694.80 Nelsa''? 0 120 1 120 1 30.790 3694.80 0 262.01 1 262.01 7 75.160 19692.67 0 95 1 95 1 30.790 2925.05 ? - RECEiV,_0 _ ..,.f ; ,.. -J f _ MEMORANDIIM TO: Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works FROM: Annette M. Margarit DATE: November 4, 1991 RE: Rahn Road Assessment Appeal 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. ANIlM/wkt . ? • • • ' ' ' . ? . . . ' Ufl•?pC(t?1) .. ?+?a .r r Ma. c?rr, cecL Me : ' POWARD J. GROVES . . . ' , , . ATTORNEY AT LAW ' . SUITE 260-SKYLINE squARE . 8TA7F. OF MINNESOTA • 12940 HARRIET AVENUE SOUTH _ COUMY OF DAKOTA L BURNSVILLE MN 55337 . , ' . NO71CF. OFI . . . ' ' X'FIUNQ OF ORDER • [?ANNETTE M. MARGARIT - ATTORNEY AT LAW OF_h47RY OF JUDOMEKT . 600 MIDWAY NATIONAL BANK BLDG . 7300 WEST. 147Tx ST ? DOCKETIN(3 OF JUDQMENT ?PLE VALLEY MN 55124 Cou?-t Fll• No.t ' CS 91 7756 ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584 KNOWN. AS RAHN-ROAD RECONSTRUCTION ECT. ; ? 1bu nra heroby noUflod l}ial on OCTOBER 29 18„ 91 en Order wna duly flled In llio nbovo onltllod matlor. . . . ? ? Ybu aro horaby nollned lhnl on s.IudQmcnt we.a duly onlerod In.lho,nbove onllqod mntlor; ? You ero horoby nolltled thnl on . . 10 s Judpment . ws.e duly dxkelod In 1he_cbove enlitlad mallerln thrA amount ol $ A lrue nnd corrocl copy o( Itils Nolloe hae boon eervod bymall upon lhe pRrllet nsmed heteln al the. lest known nddro"3 ot oaoti, purouanl lo Minnooola Ruloo of Civli Procoduro, Rulo 77.04. Dn46d, OCTOBER 29, 1991 _ . ROGER W. SAHE:S . • Court Adminlalralor • WY . Dep tY • y day Fli e thls oi ts P? ROGER W. CouR Ad ator BY n ?+?wt Nt ?? ?? . F?e this ` 7 day ? - 19o/ ' ROGtii W. SI:NSES, CouR Adrtunisuatat STATE OF MINNESOTA ey pEp DISTRIGT 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 .. ftDE 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 :EOURT**,,. ARTIN . UR Judge f D strict Court 1 S 0. MEMORANDUM Fie tliis ' day ROGER W. SAMES, Coun Adrtunistrator ey OEPUTY 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, tihe increased traffic to the business entities xeferred 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 . . TO: FROM: DATE: MEMORANDIIM Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works Annette M. Margarit 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 iocation 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 reiterated 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. AMM/wkt City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Rd Eagan, MN 55122 (651) 675 -5675 www.ci.eagan.mn.us Site Address: 3996 Rahn Rd Lot: 10 Block: 3 Addition: Cedar Grove 5th PID:10- 16704 - 100 -03 Use: Description: Sub Type: e- Reroof & Siding Work Type: Reroof & Siding Description: Census Code: 434 - Occupancy: Zoning: Square Feet: 0 Comments: Fee Summary: Valuation: 6,000.00 Contractor: Restoration Resources 6850 Shingle Creek Parkway, #C -175 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 (763) 561 -2698 Reroof: If there is no ice protection inspection prior to final, you must meet inspector with ladder and flat bar. Siding: When installing ventilated soffit material, remove existing material (ie: debris that could block vents) and take steps to ensure maximum ventilation to attic. Call for final inspection after installation. Paul Hunder BL - Base Fee $6K Surcharge - Based on Valuation $6K Total: I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the informa of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances. on is correct and agree to comply h all applicable State Applicant/Permitee: Signature PERMIT City of Eaan - Applicant - Construction Type: $132.75 $3.00 $135.75 Owner: Yia Her 3996 Rahn Rd Eagan MN 55122 Permit Type: Permit Number: Date Issued: Permit Category: 0801 9001 Issued By: Signature Building EA087113 10/27/2008 ePermit *° City of Eaan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan MN 55122 Phone: (651) 675-5675 Fax: (651) 675-5694 Date: a/77 Use BLUE or BLACK Ink For Office Use Permit #: Permit Fee: al (of Date Received: 0 Cil 13 Staff: c3 2.013 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION A.?/I. /3 Site Address: Unit #: Name: DAc) Yer Address / City / Zip: s9 %,' /Zd Applicant is: Owner Contractor Phone: Description of work: I? e- Op / Fe_ S ; )12— Construction Cost:y Multi -Family Building: (Yes / No Company: 5°- t C-4 CrAei6 reei.. 610154"g ct: Address: l2,0 (eelP i ' - 6'e. tVe— State: "f Zip: -/yd Phone: City: Auk ec‘4.. /�e4) his 657- 2c 3 «v 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: CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. Call Gopher State One CaII at (651) 454-0002 for protection against underground utility damage. Call 48 hours before you intend to dig to receive locates of underground utilities. www.gopherstateonecall.orq I hereby acknowledge that this information is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City of Eagan; that I understand this is not a permit, but only an application for a permit, and work is not to start without a permit; that the work will be in accordance with the approved plan in the case of work which requires a review and approval of plans. / Exterior work authorized by a building permit issued in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Co.� ust be completed within 180 days of permit issuance. /� it)t /4 �.1•v A .7Tir Applicant's Printed Name icant's Si Page 1 of 3