The URL can be used to link to this page

4065 Rahn Rd4*6 City of Eaall 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan MN 55122 Phone: (651) 675-5675 Fax: (651) 675-5694 r Use BLUE or BLACK Ink Date Received: Staff: 2010 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Date: (c ' 1 10 ' Site Address: Tenant: : (1 e„. Lj c' L.5 1 (LA n Ted e(.t tf ') Suite #: RESIDENT / OWNER Name: 7 v1 e n t 0) sol l Phone: 65-1 it -151-15 Address / City / Zip: C) ik 7 /Rah n e_d Applicant is: l/ Owner Contractor TYPE OF WORK Description of work: •�� i Y . [ 1 Std (i l ) (((9 �l i /t - Construction Cost: J `J Multi -Family Building: (Yes / No 1.----1- CONTRACTOR Name: License #: Address: City: State: Lip: `�/ Phone: Contact: Email: COMPLETE In the last 12 months, has No If yes, THIS AREA the City of Eagan issued date and address of master ONLY IF CONSTRUCTING A NEW BUILDING a permit for a similar plan based on a master plan? plan; _Yes Licensed Plumber: Phone: Mechanical Contractor: Phone: Sewer & Water Contractor: Phone: NOTE: Plans and supporting documents that you submit are considered to be public informafion Portions of the information may be classified as non-public if you provide specific reasons that would perfnit 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.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 appr . plans. x iI "it(/t (s Applicant's Printed Name App i ant's Signature Page 1 of 2 CITY OF EAGAN Remarks Cedar Grove Acquisition Addition Cedar Grove #3 Lot 17 Blk 7 Parcel 10 16702 170 07 Owner DIll rl ? ?.065 Rahn R.d• State Eagan,NI?t 55122 LtYE?? C?J Ci? t ` Street Improvement Date Amount Annual Years Payment Receipt Date STREET SURF. 1 350-00 35-00 10 Paid STREET RESTOR. GRADING SAN SEW TRUNK * SEWER LATERAL 1 1972 130.00 2.1 25 ht? CG?O,?G?Z/ WATERMAIN # WATER LATERAL 1972 WATER AREA STORM SEW TRK STORM SEW LAT CURB & GUTTER SIDEWALK STREET LIGHT WATER CONN. BUILDING PER. SAC PARK CITY OF EAGAN 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122-189 (612) 681-4675 , ? SITE ADDRESS: ? , ;; ? , . , ? ra r.: ?, , ? ??,,; :,; ??.;? ? ? 1N?Y?C;"1'lUN K?(:UK1? PERMIT TYPE: Permit Number: ? Date Issued: ? r f: t. ??r ?: ? APPUCANT: ,, ;? ? ,.. ? z ??? t ? . . , <s h? ? ?:s . ? r?u?? 4,i??, ?.??, ? r,? ??r?ld.?3;??a PERMIT SUBTYPE: TYPE OF WORK: is? ?>?? r= ,;: ,, , , : , ; .,?? kr???n?= f ? ', a' ! ` ? a ????????? -? ? ? ?..ng'?-?..`?,"?? K? ; a,,,, , ?'??: ?. ,'?,. ? : .a, ?, y s :::?... .; ? ...::? ? ??. L.? . . . .. . . . J f?i ?ff??SP'`•• f+11<t'liei f1Ut fil `;Tf1f?M f1(?#+?Ik?i( ' ;'? ';?.?„'3?? Permit Holder Date Telephone # PLUMBING HVAC Inspection Date Insp. Comments FOOTINGS FOUND FRAMING ROOFING 6 ? ROUGH PLUMBING PLBG AIR TEST ROUGH HEATING GAS SVC TEST INSUL GYPBOARD FIREPLACE FIREPLACE AR TEST FINAL PLBG FINAL HTG ORSAT TEST BLDG FINAL DOMESTIC METER IRRIGATION METER FLUSH MAINS CONDUCTIVITY TEST HYDROSTATIC TEST BSMT R.I. BSMT FINAL DECK FTG DECK FINAL Receipt MECHANICAL PERMIT Permit No. CITY OF EAGAN Fee Fi/l in numbered spaces S/C Type or Print /egib/y Tot. 1. Date 2. Installation Cost 3. Job Address Lot Blk. ` Tract 4. Owner 5. Contractor Phone 6. Address 7. CitY - 1 /1 ,1.. State 8. Building Type: Residential 0 9. Work Description: New ? Zip _ Commercial ? Institutional ? Add ? Alter 0 Repair O 10. Describe Fuel Type I 11. No, Eauioment 8TU - M. Ea. Forced Air El E-C-1?'?C- No. Equipment CFM A H Mfg. -T S$05 Cl ir andling: Boilers ' Mfg. Mech. Exhaust Unit Heater Mfg. Other Air Cond. Mfg. Gas, Piping Outlets 12. I hereby certify that the above information is true and correct, and I agree to comply with all ordinances and codes governing this type of work. Signed : O-OVO, --e I & 'or Rough Final Inspections: Date Insp. Date Insp. This is your permit when numbered and approved. Approved CITY OF EAGAN 454-8100 X,` ? ? o ? Gii , REIULST FOR ELECTRICAL INSPECTION EB-00001-03 °T 8805?? See instructions for completing this form on back of yellow copy. t`"X" Bekbw.Work Covered by This Request Otko (0 3 New Add Rep. Type of Building Appliances Wired Equipment Wired Home Range Temporary Service Dupiex Water Heater Lighting Fixtures Apt. Builcling Dryer Electric Heatin Commercial Bldg. Furnace Silo Unioader Industrial Bldg. Air Conditioner Bulk Milk Tanl< Farm Other SpecifV Other (Suecify) Other(SpecifY Other Other Compute Mspeciion Fee Below # Fee ServiceEntraneeSize ti Fee Feeders/Subfeeders # Fee Circuits 0 tol00Am s 0 to30Am s* 0 to30Am s 101 to 200 Amps 31 to 100 Amps 31 to 100 Am s Above 200 Amps Above 100_Amps Above 100_Amps Transformers Remote Gontrol Circ. Partial/Other Fee Signs Specialinspection l ? ??j'?) T Remarks 11 , . ., C)?.A s a??„ . ?-(_J ff ? ?? Ii • ?'? /.? Rough-in Date 1, the Electrical . Inspector, hereby ti# th t th -Final cer y a e above inspection has been - ? made. This request void 18 nionths from This request void 18 months from T 88054 L I`7 i 37f C??Sc?r' fo ro ?? 4 .sa(Q (p ? 16 - no Request Date ? Fire No. Rouh-in Inspection Reyquired? Ready Now Q Wiil Notify Inspec- tor Wh R ?Yes No en eady Licensed Electrical Contractor ? Owner I hereby request inspectfon of above electrical work installed at: Street ddress, gRio te No. S City ection o. Township Name or No. Range No. County 67 Ocn(. PRI NT) ? Ph N ?P_63 Po er Supplier Address EI tri I Contra tor.( Co y N el? Conira or's Lice No. Maili g ddress (Contract4or o?Own king nstai ation) Z«. ?C Authorized Signa ir ( ntj ror/Ow„ g1Ant q I lation) 1r6, Phonjf Num=er . ? ?- MINNESOTA STATE BOARD OF ELECTRICITY • THI INSPECT.ION REQUEST WILL NOT Griggs-Midway Bldg.- Room N-191 BE ACCEPTED BY THE STATE BOARD 1821 University Ave:, St. Paul, MN 55104 UNLESS PROPER INSPECTION FEE IS Ph- 16121 297_2171 ENCLOSED. EAGAN TOWNSHIP BUILDING PERMIT Owne: ._T._...........-e•-.---•••-••--•............•-••...----••••--•--••-.._..---•-- Address (Preseni) ...... 2,0'4 "' ? . .............•--•••--...._...__........__.. Builder ..............................•••-•-•-•-•........_........_....._. Address ............................................................•-•......•-•-•-••---•......-••---• DE3CRIPTION 11T° 2421 Eagan Township Town Hall Da:e ..?1. .r.? ./.>? .......................... 5tories To Be Used For Fron! Depth Height Est. Cos! ' Permit Fee Remarks LOCATION Street, Road or ofher DescripYion oi Location I Lo! I Block I Addilion or Traa! This permii does aoi suthorise the use of streets, roads, alleys or sidewalks nor does it give the owner or his agent the right io create any situation which is a nuisance or which presents a hazard to !he health, safety, convenience and general welfare to anyone in !he communiiy. THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISE WHILE THE WORK IS IN PROGRE S. This is to certify, tha!_...+.._??::?-??-__._..•---_•..has permission to erect a........ ... _.-•--••-. upoa -• ------------------- .. !he above described premise subject to !he pravisions of !he Building Ordinance for agan Tow.nship adopted April 11, 1955. . 1 .................... .. ?...._..?_._.._---..._..: ................... per ?,- __?an ?? ? ................................... . ................................... Chai of Tnwn Board Building Inspector: ......... EAGAN TOWN S H 1 P N° i 105 BUILDING PERMIT Owner _..••-rt........ ??:-----•-•?rt! :--•.....----- Eagan Township Address (preseni) _. 4S!7._. ?.... Town Hall Builder ............................ .......................•-•...........-•-.-•--•--................... _._. Da2e ..... ?//..7./.?q-?•-•••--•••....... Address ? .............. ........ .•-----...----•- .........._.._..._....._...----..._..-••---•-..._DESCRIPTION S2ories - -- To Be Used For I - Fron! ---?----- Depih --'---- Height --'-- Esi. Cas! _- Permit Fee . Remarks , r ? ?? 9 ?_.? ? - `'/ `T --- - - . LOCATION ? Streei, Road or other Descri f' • tion Lot Block Addiiion or Trac! s ,) /7 - /u 7 °- X, . y - C?.t..E?-?-?.?.•-?-`.t zr 3 This permii does not authorize the use of streets, roads, alleys or sidewalks nor does ii give the owner or his agen2 the right !o creale any situation which is a nuisance or which presents a hazard fo the heal2h, safety, convenience and general welfare to anyone in the communiiy. THIS PERMIT MUST BEA KEPT ON THE PREMISE WHILE THE WORK IS IN PROGRESS. ., - This is 2o certify, Yhai...ti---------------- haspermission to erect a..... 7._?.._..._.._j.?. -?C-''.?' upon the above described premise subject to the provisions of the Building Ordinance for Eagan 'Pdwnship adopf?d April 11, 1955. ............................................... .._....- -. ---.-•- . •.-- . `...............:i.,` ----- --•...---•----•-•----- ••-• ?"?-t?t-?. ' - ----•--• Per ......................... --..... - --------------------------------- ._?...._._.------ ••-----....--?-?- Chair?nan of Tnwn Board Building Inspeclor ? . ?. FERMIT CI?.?Y OF EAGAN ? 3830Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122-1897 (612) 681-4675 PERMIT TYPE: ? ? ILDIN G Permit Number: 032750 Date Issued: 08/ 03/ 9$ SITE ADDRESS: 4065 RANN RD LOT: 17 BLCICK: 7 CEpAR GROVE #3 P.T.N.: 10-16702-170--07 DESCRIPTION: rarronnrz STQRM DAMAGE REPAIR 434 ALT. f2ESICIENTIAL 311 ?..? t, , REMARKS: RERdpF DUE TO STqRM pAMAGE. FEE SUMMARY: CONTRACTOR: APPLICANT/PERMITEE SIGNATURE OWNER: - Applicant - WALLIN CARL. 4065 RAHN Rt7 EAGAN MN 55122 (651)687--0102 SUED BY: SIGNA URE . 1998 BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION (RESIDENTIAL) ` CITY OF EAGAN 3830 PII.OT KNOB RD - 55122 ?. 681-4675 <g' , " `J - c't New Construction Reauirements RemodeUReoair Reauirements ? 3 registered site surveys , ? 2 copies of plans (include beam 8 window sizes; poured fid. design; etc.) ? 1 energy calculations ? 3 copies of tree preservation plan if lot platted after 7/1/93 red: _ Yes _ No DATE: req ' :2-30 DES RIPTION OF WORK: reP ?ce rco? City ? 'ql1 State: M/V Zip: 31;w . a . ? STREET ADDRESS: LOT: BLOCK: ? SUBD./P.I.D. #: G YU V-? Name: ??C_4 f II {? Ear I Phone #: PROPERTY Last ? First OWNER L???S ??Zhh /L? Street Address: V/_ ? ? 7`o /,,/), >?- CONTRACTOR ARCHIT'ECT/ ENGINEER Company: Se/? Phone #: Street Address: City Company: • 2 copies of plan ? 2 site surveys (exterior additions & decks) ? 1 energy calculations for heated additions CONSTRUCTION COST; ue License # State: Zip: Phone #: Name: Registration #: Street Address: City State: Zip: Sewer & water licensed plumber (new construction only): . Penalty applies when address chang and lot change is requested once permit is issued. I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the infortnation is coRect and agree to comply with all applicabl State of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances. / j /') , I /?/-) Signature of Applicant: OFFICE USE ONLY Certificates of Survey Received Yes No Tree Preservation Plan Received Yes No OFFICE USE ONLY BUILDING PERMIT TYPE ? 01 Foundation ? 06 Duplex ? 02 SF Dwelling ? 07 4-plex ? 03 SF Addition 0 08 8-plex ? 04 SF Porch ? 09 12-plex ? 05 SF Misc. ? 10 = plex WORK TYPE ? 31 New 0 33 AI#erations ? 32 Addition O 34 Repair GENERAL INFORMATION . . a 0 11 Apt./Lodging ? 16 Basement Finish ? 12 Multi Repair/Rem. ? 17 Swim Pool ? 13 Garage/Accessory ? 20 Public Facility ? 14 Fireplace ? 21 Miscellaneous ? 15 Deck O 36 Move ? 37 Demolition Const. (Actual) Basement sq. ft. MC/WS System (Allowable) Main level sq. ft. City Water UBC Occupancy sq. ft. Fire Sprinklered Zoning sq. ft. PRV # of Stories sq. ft. Booster Pump Length sq. ft. Census Code. Depth Footprint sq. ft. SAC Code Census Bldg Census Unit APPROVALS Planning Building Engineering Variance Permit Fee Valuation: $ Surcharge Plan Review License MCNVS SAC City SAC Water Conn. Water Meter Acct. Deposit S/VV Permit S/VV Surcharge Treatment PI. Park Ded. Trails Ded. Other Copies Total: % SAC ` SAC Units S 8li R /7a o 7 ? ?-t8`91 June 18, 1991 We are Dean & Karen Gi do not agree with the for the new road. We instead of increasing court. Dche. We 1 ive at 4;.06_5?, Rahn_ .Road in Eagan. We assessment the city has put on our property feel our property has decreased in value it. We are going to fight the assessment in Dean & Karen Goche .J? ? ` t ??? ?pCKl ?M 7?aC ':)- 6 ROVC N C? 3 l.. a ? 17 I ...?. ? ... ?08?"._.?. DRAWING sTEt?s AV a, 0 ,50?'' ?• ._..,.?,,,?„? . /N(o 4- e ? ? o.,4u c T Ed JC? ?'SG?T Fbr /4t4 /nSfec f ;oN BQ-FOre. r r0 Uiz I g G NplU ?vie?6. t? lc?Roa ? ;6 dS4 8(o a ? , ? " ? -1? ,IE'/t#Ks I / 4,}C t,,,?.? ,? , , ?" •p?zltiE ?Q C 77 >,.. jec,"Lj gnd /4ce` GuR'3 NEE t'?S?v i}? a?iZAMOV r 1Z. C3Qk-D -n t,r y'uw,' r;' D , 71s J 5 t?+? t?r .(xJC32K;C c'1. ? ? ???[? l/ ' B 1 0 Y Date G?zz, P 8? EAGANENG.YNEER3NG DEP?a . ,. PLEASE COMPLETE FOR SINGLE FAMII.Y UWELLINGS. ALSO, FOR TOWNHOMES AND CONDOS WHEN PERMTTS ARE REQUIRED F'OR EACH UNIT. --------------- NO. FIXTURES EACH TOTAL 3;F ? SITE ADD SHOWER WATER CLOSET BATH TUB LAVATORY KITCHEN SINK LAUNDRY TRAY HOT TUB/SPA WATER HEATER FLOOR DRAIN GAS PIPING OUTLET • minimum - i ROUGH OPENINGS WATER SOFTENER Y:Cl VN 1 L. L1Jt'. ° DaY.Cry. lic. U.G. SPRINKLER • 6ome under oonst. ALTERATIONS • to adsting WATER TURN AROUND STATE SURCHARGE TOTAL: ?D6"5- 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.50 5.00 0.00 3.00 15.00 15.00 .50 /5-? SO OWNER NAME: C"Or I ?` C??+ l I/t?? INSTALLER: 5qt"'t e- ADDRESS: 5a k"(f ? a ?t vl STA`I'E: `M /l ZIP CODE: CITY: PHONE #: o lG' ? ? SIGNATURE OF PERMITTEE 1993 PLUMBING PERMIT (RESIDENTIAL) CITY OF EAGAN ' 3830 PILOT KNOB RD EAGAN li'IN 55122 (612) 6$14675 1993 PLUMBING PERIMT (CONIIViERCIAL) CITY OF EAGAN 3830 PII.OT KNOB RD EAGAN 11IN 55122 (612) 6814675 PLEASE COMFLETE FOR ALL COMMERCIALJINDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS. ALSO FOR MULTI- FAMILY BUP?DINGS WHEN SEPARATE PERMTI'S ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR - EACH DWELLING L':? -: :T. NEW CONSTRUCTION ADD ON REPAIR WORK DESCRIPTION: CONTRACT PRICE: $ FEE: 1% OF CONTRACT FEE. STATE SURCHARGE: $.50 FOR EACH S1,000 OF pM9r.r-FEE. .....:...... .:. ..................... - --- ---.l --v-ivi r r:r. ----_: a _ . _ ?a.w mu?it CONTRACT PRICE X 1% $ STATE SURCHARGE $ TOTAL $ SITE ADDRESS: TENANT NAAZE: STE. # OWNER NAME: INSTALLER: ADDRESS: CITY: 3TATE; ZIP CODE: PHONE #: FOR: CITY OF EAGAN APPY'JCANT ? --• ?. s ?i ek'e?f- ? Z 7 Ce / ? ?. ti BOULEVARD TREE PLANTING OFFICIAL PERMIT PART III C...a ;gLoc- l? ?G'DAt GXotlE 34-6 APPLICANT INFORMATION: APPLICANT NAME: CqP- ADDRESS: 14 c) - 3' Ect a vi M1v s s/Z -z- T'ELEPHONE: h?'Y? , Z?6 F7- D/ D Z- w?• CP I Z° 33 g? Z 3 S? ADDRESS OF PROPERTY TO BE PLANTED: OWNER OF PROPERTY (If different from Applicant): TREES TO BE PLANTED: Tree Varietv Size Location Example: Marshall's Ash 2. • 3. 4. DIAGRAM: 5q M e 1 1/2" dia. 15 feet south of driveway diu ZD' ?esf of ? yd?a?-? Q, Zp( West oT ?? ?fee. Cofh??' ? + Rio+ ?r. . ; Distance from curb 11' Please attach a rough diagram of your lot and the right-of-way area showing the location of structures, buildings, driveway, street edge or curb, and location of tree(s) to be planted. ?---? FL lNT T,2 , ?. ° o_ rPe ?? ? ? 77-ee _---- ? ? / ,, 4 . . _ ,, - - AGREEMENT: I agree to plant the boulevard trees according to the above stated conditions. I have read and understand the City Ordinance pertaining to tree planting and maintenance and understand its contents. A copy of the ordinance is attached to and made a part of this permit herewith. I understand that the City of Eagan assumes no liability or responsibility for injury or damage to persons or property however caused through the issuance of this permit. All work done under this permit shall be performed without cost to or obligation by the City of Eagan. Signature of Applicant Date Signature of Property Owner Date (Please keep information sheet (Part IV) and return this signed portion to City Hall, 3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, MN 55122.) FOR CIT'Y USE: Property I.D. #/D y 16 70 2" a l 7- U 7 Lot 17 Block Subdivision CCp qk G P o vc, Na 3 Application Record ?- 3 0-? Z? Reviewed by: Q-- Engineering Reviewed by: /ow City Forester c Recorded by: VZZZ24 z- Date q - Date CJ Date 22wp:blvdtree.pla ? _ ? Yy ?? . • _ , - ' . . ,. ?ine ? , ? i - p i4o .. . .. '9p a5 !p t? !) v a7 !S 51 44 41 42 - 43 - ? " ?.ll ? II ? ?. ?• •. t " ;13LUE51"ON£ w #6 1T L4T q . ? ?s ?a sa ?S sf,e o - ' 13 ? O ? ? ? ti• ? f p ??t 7 I 9 • H ?/ 'd •i'` '?S ?S ,^ ? ? O ?r ? ta 7s ? ?? ?t i ?? . . ? . 1? S ? ? ? t 11• y 4 ,? / ? ? ., j3< <L?/ re ?? ta 23 ± t2 / 11, ?'6 ' • ` o y' 4 ^ ? O { • J tl ? ? ? ?S / ` ? it? ? y 24 ty ? ? Z? 4u? ? Z, ?? p fo ?r r' ? c a tv ? ? 2 8 ? 5 v• yt,r j ta R ? ,?? 2 9 e ? 2 s e JPt ? e. u? Zp 00 i? ?s ,? Q% Q . ? . l f 9 ? o s? ? i c ? 18 • t .sotic oo JV ?a ? q IV e ??. ? . ,b 0 ; r Y ' ? ,s ?¢ 13 A i? o -: . y! ? r 's • ?J /4 z 3 0 ,'`* 4 ` , i ? _ 7• ? ?? .a \ to l, ?f 'c ? 1 M ?J 73 . •? ? rp,? . ?v O ~ s ,J 4 Pt p , . r t?? ? . i ? 3 w ' o . ? 4 s b ? . ? s • IB ?6 '? ?o ? I ' ? ?• 6 Y /i ,p q ?,? • :. '? tv 1s a ?3 'f R ? " ?• , Q, r • ' ,a lz ?s 1? ? ? . s '<e . . 21 20 12 ,?? / z I 9 V r a pq !Q / J ? y ?U • p! ' ,` ?' -- 1 , io 1 ?? ? /L 1__ ? `,•- •' n i , 2 MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS . FROM: CITY ADMIIVISI'RATOR HEDGFS DATE: MARCH 17,1992 SUBJECT: ADMIIITISTRATIVE AGENDA FOR iVIARCH 17, 1992 itEGUi.AR CITY COUNCIL MEETING There are no items for an executive session at this time. However, tbe Mayor, GYty Council and City Attorney have reserved tbe right to call an executive session to address azty matters of pending litigation if desired. CITY ADMINISTRATOR Item 1. Rahn Road Appellaats' Motion for Costs--Judge Mansur has 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 Attorney's office ntitled "Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs" enclosed on pages ?adthrough ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS IT'EM: To approve or deny tbe 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 CYty has rc.ceived s 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 snd to be proportionately divided up among aU of the assessed items as presented in the enclosed memo. Enclosed on pagesUthrough2.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 Sdpulation and Order. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny a resolution ihat the Heller parcel be reassessed from its levied assessment of $49,277.80 to $40,000 which in essence approves a Stipulation for Settlement resolving the Heller sssessment appeal. Item 3. Northview Building F'uv Restorstion Contract/Defanlt to Contractual 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. Beavon Builders Incorporated were awarded a bid in the amount of $8,883 to oorrect the damage and assured staff that the 60 day completion timeframa was adequate to finish the * projecL Unfortunately, the 60 day construction period expired and staff is of the opinion that the contractor did not meet its vontractual obligations which are now impending the City's operational needs for the building. For additional information on why staff is requesting ?/ ? ? , TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Tom Hedges, City Administrator Annette M. Margarit March 4, 1992 Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs J 1674 a - ?70 - 0 7 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 ?-29 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 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 the sum of $5,593.00 as ordered by Judge Mansur. If you have any questions or need any further information, please contact me. ANIlK/wkt cc: Tom Colbert •w, •? wm. a fu,o, enur. ooc.?.a+o . r S . HOHARD GROVES A1TY AT LAW 260 SRYLINE SQIIARE BLDG STATE OF MINNESOTA • 12940,HARRIET AVE S COUN?Y OF Dukota LBRNS MN 55337 , NOTICE OF: ('- ? FlLIN(3 OF ORDER ANNETTE M MARGARZT ATTY AT LAi,? %?1 ErITRY OF JUDGMENT 600 MIDWAY NAT BANK BLDG %3 DOCKEfING OF JUDGMENT 7300 W 147TH ST . LAPPLE VALLEY MN 55124 Court Flle No.: C5-91-7756 IN RE: IN RE' ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584 RNOWN AS RAHN ROAD RECONSTRIICTION ETC. 13 Nbu a+ horebY noanad that on 16 an Ordar was duly filed tn tha above entltlad matter. ? You are hereby notifled that on MARCH 2-1992 Amended , 19 a Judgment wna duty entored In the above ontitled mattor. 2M You are heroby noURed that on 14ARCH 2-1992 @ j•, ? S? ?-Y-? ' , 19 a Judgmenl was du(y docketad In the above enlltled matter In the amount of ?5593.00 AGAINST CITY OF EAGAN A true and correct copy ol thla Not(ca hea bean sarved by rriall upon She partlas named hereln at the last known address ot each, pursuant lo Minnasota Ftules of Clvll Procedure, Rute 77.04. Oeted_ MARCH 2ND 1992 ROGER W. SAMES ' Court Administrator ? by , pepury r- _. . MACA *,n FlB ft day ot ROGER W. SAMES. Coiat Adrtunistrmot By J ?-? • l?LA-s--?7 ?--? unr STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA ------- FIRST JUDICIAL DISTftICT ------------- In Re: Assessments ---- for ---------------- Project ------------------------- File No. C5-91-7756 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruct'ion, adopted by the City of E agan on FINDINGS AND ORDER June 18, 1991: AND. dpMENDID JDDGMIId'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 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. 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. Re Ma?. ?,+.??--•?--du of ?? -o`ti ?9 r 'a? 1 ROGER W. SAMES, Court Adr+un:strztot 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: . AMENDID a JIIDGMENT I hereby certify that the above Order modifies the ARTIN J MAN R Judgment ente:eci 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 Deputy (Seal) Costs an is urse nts - At oral argument the issue was not the amount or the reasonableness since it is slightly niore 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 Vil,lage 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 ]}istrict Court, the prevailing , party...shall be allowed reasonable disbursements paid or incurred, including fees and mileage for service oY 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. 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 whe-re 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. 4 , S 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. AMNI/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) r 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 Jurie 18, 1991: Name Address P.I.N. 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 01wein 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. 10-70775-020-01 10-16703-250-01 10-16703-220-01 10-16702-170-07 10-16704-110-03 10-70775-0.10-01 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-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 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 : ? - 'q- 7 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•100 (4?al • ?bdw d Fanq, [Nry, DociuCnq rrflt HoWAxn J citovEs ATTY AT LAH STE 260 SKYLINE SQ 12940 AARRIET AVE S LmtxsviLLE rN 55337 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA NOTICE OF: :9F FIUN(3 OF ORDER rMS ANNETTE M MARGARIT • ATTY AT LAW BZ ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 600 MIDNAY NAT BANK BLDG : 7300 W 147TH ST Cl DOCKETING OF JUDGMENT L PLE VALLEY MN 55124 Court Flla No.: C5-91-7756 ' ASSESSMIIdTS FOR PROSECT 584, IINOWN AS RAHN RD RECONSTRIICTION ETC. IN RE: 'NATHAN R BIIdOY ETAL V CITY OF EAGAid ETC. N 13X lrbu aro hereby notiftad that on JANUARy 24TH 1992 19an Order ? was duly filed tn the above entltled matter. XE3 You are hereb notlfled that on' J??y 24? 1992 y , 19 a Judgment wsa duly anterod in tha ahova entltted matter. _ ? You are hereby notlflad that on , 19 a Judgmant waa duly docketad In the above entlUed mattar In the amount oi $ A true and comect copy of thla Notlca has been aervad by mall upon the parties named herein at the laat known addresa of each. purouant to Minnesota Rules ot Clvll Procedure, Rule 77.04. Onted• JANUARy 24TH 1992 ROGER W SAMES Court Adminlstrator ' Daputy MAG "t . ?ae trns ? y dTj , oi 1g ROGER W, AMES, Court Aemin;;trator. . 6y -- _cFL r ? • . , 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, 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 Respondent. 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. C5-91-7756 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JIIDGMENT affidavits and the Fle thls °z y day ot L 19 -fl. D?' ROGER W. SAMES. Court adftntstruot sr r?D • ??._..?, o ?" :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 result in a new trial. ORDERS l. That the Respondent City's Motions be and the same are hereby denied in their entirety. 2. The following Memorandum is hereby incorporated by ref erence . 3. That the Court Administrator shall forthwith enter judgment accordingly. DATED: January 23, 1991 BY THE COIIRT: - r TIN J. S 16udge of is ict Court ' ... MESORANDIIM 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 • ? . \IJ tJo the Ccurt. Appraisll af the properties wag Of the greatest . import to the Eaatfindex. As articulated in this Memorandum and in the December 18, 1991 Findings, qrder and Memorandum, in the Factfincteris view, the facts tend to support Appellants. The crux af Appellants' olaim is that the City unfairly assesged them Por street improvementg. The standard for valid special assessmants is: (1) the ].and must reaeive a apecial bene£it from the a.mpr'ovsment being aonstructed; (2) the assmssment must be uniform upon the same alass of property, and (3) the assessinent may not exceed the speaial benefit. Clrlso - Lzna 22?1l-ty Co. v. City of Winclom, 307 Minn. 368, 369, 240 N.W.2d 517, 519 (Minn. 1976). Special benafit fs measured by the inc:reaNe in the market value oP the land owing to the improvement. id. Tn appraising the subject property, an appraiser dstermineg what 'a willing buyex would pay a willing se11er tor the property before, and than after, the improvement has been conatructed. ?c. While the government entity is presumed to have set the assessment legally, an appellant may overaouie the presumption by introduaing cpmpetent evidence that the assessment' is greater than the inorease in market value o£ the prdperty due to the impxovement. These are the criteria whiah ths Caurt applfed to the facta presentad at trinl. Tt shoula be noted that in its Memaxandum supnorting its motion for a naw trial or amended findings, the City 'relies on VillagQ. of Ed3na v. iloagph„ 264 Miril1. 84, 199 N.W.2d 809 (1962). In that case, the residents whose property abutted the i.mproved 3 700 -lHd1N33-1anm laIJ1SIQ 0o d10>1ua 9i :CT Z6iLZit0 . length of France Avenue objected to special assessments for , widening and paving of the street. Minnesota's Supreme Court stated the law in Villaae 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... [b3enefits which may be demonstrated by a mathematical exactness are not always required in order to support an assessment." Villacre of Edina v. Joseph, 119 N.W.Zd 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 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 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 available for those properties. • Some of that data indicated that average sale prices of 4 Y . 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 specitic 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 r 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 File No. C5-91-7756 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction, adopted by the City of Eagan on FINDINGS OF FACT. June 18, 1991: CONCLUSIONS 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, C'aSSb vs . 19yl. Ri:uR W. SXY1t$. COtltf Adf1G115aLWf City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, Byu"•J'?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 Y 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 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 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 Road and 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 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 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 pardel 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 Rahri 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 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 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 Proj ect No. 584 dicl not specif ically benef it each af 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 following 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 THL COIIRT: 2 SDR $ARTI" Judge J/DXi trict Court MEMORANDOM The assessment of benefit to Appellants' properties as indicated in the assessment roll was sufficientl,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 at 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 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 comparablesto the subject praperties 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 . % ? . • • , 1 ? knowledge of the area, the builder whom he was acquainted with, s and some comparables, and then he concluded that the properties benef itted in the amount that he testif ied 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 toa 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 /o - /G 702 - / 70 - O 7 , uv•ioo?i?? , ? , . l4+o , . ,,• Fbdor el ?Ihq, [n1"t. Dee4 ?HOwAxn J GttovES + • ATTY AT LAW BTATE OF MINNESOTA STE 260 SRYLINE SQ 12940 HARRIET AVE S COUMY OF DAKOTA _ ( BtJRNSVILLE MN 55337 N071CE OF; • FILINQ OF, ORDER ANNETTE M MARGARIT O ENTRY OF JUDC3MENT ATTY AT LAW 600 MIDWAY NATL BArnc Bi.nG • O DOCKETINa OF JUDC3MENT 7300 W 147TH ST LAPPLF. VALLEY MN 55124 Cout1 FlI• No.: C5-91-7756 ? lN RE: NATHAN R. BENOY ET AL oS. CITY OF EAGAN ETG. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLIISIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JIIDGMENT 1bu nre heroby not?tled tt,nt on nFrFYrxFR t 8'rR - 18 91 nn Order was duly flled tn the ebove entltled matior. ? You are horoby nollMed lhnt on , 19___.__ a Judgment was duly eniered In lhe,above enqUed matler. r ? You ero heroby noliHed thet on 19 a Jvdpment %%,a.a duly dxkeled tn ihe above enUtled meNer in the amounl ot $ A irue ond correct copy ot thle Notloe hae been eerved bymall upon ihs parllsa nsmsd hsreln at the lest known eddrea3 ot oach, purouani to Mlnneaola Rulee of Clvli Procedure, Rulb 77.04. Daled• DECEHBER 18TH 1991 /8 t? Cbft. ? kJ?) t9.p1, • ? rdA w. saWs. oa.c r+awoftic cFJiY ROGER W. SAHI:S Court Administretor by 2L- ?-r-t Deputy ".FA af" ?' ? ? ?'? ?: ? ??? ?`? • ?',?°? 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 File No. C5-91-7756 FTNDINGS OF FACT, CONCLIISIONS OF LAW ORDER FOR JUDGMENT P.I.N. 10-70775-020-01` 10-16703-250-01 ' 10-16703-220-01 10-16702-170-07 20-16704-110-03' 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, mm vs . of ts?1> . E65ER W. SAMES. Court AmmMrs;rzta City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, 8y_ U,JW 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 Roa`d 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 follows: . Lot 17, Block 7, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. ; 8aid 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 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 2oned 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 2, 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 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 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 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 tise 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 wauld 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 ssmt. 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 21500.00 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 Olwein 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 haye 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 accordingly after a.stay of 30 8 days. DATED: 12-18-91 BY THE COIIRT: I(ARTIN ' SIIR Pudge o Di trict Court The assessment of benefit to Appellants' properties as indiaated 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 iof 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 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 V STATE OF MINNESOTA ? 000%0'0r-0 ? ? ? / : 0? `?t DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA ? FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ? CASE TYPE: 10 OTHER CIVIL ? SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEAL ) ------------------------------- *a- _. ------------------------- In Re: OIN?Court File No: ? Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction adopted by the City of Eagan ko-TICE 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 du.ly made to the City by each of the property owners.listed belova 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 Ex"iibit "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 benefit to the property as a result of the "improvements". ' 2. The market valu e of the property has not been increased in the amount of the assessments adopted. 3. The assessment was not regularl y and properly adopted. The property owner s making this Appeal and the address and property identification number of their respe ctive 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 Gache 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 10-16703-240-0I Carrie Olwin 0 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 ON Dated this day of July, 1991. , '1 ( Howar J. Grove Attorney for Pr4erty Owners on R,ahn 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 C1TY COLJNCIL MINtJTES June 28, 1991 PROJEC'??384?TNA?.? iA3SES,?,N.£NT HEARING 1tAHN kbAD RECONSTRUCTION Atter inUoduction by Mayor E:gas aad City Administrator Hedges, Direcior ot Public Works Tom Colbert provided a brief overview of the ass«*++ents and the neig,hborhood meeting 6etd on Iune 11,1991. Ne said seventy propertics with direct access onto Rahn Road reaived notixs ot assessment on this project. Mayor Egan then opened the pubGc 6earing to public comment. Mr. Charles MacDonald, of 4145 Rahn Road, said he had Ciled written objectioq461he assessments against his property. Mr. MacDonald said the value of his bome had actually dropped because::oi the upgrade o[ Rahn Road and the resultant beavy Uaffic. He said evidence of that is the Dakota County Assessor'a ijtf ce loaerimg the value ot bis 6ome by a S percent due to Rahn Road. • • • • . Mayor Egao asked Mr. Bill Petttstio?o:the:??oiie?ry:A3u'ssor'a oM ce to ex:plain the 5 percent deduceion Gom propert}• taxes because a number of 6omeownera had roferenoed it in conneuion witb the Rahn Road improvements. Mr. Peterson said a misunderstanding exdsls among the bomeowers as to the auaniag of the S percent modilier. He said the moditier has been used since 1983 aad was used for property aloag Rahn Road. It was done, however, [or 1990 valuations and, therefore, preceeded retonstruction of Rahn Road. 'I'he Dakota County Assessor's oftice uses mass appraisat and deals witb avtrages and norms. He said they ust a standard site value and thea look at each property and add or suttth.ct:from this standard value considering a number of factors, including being located on a major,siteet:?:??Ic`sa3d the County Assessor's office ttses moditiers quite frequently and is not implying tbat the imprcivemefits on:Rahn Road had any impact on their valuations. Mr. Mark Weidenhaft, o[ 4345 Rafi??:"d, said..widening and improviug Rahn Road had compounded the negative cffect of the road on the'u property. Ni'ti?ed that..the State Attorney General has rttled that to be assessed for improvemenLs, the City has to prove benefit f?:the property. He said his property could not be aortb more with more Uaf(ic. Mr. Darrell Haines, of 3990 Rahn Road, complained about the poUcy used for asussments, the loss of 6ome value and said additional properties on Bluestone, Carnelian, Jade, flint, etc should share in the costs. Ms. Laurie Lucoaic, of 4137 Rahn:Rtt?$;:.s?id shc:?iQtt,.dime aa intormal survey af otber ddes and found that many do not assess by [ront [ootage;:::$?EaLso?oouagl ained6ecattse the lack of double sUiping on the road has led motorisLs 1o believc that passiag iR :permis"'b Mr. Gerard Bents, represonting;Mouat Ctlv?iry lut6eran Cburch, objccted to the asussment sgainst the entire church property at the pubGc;fsciiIiios`:ra6t*?:: Ht;? ted out that this nte was the same as that of eommercial property. He said they have:maae'tbr" 6iu'64?e to organizadons (or mectings tret of charge tod have, as a result, generated additioaal traSc. He pointed out, 6owever, tbat approximateFy 190 feet of the Boatage on Rahn Road belvngs to the garsonage and felt it s6oWd be assessed at a single-iamily rate. Mr. Bents wiched to note that the $44,000 aswssment tonstitutes 15 perxat of the cburcb's annual budget. Diredor o[ Public Works Colbert said the entire pa?al 6as .one.legFtl.,dGscription aad it wss assesscd at one rate based on the zoning. Mr. Colbert said t6at the Coupcil1aii;cc"sitie?d 'sessments oc a different eue at the last City Couacil meeting and had determined that ?ssments sboii??:btbased on zoning. Mr. Bents asted tbat the City Couodl make an exaptioa ..... Councilmember Pawlenty tben k?i,.ai,ssed the situadon 4iferred to by Mr. Coibert. In that instana, it the Ciry Council had assessed at a highei:i"i% Cotild have had'assessmeat -bacl?ed e?ectations' !or a higher and better use of the Qropeity;:'ln t?s:iastanct?'4tte is a higher zoning and the property awaer is asking (or assessmenes based oe a Iower nu. Director ot Public Worhs Colbert aoted that iI the property Page 7/EAGAN CTTY COUNCIL MINLJTFS lune 28, 1991 . u assessed at a iower rate and is ultimattly put to a higher tese, the City would not 6ave the opportunity, once the asscssments are levicd, to reassest at??; :tete . ?k., Mr. Terry Stover, o[ 3906 RaLA.;Road, objected to the assesaments kvied against Oudot A o[ the Woodhaven Add.ition. He aaid that outlO:does nd have assess onto Rsbn Road and, furtber, the development plan for the property indicates that accew .,must be ofi Beau de Rue Drive. Mr. Stover said any possilAlity of access onto Rahn Road wu a virtual imposdbility due to the new elevadon of the tasd. He reterred to the fau that severa) properties along Rahn Road were aot assessed because tbey had no driveaay assess onto Raha Road and said he believed Outlot A was the only one witbout access being assesud. He said his property Las already been assessed for improvements to Beau:de Rue. ` Mr. Stover tben po'snted out his:parctl's loss:of value because ot a permanent storm aewer easement granted to the City. While he had receiv,od:38,000 fo?:tbe easement, he said an appraiser had estimated the loss to his property at between 517,000 and 518,000. Ms. L.ettie Knulsoq of 2014 Shaft:Z:ene;?said s?e?b8;s??e:?gaiage with access off Rahn Road but 6er home has its drivew•ay acctss on Shale Lane. Ms: *Kriiilsoii :pciinted otiE' that two years ago 6er 6ome was appraised at 598,000 and now the Counry tax asstssor 6ad indicated the value as 591,000. Sbe asked wby 6er property values 6ad gone dowv. Mr. Paul Notterman, of 4374 Rahn Road, said it only took commoa sense to realiu that values had gone dowm with the widening and repairiag of Rahn Road. . Mayor Egan then asked City Attora.ey'Ji6 ?S#ial6sio explain the process for objecting to assessmcnts. Mayor Egan said the City Council.had ito.cboice"tiut to make this road improvement as Rahn Road in its previous condition was no longer functioaa?:'?le;*,,id it:.is.oae of the fust teconstruction projects in the City and the City Council has Uied to adopt a cost formiila:t?ai.:llity.believe equitable to aU those concerned. McCrea moved, Wac.heer seconded a motion to c]ose the public hearing, approve the fiaal assessment rotl for Project 584 (Rahn Road Reconstruction) and autboriu certitication to Dakota County. Councilmember Gustafson asked, in regard to assessments based on parals rather than front footage, J Mount Calvary Lutheran C6urch could bave:tl?e.,issue of,*in,g?? family and pubGc [acilities frontage tesolved by the City or whether the court would ha?r??to:ma?Ce:th?t :aei?tri'imation. Director of Public Worlrs Colbert said an assessment heuiug judge would not ;vatuate tbe .titithod used to arrive at the assessmcnts, 6owever, suc6 method would be the prerogative ot the City Couacil: ::S'tatute does require that the City Ueat all like propertics in a similar manncr and there wu1d be a:* 'allenge from the Baptist Cburcb if the City Counci! sssessea Mount Calvary Lutheran Churcb at a lesur ratC:,: Recogniring that there aas a motionandi aecond'6efore the City Coundl, Mayor Fgan askod City Attoroey Sbeldon w6ether the City Cound) could iawrporate some disaotionary poliry in regard to the Mount Calvary Lntberan C6urc6 propetty. Mr. S6eldon aaid the City Couacil could oompiete !6e motion and send it on in the process and thee remove Mount Calvary L,utheraa Churcb from the process at a later date or they could request that staR make a review of that .parpt?&*;=1t?.tation aad tettun witb their 6ndiags at the nexi City Council meeting. , T6e motion before the Council aa??lhen revised to McGYea moved, Wachter secondcd a motion to close the public hcaring„ approvc the f?a.?s. ,t:assessment roll forPtvjec! 584 (Rahn Rosd Reconstrvctioo) notiag all written objections, autboriu its certifi?tlnn to Dakota.!Cowi#3;;aith spedal instructions to ataff to review the situation involving the Mount Calvary ?:? witb pariicular attentioa being paid to any preccdent-setting action. .... ............ ....... 04-Jun-91 ASSESSMENT COST BREAKDOWN PROJ NAME RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJ NUM P584 SA NAME ST5$4 F RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION SA NAME ST584 sa# 2183 1'EARS 15 SF 30.790 /FF 1NT 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 1DENT# CL UNJTS 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 10-01900-020-10C1 220 0 220 1 220 1 75.160 16535.20 4 10-01900-010-10C1 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 9 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-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 10-22470-010-01MF 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-OtSF 90.99 0 90.94 1 90.99 1 30.790 2801.58 23 10-70775-010-01SF 125 0 125 1 125 1 30.790 3848.75 24 10-70775-020-01SF 85 0 85 1 85 t 30.790 2617.15 25 10-16701-300-01SF 115.7 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.790 3562.40 26 10-16701-310-01SF 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 10-16701-330-01SF 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 10-16701-350-01SP 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 1)p+2 r m a r1 /L.e.en ey 8e,no/ 04-Jun-91 RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION SA NAME ST584 SA# 2183 TEARS 15 INT RATE .085 MOS 1ST YR INT 18 YEAR 1991 REC PROPERTY GROSS NMBR IDENT#t 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 35 10-16701-410-01SF T5 77 10-16701-420-01SF 75 48 10-16701-430-01SF 75 39 10-16701-440-01SP 75 40 10-16701-450-01SF 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 10-16703-220-01SF 75 48 10-16T03-230-01SF 75 49 10-16703-240-01SF 75 50 10-16703-250-01SF 75 51 10-16703-260-01SF 90 52 10-16703-010-02WC 121.96 53 10-16702-080-03SF 195.21 54 10-16702-110-04SF 115.7 55 10-16702-720-04SF 115.7 56 90-16702-170-07SF 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 10-02000-071-52Mf 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.T90 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.T90 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.740 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.T90 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.T90 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 95.73 1 95.73 1 30.790 2947.53 0 90 1 90 1 30.790 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 W? r??"' ha ?•!' 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 G7? ks P' ? 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 O Lu+? n 0 75 1 75 1 30.T90 2309.25 0-0X 0 90 1 90 1 30.T90 2771.10 0 121.96 1 121.46 1 15.400 18T8.18 0 195.21 1 195.21 1 30.790 601.0.52 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 c- 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 Ne(s a?-- 0 120 1 120 1 30.790 3694.80 An' h e- S 0 262.01 1 262.01 1 75.160 19692.67 0 95 1 45 1 30.790 2925.05 r TO: FROM: DATE: r E???-r., ?s/'??f(M??L.?i MEMORANDIIM Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works Annette M. Margarit November 4, 1991 RE: Rahn Road Assessment Appeal &?" -S-$?/ 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 . ' ,?" . . . ' ' ' • . . ' uv•ioo 14411 .+ I+a?o? 1? I 1?n4. [M"fDdel? ky ' POWARD J. GROVES . . ' . . ATTORNEY AT LAW . SUITE 260-SKYLINE SQUARE , BTAT? O? MINNESOTA 12940 HARRIET AVENUE SOUTH COUN'iY OF DAKOTA L BURNSVILLE MN 55337 . . ' . No'TiCS oFS- . . . • . X-FILING OF OROF-H . ? rANNETTE M. MARGARIT ATTORNEY AT LAW E3 ENTRY OF JUDGMENT . 600 MIDWAY NATIONAL BANK BLDG •' . 7300 WEST. 147TH ST C1 DOCKETINa OF JUDaMENT APPLE VALLEY MN 55124 ? Court FlI• No.t C5 91 7756 ... lN pF; ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584 KNOWN AS RAHN-ROAD RECONSTRUCTION ECT. ? 1bw e.r-a heroby nollfled i}inl on OCTOBER 29 . ifa21nn Order waa duly tlled ln Uio nbovo onllUod mnltar, . ? 1'bu aro horoby noUtled lhnl on ? 19_ n Judflmen? we.a duly onlerod In.lho o.bove enlltlod matlar; ? You nre horoby nollned1thnl on a Judpmenl . ws.a duly dxketod In the, nbove enliqad m4tler In Ih• amounl o( $ .? .. . . Alrve nnd corrncl copy of ltile Nolloe hae boon eerved bymali upon lhe poir11es nemed hsteln ai the 1e31 known addroZa o( oacti, purouant lo MlnnoaolA Fluloe o( Clvli Procoduroj Ruto 77.04. OCTOBER 29, 1991 _ ROGER H. 5AKBS Dnlod? . . • ' Court Adminlatralor • . b • . Y4pty , Fl e tnis Q ?da/ . ol ? ROG/ER W. ? E, Coun aa BY o . ti Fle this ?d,?/ e1 .- ... _ 19,-• ROGEIt 1J. 5FuMES, CouR AdrtunisVata STATE OF MINNESOTA 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. H,oward 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 BE OURT: ? N . -FPWUR udge f D strict Court 1 . '? ? • Fle this day 19-, Oi ? ? ROGER W. SAMES, Coun Admnistrator BY DEPUTY MEMOAANDUM 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 . MEMORANDIIM TO: Tom Colbert, Director af 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 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. ANIlMf wkt 73 o ? ? ?o.sd 2006 RESIDENTIAL MECHANICAL PERMiT aPrLicaTioN City Of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan MN 55122 Telephone # 651-675-5675 . . . , ; : .. < . Please complete for: , single family dwellings & townhomes/condos when permits are required for each unit - .. `' "`' •` Date b ? Site Address o6-s- Unit # Property Owner 4a-l, le,.,..c Telephone #( G.SI Contractor 112253 Nicoilet Avenue South cit Street Address y State T8I@ hOfi@: 952-746-WQ0 Telephone # ( ) rax ?=T4?1J 02 Bond #: S-F d 56 7 Expires: The Applicant is Owner _tzcontractor Other Add-on or alteration to existing dwelling unit $ 30.00 fumace _Additional VRepiacement New _ air exchanger air conditioner _ heat pump othier - .,? _ •. , . , . tate Surcharge ` a $ .50 ??1L 30,57i=> Total I hereby apply for a Residential Mechanical Permit and acknowledge that the information is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City of Eagan and with the Mechanical Codes; 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 c se of work which requires a review and approval of plans. ? -- 14 l? Applicant's Printed Name Appli t's Signature 2006 COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL PERMiT ArrLrcAT1oN City Of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan MN 55122 Telephone # 651-675-5675 Please complete for: commercial/industriaf buildings multi-family buildings when separate permits are not required for each dwelling unit Date / / Site Street Address Unit # Tenant Name (if applicable) Previous Tenant Name Property Owner Telephone # ( ) Contractor Street Address y h ?. ? _ ? $ ;: F k VG rM??qi4 State Zip ,e1e'?a?x#s{??'g ) ? ?wP M a+`!? 4I `L+'tY' " ? ? Bond #: R a# ` .as Expires: The Applicant is Owner Contractor Other Work Type _ New Construction _ Underground Tank _ Instali _Remove **see below _ Interior Improvement _ Install Piping _Processed _Gas Nature of Work: *"When installing/removing underground tank, call for inspection by Fire Marshal and Plumbing Inspector Permlt Fees: $70.50 Underground tank installation/removal $50.50 Minimum (includes State Surcharge) ar Contract Value $ x 1% = $ Permit Fee $ State Surcharge If e?rmit fee is less than $1,000, add $.50 If ep rmit fee is more than $1,000, surcharge is $.50 for every $1,000 owed. $ Total Fee I hereby apply for a Commercial Mechanical Permit and acknowledge that the information is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City of Eagan and with the Mechanical Codes; 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. Applicant`s Printed Name Applicant's Signature Approved By: , Inspector Date: Required Inspections: , U.G. _ R.I. - Air Test _ Gas Service Test - Infloor Heat , Final Use BLUE or BLACK ink I For Office Use 1 I 1 1 City of 1 Eap i Permit 1 Permit Fee: 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan MN 55122 Date Received: l j Phone: (651) 675-5675 1 I Fax: (651) 675-5694 I staff: I I I- V I 2013 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Date: Le Site Address: 14O Unit Name: 1 ~ _-Da'A~1trit, Phone: 4 51 to 1 TS 14, i Resident/ 44 tt i Owner Address / City / Zip: 63aasi rv 55 17,S 1 Applicant is: Owner Contractor t t Description of work: Tmr- ®$-F kc - Kei Type of Work Construction cost: 44510-11 Multi-Family Building: (Yes /No ) Company: x4e of r fors C-x-ce I It r? Ce Contact i 4 Contractor Address: sc o4f -fir • ~t a i ZC - City: 0..m State: MOO Zip: =F5 12Z Phone: to51-2_'V 7~ O(a License # 9C U3 O-%'qa 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 conside►~ed to be public information. Portions of , , the information maybe classified as non-public if you provide specific reasons that would permit the City to conclude that thev are trade secrets. _ _e____.J 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.qoi)herstateonecall.org 1 hereby acknowledge that this information is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City of Eagan; that I understand this is not a permit, but only an application for a permit, and work is not to start without a permit; that the work will be in accordance with the approved plan in the case of work which requires a review and approval of plans. Exterior work authorized by a building permit issued in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code must be completed within 180 days of permit Issuance. x x LV, Applicants Printed Name Applicant's Signature Page 1 of 3