4339 Rahn RdCITY OF EAGAN Remarks * Ceddr.-Grove Acquisiti.on
Addition Lot 20 Bik 1 Parcei 10 16703 2013 Ol
Owner Street 4339 Iiahn Road State_ Ea5anr MN 55122
? a .
Improvement Date Amount Annual Years Payment Receipt Date
STREET SURF. g 1970 412.50 41.25 lO
STREET RESTOR.
GRADING
SAN SEW TRUNK
* SEWERLATERAL 1972 1,304.00 52.16 25 886.72 C005232 4-25-79
WATERMAIN
* WATER LATERAL 1972
WATER AREA
STORM SEW TRK
STORM SEW LAT
CURB & GUTTER
SIDEWALK
STREET LIGHT
WATER CONN.
BUILDING PER.
SAC
PARK
INSPECTION RECORD
CITY OF EAGAN PERMIT TYPE:
3830 Pilot Knob Road Permit Number:
Eagan, Minnesota 55123 Date Issued:
(612) 681-4675
SITE ADDRESS: Ln Y , BLd CK; I APPLICANT:
43:311 NANN RD SU85EL GORP
CEDAR GROVE 41`N (612) 646-0331
PERMIT SUBTYPE:
t;ARAr,;ln /Ar::cESSaRY
TYPE OF WORK:
qESr.RxN1'tON
Control No. 1218
E?tli t 1 0 i NtA
16 hN
10o.2rq2
tiEW
AT TAf WEQ
Permk No. Permk Holder Date Telephone N
S/VV
PLUMBING
HVAC
ELECTRIG
ELECTRIC
Inapection Date Insp. Comments
Footingg I
Foundation
Framing
Roofing
Rough Plbg.
Rough Htg.
Isul.
Freplace
Fnal Htg.
Orsat Test
Finel Pibg. Pibg. Inspector - Nod(y Plumber
Const. Meter
EngrJPlan
eldg. F;s?ai
Deck Ftg.
DeCk Final
Well
Pr. Disp.
f?a3 ? REGIUEST FOR ELECTRICAL INSPECTiON es-oooo,-os
/?
7!3 980 See instructions for completing this torm on back ot yellow copy. ?
K_?,...____ - "X" Be/ow Work Covered by This Request
ew? l AM 1, ep.? Type of Building AppliancesWired EquipmentWired
Home Range Temporary Service
Duplex Water Heater Electric Heating
Apt. Buiiding Dryer Other--(Specify)
Comm./Industrial Furnace
Farm Air Conditioner
Other (specify) Contractor's Remarks:
vJ
Compute Inspection Fee Below: !i - `tA16 ,,
# Other Fee # Service Entrance Size Fee # Circuits/Feeders Fee
Swimming Pooi 0 to 200 Amps L 0 to 100 Amps
Transformers Above 200 Amps Above 100 Amps
Signs Inspector's Use Only: TOTAL ?
Irrigation Booms f J !
Special Inspection
Alarm/Communication THIS INSTALLATION MAY BE ORDERED DISCONNECTED IF NOT
Other Fee COMPLETED WITHIN 18 MONTHS.
I, the Electrical Inspector, hereby Rough-in { Date
certify that the above inspection has
been made. Final oatj;?
OFFICE USE ONLY --
This request void 18 months from
980 ?9?9
Vt
3 9?- aa ?
.
e• -
) ?-G
L /` V Fire o. Rough•in Inspection
Required?
J Yes Ao
Ready Now 0 Wiil Notify Inspector
When Ready?
IWicensed contractor I] owner hereby request inspection of above electrical work at:
Job Address (Street, 8ox or Route No.)
? / ?/7 / Ciry
61! LL/T/G/
Section No. Township Name or No. Range No. CounTy
Occupant (PRINT) ` ?? Phone No.
Power Supplier Address
Electrical Contractor (Company Name)
? ?? ? ?Wv G ? Contractor's License No.
?Gl? f?r
Mailing Address (Contractor or Owner Making Installation)
_ ?/f/ ?C ? ? !/ /?? / r ?
q7.7
Authorizetl Signatui Co t wne akin tal Phone Nu
MINNESWA STATE BOARD OyfRICITY _THIS INSPECTION REQUEST-WILL NOT
Griggs-Midway Bldg. - Roo - 73 BE ACCEPTED BY THE STATE BOARD
1821 University Ave., St. Paul. MN 55104 UNLESS PROPER INSPECTION FEE IS
Phone (612) 642-0800 ENCLOSED.
?
C17'Y of EAGAN
BUILDING PERMIT
o Wn.: ........?`.::`:'?-C? ....... /?.?-l? ............................
Address (presens) ..... :.-'?. ......... . ??"? `
............ ...............••••.••••
Builder .••...... • . .. Vaq ' ....... /-/
.... . ........... ...........................
Address ......................... .y...................... -,-..C7 .....................................
DESCRIPTION
N° _ 3581
3795 Pilof Knob Road
Eagan, Minnesota 55122
454-8100
Dale ......?..r. .-. l.`/ ..7I-
6tories To Be Used For Front Depth Heigh! Eat. Cos! Permii Fse Remarks
/7 A, 7? a?
LOCATION oze • So
-.... . ......... Per
Per ...........................
/:?" :' :.---.... .•••..............
'- ??"'? ......r • ••-••-• ...................
Ma o Building Iaspec2o?
This permii does not suthorize the use of streets, roads, alleys or sidewalks nor does it give the ownes os his ageat
ihe :ight fo create any siYuation which is a nuisance or which presenis a hazard to !he heallh, safety, convenience and
general welfare to anyone in !he community.
THIS PERMIT MUST BE ISEPT O!JTi THE PREMISE WHILE THE WORK IS IN PROG1%E3S. J
This is !o cerlify, lhat--•-.?j:....F: --.....• ...............haspermission to ereci a--•::?.?.?.`.?`.:`.:'.`.:?...._?.Y........---.....upoa
the above described premise subject to the provisions of all applicable Ordinances for the Citp of Eagan.
: EAGAN TOWN S H i P
BUILDING PERMIT
Owner •-- .... . .. .....................
.- -------•-•-------- •--- ------------------
. Address (PresenY), .,.e . --:-•._..°-`=•---..J,.... !.`''v-`.'z"-• - " -.
-------------------
Builder ---.- ---- ------ `------------ =------ °---•-----•- ' . . .
Address :.-.---•--•--••-----•-•---••--•-••--•-.-
-----------------•--••-•--••------------...------- -
. DESCRIPTION ? .
N° . 1252
Eagan Township
Town Hall
Date
..-----------1---•---•- =-----------•-------
52or.ies . To Be Used For Fron2 Depih Heighf Esf. Cost Permit Fee Remarks
T ,?-?•--y?c.? ??,?
c7 /S Q? ??5 -- --
. LOCATION • .. .
Street, Road or ofher Descripfion of Location ? Lo!_ _Block ' _Addifion`or Traci
-..-?-? ?{ ? ?? ? ?.s" -?- ?;t ? • f3.?. e -- ? -?'? ,3 ---
o'C 3e 69,e Er ?Z_
?
This permit does noi authorize the use of streets, roads, alleys or sidewalks nor does it give the owner or his ageni
the right to create any situation which is a nuisance or wHich presents a hazard Yo the healfh, safety, convenience and
general welfare to anyone in the community. ?
THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISE WHILE THE WORK IS IN PROGRESS..
--??--------- ---------------•-•-----• -- ?.
This is io certify, that..? Permission to erec3 a------ _.??:: -- ° ---`------ --
`-'-<<-=-- )=------.upon
the above described premise subjectto the provisions of the Buildin'g Ordinance for Eagan T4wnship adop#ed April 11,
1955.
,
E?1.
"" .................... t.-= ?--. _ ?.. . r-., ;:...---•'•----- Per
"""""""""Y-
? . '_ """?.._?.._ -4 _ 4 cv""""""'
Chairman of Tnwn Board ? Building Inspecior
?t /?
1?
EAGAN TOWNSHIP
BUILDING PERMIT
Owner .--- • -----------------•----•-•..!?'•=?.......................................
Address (Bresont) ..T`3 `3- ........... J--1.t . =---..............................
.:....... .•..............................................................
Builder ...................
Addrass ----••-----------•-•----•---••--•---•--•-•-••--••--•--•---------•--•-----••---•-•---•---•••--•
DESCRIPTION
N° 1'740
I ?i
Eagan Township
Town Hall
na:e ----..----L.-Z1? ? ...:::.:::./:.'..r
;-
53ories To Be Used For Front Depth Heigh! Est. Cosi Permit Fee Remarks
-
LOCATION
Stree2, Road or other Descripfion of Location I Lo! I Block ? Addition or Trac!
1017-0 1 , 1 G-19 y
This permit does not sulhorise the use of s2reeis, roads, alleys or sidewalks nor does it give the owner or his agent
the righi fo create anp silualion which is a nuisance or which presenis a hazard !o ihe health, safety, convenience and
general welfare !o anyone in !he communiip.
THIS PERMIT MUST BE #EPT O T E P EMISE WHILE THE WORK IS IN PROGRESS.
This is to cerlify. 3ha!••. d?.•e••-• •• --••----• -••--••-•--•••--••-••--•-••---has permission to ereef a___.__-°--•---- -----•--. ... °° .............°_upon
!he above described premise subjeci to the provisions of the Suilding Ordinance for Eaga Tow ip adopted April 11,
1955.
.................
.......--•-••---•-•L... ? ....................................... Per ---------------•----• '-'"??c. •--•..._?..?..°-°----....-°•---•--...-•------
••--
- • - --
Chair n of Tnwn Board Buildin9 InsPecfor
Q • 6
2004 RESIDENTIAL BUII..DING PERNIIT APPLICATION
City Of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan MN 55122
Telephone # 651-675-5675 FAX # 651-675-5694
0 17,0roo
New ConstrucUon Renuirements RemodeUReaair Reauirements hfficm??[
3 registered site surveys showing sq. ft of lot, sq. ft. of house; and all roofed areas 2 copies of plan
(20% maximum lot coverage allowed) 1 set of Energy Calculations for heated additions
2 copies of plan showing beam & window sizes; poured found design, etc. 1 site survey for additions & decks
1 set of Energy Calculations Addffion - indicate if on-site septic system
3 copies of Tree Preservation Plan 'rf lot platted after 711/93
Rim Joist Detail Options setection sheet (bidgs witli 3 or less units
Date Construction Cost
Site Address 3 ? ?'! 0 ?C:? Unit/Ste #
Description of Work ve Qr`?s 6h (,ooDG? ??W cz, &14 e e LJ')(A Ve- W ? co)e
ZI-Id CI'eme
Multi-Family Bldg _ Y?C N Fireplace(s) _ 0 2 ?R7
Property Owner Cf/) C (onedV Telephone # ( (P f2,) 70q -7-7-G-
Contractor
Address 09'1v )T6C1V1"_1 Si tie City
State ?6Y?l?? , Zip S.sy 3?Z Telephone #6/Z 8/ b-,?o `?S 3
e_
c.v C°
rf-
COMPLETE THIS AREA ONLY IF CONSTRUCTING A NEW BUILDING - 1Vlinnesota Rules 7670 Categorv 1 Minnesota Rules 7672
Energy Code Category . Residential Ventilation Category 1 Worksheet • New Energy Code Worksheet
(4 submission rype) Submitted Submitted
• Energy Envelope Calculations Submitted
Have you previously constructed a buiiding in Eagan with a similar plan? _ Y _ N If so, 25% plan review
fee applies. _
Licensed Plumber P-H ? ? u? Telephone #(
Mechanical Contractor V JUN 2 9 2004 J?jj Telephone #(
Sewer/Water Contractor ? ?2 1 Telephone #(
I hereby apply for a Residential Building 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 the State of MN
Statutes; 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.
k?? ?b -e/bec
Applicant's Printed Name
QZ-Ckplicant's Signature
OFFICE=USE ONLY
Sub Types
? 01 Foundation ? 07 05-plex ? 13 16-plex ? 20 Pool
? 02 SF Dwelling ? 08 06-plex ? 16 Fireplace ? 21 Porch (3-sea.)
O 03 01 of _ plex ? 09 07-plex ? 17 Garage ? 22 Porch/Addn. (4-sea.)
? 04 02-plex ? 10 08-plex ? 18 Deck ? 23 Porch (screen/gazebo)
? 05 03-plex ? 11 10-plex ? 19 Lower Level O 24 Storm Damage
? 06 04-plex ? 12 12-plex Plbg_Y or _ N ? 25 Miscellaneous
Work Types
? 31 New
? 32 Addition
? 33 Alteration
? 34 Replacement
Valuation
Census Code
SAC Units
# of Units
# of Bldgs
Type of Const
_ Footings (new bldg)
_ Footings (deck)
_ Footings (addition)
Foundation
Drain Tile
Roof Ice & Water
_ Framing
? 30 Accessory Bldg
O 31 Ext. Alt - Multi
? 33 Ext. Alt - SF
? 36 Multi Misc.
? 35 Int Improvement ? 38 Demolish Interior ? 44 Siding
0 36 Move Building ? 42 Demolish Foundation ? 45 Fire Repair
? 37 Demolish Building* ? 43 Reroof ? 46 Windows/Doors
*Demolition (Entire Bldg) - Give PCA handout to applicant
Final
Occupancy
Zoning
Stories
Sq. Ft.
Length
Width
MCES System
City Water
Booster Pump
PRV
Fire Sprinklered
REQUIRED INSPECTIONS
Final/C.O.
Final/No C.O.
_ Plumbing
HVAC
Other
_ Pool Ftgs _ Air/Gas Tests Final
_ Siding _ Stucco _ Stone _ Brick
_ Windows
_ Retaining Wall
_ Fireplace _ R.I. _ Air Test _ Final
Insulation
Approved By:
Base Fee
Surcharge
Plan Review
MC/ES SAC
City SAC
Utility Connection Charge
S&W Permit & Surcharge
Treatment Plant
License Search
Copies
Other
Total
Building Inspector
RESIDENTIAL BUII.,DING
Permit Application
City Of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan MN 55122
Telephone # 651-675-5675 FAX # 651-675-5694
New Construction Reauirements RemodeVReoair Reauirements Office Use Onlv
3 registered site surveys showing sq. ft of lot, sq. ft of house; and all roofed areas 2 copies of plan Cert of Survey Recd _ Y_ N
(20% maximum lot coverage allowed) 1 set of Energy Calculations for heated additions Tree Pres Plan Recd _ Y_ N
2 copies of plan showing beam & window sizes; poured found design, etc. 1 site survey for additions & decks Tree Pres Reqd _ Y_ N
1 set of Energy Calculations Addition - indicate if on-site septic system On-site Sep6c System _ Y_ N
3 copies of Tree Preservation Plan if lot platted after 7/1193
Rim Joist Detail Options selection sheet (bldgs with 3 or less units
Date 16 / Iq_ /
Site Address 03
sm 00
Construction Cost
Unit/Ste #
Description of Work ??.I'?-r1C 1?
Multi-Family Bldg Y XN Fireplace(s) ? 0 _ 1 _ 2
Property Owner / ? 43/44376 Telephone # (6 f Z ) -702 - (07LS
Contractor IN C-
Address rW y, 7
State M1"i VU,), ,e p A
City
Zip ?'7q Telephone #(61Z)
COMPLETE THIS AREA ONLY IF CONSTRUCTING A NEW BUILDING
- Minnesota Rules 7670 Categorv 1 Minnesota Rules 7672
Energy Code Category . Residential Ventilation Category 1 Worksheet • New Energy Code Worksheet
0 submission type) Submitted Submitted
. Energy Envelope Calculations Submitted
Have you previously constructed a building in Eagan with a similar plan? Y ?-
fee applies. i' ?5
Licensed Plumber
Mechanical Contractor
Sewer/Water Contractor
' i Telephon' t ( 0 p)T?l
Telephon # ( )_
Telephone
m i-gn review
nni i?
I hereby apply for a Residential Building 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 the State of MN
Statutes; 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 appro d pl in the e f work which requires a review and
ap roval of plans.
Applicant's Printed Name Applicant's Signature
OFFICE USE ONLY
Sub Types
? 01 Foundation ? 07 05-plex ? 13 16-plex ? 20 Pool
? 02 SF Dwelling ? 08 06-plex ? 16 Fireplace ? 21 Porch (3-sea.)
? 03 01 of _ plex 0 09 07-plex ? 17 Garage ? 22 Porch/Addn. (4sea.)
? 04 02-ptex ? 10 08-plex ? 18 Deck ? 23 Porch (screen/gazebo)
? 05 03-plex D 11 10-plex ? 19 Lower Level ? 24 Storm Damage
? 06 04-plex ? 12 12-plex Plbg_Y or _ N ? 25 Miscelianeous
Work Types
? 30 Accessory Bldg
O 31 Ext. Alt - Multi
? 33 Ext. Alt - SF
? 36 Multi Misc.
? 31 New ? 35 Int Improvement ? 38 Demolish (Interior) ? 44 Siding
? 32 Addition ? 36 Move Bldg. ? 42 Demolish (Foundation) ? 45 Fire Repair
? 33 Alteration ? 37 Demolish (Bidg)* ? 43 Reroof ? 46 Windows/Doors
? 34 Replacement *Demolition (Entire Bldg) - Give PCA handout to applicant
Valuation Occupancy MC/ES System
Census Code Zoning City Water
SAC Units Stories Booster Pump
Nbr. of Units Sq. Ft. PRV
Nbr. of Bldgs Length Fire Sprinklered
Type of Const Width
REQUIRED INSPECTIONS
_ Footings (new bldg) FinaUC.O.
_ Footings (deck) FinaUNo C.O.
_ Footings (addition) _ plumbing
_ Foundation HVAC
_ Drain Tile Other
Roof _ Ice & Water _ Final Pool
Ftgs
Air/Gas Tests Final
_ Framing _ _
_
Siding Stucco Stone _
_ Fireplace _ R.I. _ Air _
Test _ Final _ Windows (new/replacement)
_ Insulation _ Retaining Wall
Approved By , Building Inspector
-------- ---------------- -------- --------- ----------- ------ ------------------- -------------
Base Fee
Surcharge
Plan Review
MC/ES SAC
City SAC
Utility Connection Charge
S&W Permit & Surcharge
Treatment Plant
License Search
Copies
Other
Total
/ a-- I 8'
RESIDENTIAL
?? -LiS'-1 BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
? CITY OF EAGAN
3830 PILOT KNOB RD, EAGAN MN 55122
651-681-4675
New Construction Reauirements
• 3 registered site surveys showing sq. ft. of lot, sq. ft. of house; and all roofed areas
(20% maximum lot coverage allowed)
• 2 copies of plan showing beam & window sizes; poured found design, etc.)
• 1 set of Energy Calculations
• 3 copies of Tree Preservation Plan if lot platted after 7/1/93
• Rim Joist Detail Options selection sheet (bldgs with 3 or less units)
u?
?
RemodellRepair Reauirements
• 2 copies of plan
• 1 set of Energy Calculations for heated additions
• 1 site survey for exterior additions & decks
• Indicate if home served by septic system for additions
?
DATE 12 ) i 3 1 vZ VALUATION 25, 000
SITE ADDRESS 433q 12.cA e MULTI-FAMILY BLDG _ Y ? N
TYPE OF WORK FIREPLACE(S) _ 0_ 1_ 2
APPLICANT
STREETADDRESS fr-43 rr,-r-?-?-c1 21 0 CITY -Gt' -IL„1 STATEmvj_ZIP
TELEPHONE 4(&SI1 42e-.5778 CELL PHONE # FAX #
PROPERTY OWNER ''?t-t c l?.c_lsc??-1 TELEPHONE #
COMPLETE FOR KNEW" RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ONLY
Energy Code Category _ MINNESOTA RULES 7670 CATEGORY 1 MINNESOTA RULES 7672
(4 submission type) • Residential Ventilation Category 1 Worksheet Submitted • New Energy Code Worksheet Submitted
• Energy Envelope Calculations Submitted
Plumbing Contractor:
Plumbing system includes:
Mechanical Contractor: _
Mechanical system includes:
Sewer/Water Contractor:
Air Conditioning
Heat Recovery System
Phone #
Phone #
Fee: $90.00
r, _ . ? ....,
?
I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application, state that the information is corre?c?, andzagree1o ply
with all applicable State of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eaga7Z,'Signature of Applicant "" '
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE USE ONLY
Water Softener
Water Heater
No. of Baths
Phone #
Lawn Sprinkler
No. of R.I. Baths
Certificates of Survey Received _ Tree Preservation Plan Received _ Not Required _
Updated 4/02
OFFICE USE ONLY
? 01 Foundation ? 07 05-plex ? 13 16-plex ? 20 Pool ? 30 Accessory Bldg
N14,02 SF Dwelling ? 08 06-plex ? 16 Fireplace ? 21 Porch (3-sea.) ? 31 Ext. Alt - Multi
O
? 03 01 of _ plex ? 09 07-plex ? 17 Garage ? 22 Porch/Addn. (4-sea.) ?? 33 Ext. Alt - SF
? 04 02-plex ? 10 08-plex ? 18 Deck ? 23 Porch (screened) ? 36 Multi
? 05 03-plex ? 11 10-plex ? 19 Lower Level ? 24 Storm Damage
? 06 04-plex ? 12 12-plex Plbg_Y or _ N ? 25 Miscellaneous
? 31 New ? 35 Int Improvement ? 38 Demolish (Interior) ? 44 Siding
? 32 Addition ? 36 Move Bldg. ? 42 Demolish (Foundation) ? 45 Fire Repair
e
33 Alteration
l ? 37 Demolish (Bldg)* ? 43 Reroof ? 46 Windows/Doors
34 Replacement *Demolition (Entire Bldg only) - Give PCA handout to applicant
Valuation ?-is-d v. Occupancy MC/ES System
Census Code '-43 1-f Zoning City Water
SAC Units Stories Booster Pump
Nbr. of Units Sq. Ft. PRV
Nbr. of Bldgs Length Fire Sprinklered
Type of Const W idth
_ Footings (new bldg)
_ Footings (deck)
_ Footings (addirion)
Foundation
Drain Tile
Roof Ice & Water Final
? Framing
Fireplace _ R.I. Air Test
? Insulation
REQUIRED INSPECTIONS
FinaUC.O.
? FinaUNo C.O.
_ Plumbing
HVAC
Other
_ Pool _ Ftgs _ Air/Gas Tests _ Final
_ Siding Stucco Stone
Final _ Windows (new/replacement)
_ Retaining Wall
...-?--
Approved By Building Inspector
Base Fee
Surcharge
Plan Review
MC/ES SAC
city sAc
Water Supply & Storage
S&W Permit & Surcharge
Treatment Plant
Plumbing Permit
Mechanical Permit
License Search
Copies
Other
Total
. ??
-35 'C ??Jo
??.. ;-}-c h ? V? ?Z??? ne ?
_ ?-?
I
CITY USE ONLY
PERMIT #: ? .~, ? RECEIPT DATE:
2002 RUIDENTIAL 1VIECHMICAL PEftMTf APPLICATION
crrY og EAsAx
3$30 PILOT KNO$ fiD
EAfilkN MN 55188
651-6$1-4675
Please complete for: ? single family dwellings
townhomes and condos when permits are required for each unit
Date: I N -1 ?? - (?h
SITE ADDRESS: 14 339 2_'P'hn ed.
OWNER NAME:
TELEPHONE #:
INSTALLERNAME: Ql ;, ;r• TELEPHONE#: -)/A?? -)g,ls- LI5Y5
STREETADDRESS:
CITY: ?_? j ca: nP - STATE: (Yl iJ ZIP: Sc'NN Qj
Place a check mark next to the permit work type
Add-or, modifica.tion or alteration to existina dwelling unit $ 30.00
• furnace replacement
• air exchanaer
• air conditioner
• other
Nature of work: 9.e knt..c?,?, ho? ???-? A?
C,?,?/. 9 ??,1?t??? MVC?AL?PLIP
State Surchar e I ? ? $ .50
Total $
SIGNAKJRE RMITTEE
t/o2
CITY USE ONLY
PERMIT #: RECEIPT DATE:
APPROVED BY: , INSPECTOR
8008 COMIVIEftCIAL MECHANICAI. PEftMIT APPLICATIOR
CITY OF EALfiAN
3$30 PILOT KNOB gD
EALGAN,1VIN 55122
651-6$1-4675
Please complete for: all commercial/industrial buildings
multi-family buildings when separate permits are not required for each dwelling unit
DATE:
SITE ADDRESS:
OWNER NAME: PHONE #:
TENANT NAME (IMPROVEMENTS ONLY):
WAS THERE A PREVIOUS TENANT IN THIS SPACE? Y N. NAME:
INSTALLER:
STREET ADDRESS:
CITY:
TELEPHONE #:
STATE: ZIP:
WORK TYPE: New construction Install U.G. Tank
Interior Improvement Remove U.G. Tank
Processed Piping
SpecifyNature oi Work:
When installing/removing underground tank, call 651-681-4675 for inspection by Fire Marshal and
Plumbing inspector.
Fees: 1% of contract price OR $50.00 minimum fee, whichever is greater.
Underground tank removaUinstallation = minimum fee
Contract price: $ x 1%_$ (Base Fee)
State surcharge calculate at $.50 for each $1,000 Base Fee
TOTAL $
SIGNATURE OF PERMITTEE
Updated 1/02
PERMIT # RECEIPT DATE:
2002 RESIDENTIAL PLUbI$ING PER1VIIT ?PPLICATI(DN
CITY OF RAfiAN
3$30 PILOT KPO$ iiD
EAsAlv, MN 5518E
651-6$1-4675
Please complete for: single family dwellings, townhomes and condos when permits are required for each unit,
baekflow preventer for irrigation system
SITE ADDRESS: w33 ? LJ?Nn ?,k
OWNER NAME: :
TELEPHONE #:
(AREA CODE)
? W-V
?
iitiS i ALLEF? P?Ri??.: \ ?k ? TcLEF?-iiOl?iE #: yilq
`?Ilv? 5r-15
(AREA CODE)
STREET ADDRESS: ILA"1 1
C1TY: P.;\2 - STATE: M nJ ZIP: 5SOL4 9
_ SEPTIC SYSTEM, new/refurbished (requires two sets of plans and MPC license) $ 100.00.
includes $40.00 County fee
Note: Additional consultant fees may apply
• MODIFICATION/ALTERATION TO EXISTING DWELLING UNIT, INCLUDING:
_ Adding fixtures to lower levels or room additions, excluding water softeners and water heaters. $ 50.00
_ Abandonment of septic system.
_ Water turnaround - existing dwelling unit (+ 5/8" meter if needed -$118)
X Other. U k aca,ke_
_ RPZ: new instal lation/repair/rebu ild $ 30.00
_ ! ::an irrigation system ? I
ra77 ?
Replacement/additional: _ water softener _ water heate Ej 15.00
6 2f!n?
State Surcharge 1g?,
q
$
.50
Total $ ? ? ?;
I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application, state that the information is correct, and ggfee to comply wi II appli le City of Eagan ordinances. It
is the applicant's responsibility to notify the property owner that the City of Eagan assumespdl ia ' y for any d ges caus by the Cityduring its normal
operational and maintenance activities to the facilities constructed under this permit within ' r' - e s t.
SIGNATURE OF P R I EE 1/02
.,
PERMIT I Control No. 1218
?' EAGAN
CIT'l?"O
3830 Pilot Knob Road PERMIT TYPE: Bu zLDING
Eagan, Minnesota 55123 Permit Number: 001654
(612) 681-4675 Dafe Issued: 10122192
SITE ADDRESS:
4339 hAHN FtU
L.tJl"< 20 8Lt7GKo 1
GEDAR GRqVE QTH
DESCRIPTION:
?L)
C, GARAGEfAcrEsSaRY
NEw
M-- 1
v-N
22
2e
I
REMARKS:
-5-1 -'?;)
FEE SUMMARY:
VALuATxcaN
Base Fee
S u r c h a r ge ._M__,.?..., _.._____._.?...?..?.....? ??.
Tntal Fee $112e50
?-0
?? ?? ?-
$9,000
......_....._.-.-- ---------
SUSS?? GOi?I? 1645?i:?31 ?i00?.93 RCICK MRRY
1852 CQMCI AVE 4339 ftflHN 5Cl
ST PAUL MN 55108 EAGAN MN 55122
(612) 645-0331 (612)452--9683
, j,,
"4' 4?? rn?-
APPLICANT/PERMITEE SI NATU E UED Y: IGNATURE k
PERMIT #
REACTIVATF: ?
?
?rsq
CtTY OF EAGAN 11U.ffQ
1992 BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
681-4675 0 C T 14 RECp
SINGLE & MULTI-FAMILY 2 sets of plans, 3 registered site surveys, 1 copy of energy
calcs.
COMMERCIAL 2 sets of arcfiitectural & structural plans, 1 set of
specifications, 1 copy of energy calcs.
Penalty applies when typing of permit is requested, but not picked up by last.working day
of month in which re uest is made or lot chan e is re uested once ermit is issued.
Date [0 //Y Val uat i on of work //, 3'?
Site Address: 1? Wq i-+A.] 1-2
STREET SUITE 0
Tenant Name: (cort?nercial only)
LOT ? BIACK SUBD. ?d&t 6t`-aJe LI i-tx P. 1. D. #
Descri tion of work: .c
The applicant is: D Owner IZ Contractor O Other (Describe)
Name - Po -_ /'< i'"14 4 y% Phorse
-'?(43
Property ,
LAST fIRST
OWner Address f-13 3 5 k4 9,
STREfT STE ?
City S t a t e ??-'- Zip 55! Z ?
Comp any SLAs-s EI)AN NAL_c Phone
Contractor Address fFi- Z c-?? .4,,E . License #00a/ Exp.
City S T; State f'L°I ,?. Z i p
Sfi z-?
Company Phone
Architect/
EngitleGr Name Registration #
Address
City State Zip
Sewer & water licensed plumber . Processing time for
sewer 8 water permits is two days once area has been approved.
I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the information is
correct and agree to comply with all applicable State of Minnesota Statutes and City af
Eagan Ordinances.
Signature of Appl icant:
OFFICE USE ONLY
BUILDING PERMIT TYPE
? 01 Foundation ? 06 Duplex O 11 Apt./Lodgfng
O 02 SF Dwg. ? 07 4-Plex O 12 Multi. Misc.
? 03 SF Addition ? 08 8-Plex W13 Garage/Accessory
? 04 SF Porch ? 09 12-Plex O 14 Fireplace
D 05 SF Misc. ? 10 Multi. Add'1. O 15 Deck
WORK TYPE
31 New O 33 Alterations ? 35 Tenant Finish
? 32 Addition E3 34 Repair ? 36 Move
GENERAL INFORMATION
Const. (Actual) 1<°N
(Allowable) _
UBC Occupancy M.1
Zoning
# of Stories
Length
Depth
APPROVALS
Basement sq. ft.
lst F1. sq. ft.
2nd F1. sq. ft.
Sq. Ft. total
Footprint Sq. ft.
4n-site well
On-site sewage
Planning Building
Engineering Variance
REQUIRED INSPECTIONS ,q TT,?c?? CPARA64--
? Site Footing -P:Framing
? Wallboard ? finai O Draintile
?
?
O Insulatian
O Fireplace
Permi t Fee ? Q'S . 00 vetuacia,: g ? P-O°' ?
Surcharge c{,?
Plan Review aA Y, y dG m9 -7f?
License
MWCC SAC
C 3 ty SAC Water Conn. Water Meter .
Acct. Deposit
S/W Permit
S/W Surcharge
Treatment P1.
Road Unit
Park Ded. ' .
Traiis Ded. Cop ies
Other
Total:.
SAC 96
SAC Units
;. _
?? ' ,,.
,. ? ? •
L? 16-Taseme%nt Finish
CI ll Swim Pool
? 18 Comm./Ind.
C] 19 Comm./Ind. Misc.
D 20 Public Facility
C] 21 Miscellaneous
? 37 Demolish
MWCC System
City Water
PRV Required
Baoster Pump
Fire Sprinkler
Census Code
SAC Code
C&..g" s a O ?0
C~ ') L45?' 64 Mo
Assessments
PERMIT #
REACTIVAYE ?
GtTY OF EAGAN
1992 BUILDING PERM17 APPLICATION
681-4675 SINGLE & MULTI-FAMILY 2 sets of plans, 3 registered site surveys, 1 copy of energy
calcs.
COMMERCIAL 2 sets of architectural:& structural plans, 1 set of
specifications, l copy of energy calcs.
Penalty applies when typing of permit is requested, but not picked up by last working day
of month in which re uest is made or lot chan e is re uested once ermit is issued.
Date 7 2- Valuation of work
Site Address:_ y/RA H tq Po A`b
STREET SUITE N
Tenant Name: (commercial only)
r? BLOCK SUBD. P.
.I.D. #
Descri tion of work: DE_?-rAC+-tiE? CaK-qCYt_--
The appl i cant i s: D Owner Q<Contractor O Other (Describe)
Name _ ? C?C-K JYl AP-i' Phone -//S-;? = 76
'PrOpErty LAST FtRST
Owner Address q.3 3?) RA
STREET STE 0
City IQ . State Zip _'?/,2-2,
Company Phone -cY,
?l
Contractor _
P,aN NALc-ZKy
Address ?? ,S a?'-??1 License #?? c l`I3?1 Exp.
City fT , f) A('iState Zip
Company Phone
Architect/ .
E11gif1@el' Name Reg i strat i on #
Address
City State Zip
Sewer b water licensed plumber . Processing time for
sewer & water permits is two days once area has been approved.
I hereby-acknowledge that .I have read this application and state that the information is
correct and agree to comply with atl applicable State of Minnesota Statutes and City of
Eagan Ordinances. .
Signature of Applicant:
OFFICE USE ONLY
BUILDING PERMIT TYPE
O 01 Foundation 13 06 Duplex O 11 Apt./Lodging 0 16 Basement Finish
O 02 SF Dwg. 0 07 4-Plex ul? ?
O ? 17 Swim Pool
? 03 SF Addition ? 08 8-Plex 13 Garage/Accesso
C ? 18 Comm./Ind.
O
04
SF
Porch
?
09
12-Plex
replace
-U
O
19
Comm./Ind. Misc.
? 05 SF Misc. ? l0 Multi. Add'l. O 15 Deck 0 20 Public Facility
0 21 Miscellaneous
WORK TYPE
D 31 New ? 33 Alterations El 35 Tenant Finish ?37 Demolish
0 32 Addition El 34 Repair O 36 Move
GENERAL INFORMATION
Const. (Actual) Basement sq. ft. MWCC System
(Allowable) lst F1. sq. ft. City Water
UBC Occupancy y_A_I 2nd F1. sq. ft. PRV Required
Zoning Sq. Ft. total Booster PumP
f of Stories Footprint Sq. ft. Fire Sprinkler
Length ??• On-site well Census Code 6 yq
Depth On-site sewage SAC Code
APPROVALS Cp"545 ?11?
Planning . Building Assessments
Engineering Variance
REQUIRED IN SPECTI.ONS
J(,Site D Footing ? Framing O Insulation
? Wallboard O Final ? Draintile 11 Fireplace .
Permi t Fee f.? ,00 vetuat;a,:
Surcharge
Plan Review. -
License .
MWGC SAC
City SAC
Water Conn,
Water Meter
Rcct. Deposit
S/W Permit
S/W Surcharge
Treatment Pl.
Road Unit
Park Ded.
Trails Ded.
Copies
Other
Total : _ 5 , ?
$
SAG 96
SAC Units
Y
-LP
\\
?
j2.cr.A ova.?. pu?o.J ?1$?= ? ?pa
?
`r
t
ti
QXM Wt.
?tC?MOV? 14.,2C SX22.
d??+?.4tnrC M?? ??.
av?
?
?
?
?
;
GST • Q.crN. ov?,
a1? z:z. ?Q?s.ac
\
?
AC) ?L.r .,?,p ? ?
1t? F.?',-..? ?..%.-3.
?
E
?
?
?
pot
,-.? C) - / - -,-/
? 14, - R o
PHONE 454=6106
VILLAGE OF EAGAN
3798 P1LOT KNOB ROAD
EAGAN, MlNNESOTA
Sst22
?? •
- -<r? • i .. .. ?'3 ??
MASTER CARD
LOCATION
OWNER U
STRUCTURE AND
LAND USED AS d
Permit
No.
issued Issued To
Contractor Owner
BUILDING C,
r v-
A
PLUMBING
CESSPOOL - SEPTIC TANK
WELL
ELECTRICAL
HEATING
GAS INSTALLING
SANITARY SEWER
OTHER
OTHER
Items
FOOTING
FOUNDATION
FRAMING
FINAL
ELECTRICAL
HE/aTING
GAS INSTALLATION
SEPTIC TANK
CESSPOOL
DRAINFIELD
PLUMBING
WELL
SANITARY SEWER
COMMENTS:
Approved
(Initial) Date Remarks Distance From Well
SEPTIC
CESSPOOL
? _ 7 } TILE FIELD FT.
DEPTH
OF WELL
Violations Noted
on Back
4
,O,kl -
COMPLIANCE INSPECTION REPORTS,
TO BE USED ONLY IN EVENT OF OBSERVED VIOLATIONS
PERMIT NO. DATE OF INSPECTION
CONDITIONS OF CONSTRUCTION AT THIS INSPECTION
? NO EVIDENCE OF NON-COMPUANCE
OBSERVED.
a ACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTIONS OR
DEVIATIONS.
? NON-COMPLIANCE. BUILDER WILL COMPLY
WI7HOUT DELAY.
F NON-COMPLIANCE. BUILDER DOES NOT
INTEND TO COMPIY.
COMPLETION OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS
WILL BE DELAYED BY CONDITIONS BEYOND
CONTROL.
ITEMIZED AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
1-1 REINSPECTION REQUIRED
REINSPECTION REVEALED
DATE OF REINSPECTION
CERTI FICATION - I certify that I have carefully inspected the ahove in which I have no interest present or prospective; and that I have reported herein
all significant conditions observed to be at variance with ordinances of the Town of Eagan, approved pians and specifications, and any specific require-
ments for off-site improvements relating to the property inspected.
F-I ALL IMPROVEMENTS ACCEPTABLY COMPLETED _
BUILDING INSPECTOR . DATE
COMMENTS:
t
&aPAULTIT9
INSURANCE CORPORATION
?I Gk
April 20, 1979
City of Eagan
3795 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, Minnesota 55122
RE: Special Assessments - 4339 Rahn Road
Eagan -
Gentlemen:
Suite 210
301 West Burnsville Parkway
Burnsville, Minnesota 55337
(612) 894-5020
Please find enclosed a check in the amount of $886.72 for
payment of the special assessment on Sewer and Water Lats, for
Lot 20, Block 1, Cedar Grove #4.
If you have any question concerning this payment please don't
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Cheryl Burg
cb/enci.
Please send a receipt to my attention in reference to our file
D-4863.
Affiliate of THE ST. PAUL COMOANIES INC.
.,, , ?
?? ? ??
? ?:,. ?.,.
_,:,? - ?',?
'\U`,"rj i?.. ., a
?.
d..;
Cr•
+ .... ?v.
1
16;70-3? c?Dv 0 !
Monday, June 17, 1991
Eagan City Council,
I am wtiting to inform you that I do not agree with the assessment done
on my house ( 4,339 Rahn Road ); Because of the road project the value of my
house has gone down by more then $ 1000.00 . I do not fill I should be expected
to pay for a project that has already been paid for by the state and was the
direct cause of the decreased value of my house.
Concerned Citizen,
eryv Rock
9?-
R?•
?
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS _
FROM: ?ITY ADMIMSTRAT'OR HEDGES
DATE: MARCH 17,1992
SUBJECT: ADMIrTISTRATIVE AGENDA FOR iVIA,RCH 17, 1992 3tEGULAR CITY
COUNCIL MEETING .
C1TY ATTORNEY There are no items for an executive sassion at tbis time. However, the Mayor, City Council
and City Attorney have reserved the right to call an executive session to address airy matters
of pending litigation if desired.
CITY ADMIIVISTRATOR
Item 1. Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs»Judge Mansur has granted the Rahn
Road Appellants' Motion for Costs in the sum of $5,593. Please refer io a oopy of the -
memo from the Ci Attorney's office ndtled 'Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs"
enclosed on pages ?adthrough
AC'TION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny tlie issuance of a
check to the appellants in the sum of $5,593 as ordered by Judge Mansur.
Item 2. Heller v. City of Eagan Assessment Appeal-The City has remived a Stipuladon and
Order resolving the Heller v. City of Eagan assessment appeal which in summary causes the
Heller parcel to be reassessed from its levied assessment of $49,277.80 to $40,000 and to be
proportionately divided up among all of the assessed items as presented in the enclosed
memo. Enclosed on pagesQ%through2U is aeDpy of a memo from Annette Margarit
entitled "Heller v. City of Eagan Assessment Appeal," a rasolution adopting the settlement
agreement and a copy of the Stipuladon and Order. -
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS TTEM: To approve or deny a resolution that
the Heller parcel be reassessed from its leyied assessment of $49,277.84 to $40,000 which
in essence approves a Stipuladon for Settleaient resolving the Heller assessment appeal.
Item 3. NorthviewBuilding F'ire Restoration Contract/Defanlt to Contrsctua1461igations--
As the City Council recalls, the Northview Park Buildiag sustained considerable damage as
a result of a lightening strike and fire during the summer of 1991. Beacoa Builders
incorporated were awarded a bid in the amount of $8,883 to correct the damage and
assured staff that the 60 day eompletion timeframe was adequate to fiaish the :project.
Unfortunately, the 60 day construction period expired and staff is of the opinion Lhat ths
contractor did not meet its contractual obligations which are now impending the Gity's
operational needs for the building. For additional information on why staff is requesting
?/ ?
/6 703 -a oo -o /
?
MEMORANDIIM
TO: Tom Hedges, City Administrator
FROM: Annette M. Margarit
DATE: March 4, 1992
RE: Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs J
Enclosed please find a copy of Judge Mansur's Order granting the Rahn
Road Appellants' Motion for costs in the sum of $5,593.00. This
Motion was heard by Judge Mansur on February 28, 1992. We opposed the
granting any of Appellants' costs on the basis that the City Council
had followed the Legislature's process in adopting the appraisal and
the City should not be punished by having to pay expenses for the
Appellants when they have already been afforded their remedy namely,
vacation of the assessment.
A problem with our position, however, is that Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 429 concerning special assessments specifically awards costs
to a prevailing municipality but is silent to whether a prevailing
property owner is entitled to costs. In a 1979 case involving
Burnsville, however, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that it
"could see no logical reason why a prevailing municipality should be
entitled to costs but not a prevailing landowner." See 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
tre sum of $5,593.00 as ordered by Judge Mansur.
If you have any questions or need any further information, please
contact me.
ANIIM/wkt
cc: Tom Colbert
f
ucF•too (4 -NJ
No? d f i4q, lnry, poc1'A yrq
rH0[,TARD GROVES
AITY AT I.AW
260 SRYLINE SQIIARE BLDG
12940 HARRIET AVE S
LBRNS MN 55337
r-
ANNETTE M MARGARIT
ATTY AT LAW
600 MIDWAY NAT BANK BLDG
7300 W 147TH ST
LAPPLE VALLEY MN 55124
S7ATE OF MINNESOTA
COUN7Y OF Dako[a
NOTICE OF:
O FJL.iN(3 OF ORDER
3?1 ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
X3 DOCKEtlNG OF JUDGMENT
Court Flle No.: C5-91-7756
.
_ 1N R E: IN RE: ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584 RNOWN AS RAHN ROAD RECONSTRIICTION ETC.
C3 Ybu nra heraby nodned that on 18 an Order
was duly liled tn the above antitled marier.
? You are hereby notlflad that on MARCH 2-1992 Amended
, 19 a Judgment
wn.n duty entored (n the above ontltled mattor.
? You ue heroby notlfted that on ?? 2-1992 @?j
, 18 a JudAmenl
waa duly dockoted tn the ebove enUUed matter In the amount of $ 5593.00 AGAINST CITY OF EAGAN
A trve and correci copy ot thla Notlce has bean sarved by maU upon the perttes named hera(n at tha
last known address ot each, pursuant lo Mlnneaota Rules of Civtl Procedure, Rule 77.04.
Dafed_ MARCH 2ND 1992 ROCER W. SAMES
Court AdmlNstrator ,
b
Y
' Deputy
oday
oi 19 ROGER W, SAMES, Court Adnunistrazor
BY J ?-? • I?U,-S`, ?_'
unr
e
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 E agan on FINDINGS AND ORDER
June 18, 1991:
AND _ &.MENDID JUDGMIIdT
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
Rober.t/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.
----.??_?_-
fae
19 1 ROGER W, SAMES, Court Admmsrxtor
R ? . i?. _.--
y
r
ZSSUE
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 incorvorated herein bv
reference.
3. There being no justifiable reason for delay, the Court
Administrator shall enter Judgment forthwith.
2
i
? DATED: 2-28-92 BY THE COURT:
AMENDID
JUDGMEN'r ?
I hereby certify that the above Ordermodifies the b(ARTIN J MAN R
Judgment entereci Jan 24-1992 and along with that " Judge Dis rict Court
Judgment consti:tutes the Amended Judgment of the Court.`
Date: March 2nd 1992 /? ' MEMORANDUM
Roger W. Sames, Crt Admr By!?J c-ef Deputy
(Seal) Costs an3I)'is ursemI nts - At oral argument the issue was not
the amount or the reasonableness since it is slightly more than
$450 per parcel; rather, whether under the relevant statute and
case law the Appellants are entitled to reimbursement for expert
appraisal services and testimonial costs.
In Village of Burnsville Assessments, 2$7 N.W.2d 375 (Minn.
1979) the Minnesota Supreme Court stated "...we- can see no
logical reason why a prev-_:eiling municipality should be entitled
to costs but not a prevailing land owner..."
In addition, Minn. Stat. 549.04 provides, in part, as
follows: "In every action in District Court, the prevailing
party...shall be allowed reasonable disbursements paid or
incurred, including fees and mileage for service of process by
the sheriff or by a private person."
The taxation of costs is governed by the Rules of Civil
Procedure and by Chapter 549 of Minnesota Statutes. The City
cites Minn. Stat. 645.21, Subd. 1, as a basis for the preclusion
of awarding of costs and disbursements. However, a full reading
of Minn. Stat. 645., and more specifically, 645.26, Subd. 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 -
l
?
effect may be given to both. In addition, this Court concludes
that where a conflict between two provisions is irreconcilable,
the special provision shall prevail and shall be construed as an
exception to the general provision. Finally, in this particular
case, the provisions of Minn. Stat. 549.04 and 429.081 are not
irreconcilable and, pursuant to the specific provisions of Minn.
Stat. 645.26, this Court cons.trues each so that effect may be
given to both of the aforementioned statutes. While the City's argument is one of inerit, under the facts
of the case the Court is persuaded that the Appellant land owners
are entitled to reimbursement and it is so ordered.
9
4
._
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Deanna Kivi
Annette M. Margarit
March 9, 1992
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.
AMM/wkt
cc: Tom Hedges
Gene VanOverbeke
STA'iE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE: 10 OTHER CIVIL
(SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEAL)
,
i
In Re: Court File No. C5-91-7756
Assessments for Project 584,
known as Rahn Road Reconstruction WAIVER OF NOTICE
adopted by the City of Eagan
on June 18, 1991:
Name
Address
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 Olwein 4363 Rahn Road
Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road
Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn Road
Mark/Kathy Weidenhaft 4345 Rahn Road
Appellants,
vs.
City of Eagan, a municipal
corporation,
Respondent.
10-70775-020-01
10-16703-250-01
10-16703-220-01
10-16702=170-07
10-16704-110-03
10-70775-010-01
10-16704-100-03
10-48050-104-01
10-16703-240-01
10-16703-200-01
10-16702-080-03
10-16703-210-01
The above-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: ? - 41- ? ?'
I r
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
tJCf • 1Co N -"? .
fb+sos d f Rnp, [Nry , Dociutlnq
?rm HOWAxn J cxOVEs
ATTY AT I.AW STATE OF MINNESOTA
STE 260 SRYLINE SQ • DAROTA
12940 HARRIET AVE S COUNTY OF
LBURNSVILLE MN 55337 NOTlCE OF: '
rMS ANNETTE M MARGARIT EY FILING OF ORDER
•
ATTY AT I.AW BZ ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
600 MIDWAY PiAT BANK BLDG :
7300 W 147TH ST ? DOCKETING OF JUDGMENT
L PI.E VALLEY MN 55124 CS-91-7756
Court Flle No.:
' ASSESSMIIdTS FOR PROJECT 584, RNOWN AS RAHN RD RECONSTRIICTION ETC.
1N RE; NATHM R BENOY ETAL V CITY OF EAGAN ETC.
Qg 1bu are hereby noUfled that on JANUARy 24TH 1992 g an Order
was duly flied ln the above entitied metter.
,1M You are hereby notlfled that on' JANIIARY 24TH 1992 , 19 a Judgment
wsa duly anterod in tha abova entittad mattar. _
? You are hereby notlflad that on , 18 a Judgment
was duly docketed !n the above entlUed matter In the amount oi $
A true and corroct copy o( thla Notlce has been sarvod by maii upon tho parttes named heratn at the
tnst known addrasa of each, pursuant to Minnasota Rules ot CIvU Procadure, Rule 77.04.
Dated• JANUARY 24Tfl 1992 ROGER W SAKES
• Court Administrator
by
' Deputy
?.
MACA 4N
Fli e ffiIs day
, oi ( ct-,U 1 g <<,?
ROGEA W: AMES, Court Acministrator
By
.
r
.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
,
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
DISTRICT COURT
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
Trene 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
vs.
Address
4372 Rahn Road
4369 Rahn Road
4351 Rahn Road
4065 Rahn Road
3990 Rahn Road
4370 Rahn Road
3896 Rahn Road
4374 Rahn Road
4363 Rahn Road
4339 Rahn Road
4137 Rahn Road
4345 Rahn Road
Appellants,
City of Eagan, a municipal
corporation,
P.I.N.
10-70775-020-01
10-I6703-250-01
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.
appeared for Appellants.
Howard Groves, Attorney-at-Law,
Based on the arguments, the memoranda,
1
File No. C5-91-7756
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
ORDER FOR JUDGMENT
affidavits and the
file this day
oi 19 -fi, D.,
fiOGEH W. SAMES, cowt aamu+lstruor
gy y?? • r?? ????
QEPt?TY •..
ile, the Court FINDS ?
1. That it is not necessary for the Court to adopt the
"ity's proposed amended findings.
2. That no new facts have been presented which could
'esult in a new trial.
ORDERS
1. That the Respondent City's Motions be and the same are
iereby denied in their entirety.
2. The following Memorandum is hereby incorporated by
:eference.
3. That the Court Administrator shall forthwith enter
judgment accordingly.
DATED: January 23, 1991 BY THE COURT:
TIN J. S
?udge of is ict Court MF.aSORANDIIM
Those proposed "technical" amended Findings which are not
germane to the determination of the trial's outcome have not been
addressed herein.
The Court recognizes that there are two sides to this issue,
and the City's case was fully, competently and fairly presented
2
• ? ? ?
?
to the Court. Appraisal ot the properties was of the greatest
impoxt to the Eactfindex. As artioulated in this Mamorandum and
in the Decembar 1II, 1991 Findinc.?a, Qrder and Memorandum, in the
factfincler1s view, the Pacts tend to support Appellants.
The crux of Appe112nts' alaim ia that the city unPairly
assessed them Por strset improvements. Tha standard for valid
special assessmants is: (1) the land must receive a apecial
benefit from the improvament bQing aonstxucted; (2) the
assossment must be uni.form upon the same alass of property, and
(3) the assessment may not exceed the speaial benefit. C1r1so -
Lanq I2ealty Cn. v. City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 369, 244 N.W.2d
517, 519 (Minn. 1976). Speaial benefit 3s maasured by the
increase in the market value of the land owing to the
improvement. -id . In appraising the subaeat property, an
appraiser determineg what 'a willing buyex wouid pay a willing
se11er for the property before, and than after, the improvament
has been conatxucted. .?c. While the govsrnment entity is
presumed to have set the assessment legally, an appellant may
ovarcoitie the presumption by introduaing cQmpetent evidence that
the assessment ia greater than the increase in market value o£
the prdperty due to the impxovemgnt. IA. These are the criteria
whiah the Court applied to the Paats pxasented at trigl.
It should be noted that in its Mamoxandum supporting its
motion for a new trial or amended findings, the City 'rel.iea on
Vi11ac{p. d-f Ec2ina v. J,og„egh, 254 Mirin. 84, 199 N.W.2d 809 (1962).
zn that aase, the residents whose property abuttecl the i.mproved
3
E:;iio iHdlhm-1dnoo lDIJ1SIQ 0o d1C1>itiQ 9T=2S Z6iLZiTO
.
length of France Avenue objected to special assessments for widening and paving of the street. Minnesota's Supreme Court
stated the law in Village of Edina, without setting out a
standard or formula, by saying that "[t]he basis and
justification of a special assessment are benefits to the
property affected... [b]enefits which may be demonstrated by a
mathematical exactness are not always required in order to
support an assessment." Village of Edina v. Joseph, 119 N.W.2d at 818. ` Minnesota has also adopted a specific test, as cited in
Carlson-Lanq Realty Co., above, which this Court has chosen to
apply. While the City asserts that Village of Edina controls and
that the December, 1991 decision fails to abide by it, it appears
that the decision is consistent with both cases and in conformity with Minnesota law. ;
i
Both parties attempted to establish evidence of the ?
?
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 imgrovements. There was also evidence
that many prospective buyers refused to make offers for purchase
of Rahn Road property after the improvements, and because of
them, and testimony about the actual sales data available for
those properties. Some of that data indicated that average sale prices of
4
Eagan homes in 1991 were 11.5% higher than 1988 averages. Yet,
? an assessed Rahn Road home whose owner did not participate in
this action,\which was bought in 1988 (before improvements) and
sold in 1991 (after improvements) failed to achieve that 11.5%
increase. The City used this home in its effort to show that
some increased value occurred. But the home's appreciation plus .
the cost of the improvements was significantly less than the
price needed to justify the 11.5% average sale przce plus the
assessment cost.
` Mr. Daniels's credentials, his testimony and his exhibits
were persuasive. That evidence indicated that the Rahn Road
improvements had not only not benefitted the Appellants'
properties but that the real market value of the properties had
been adversely effected. Where no benefit is conferred by the ,
improvement, no special assessment is permitted.
The City, on the other hand, offered evidence which was less
persuasive. The City's well-qualified expert, Mr. Metzen,.
testified based upon more general presumptions. about the
individual properties. He did not inspect, or appraise the
specific homes which were assessed but rather rel,ied 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 far
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
4
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: CONCLIISIONS OF LA.W,
ORDER FOR JIIDGMENT
Name Address .P I.N.
Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Raad 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 Keene y 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,
t-ula m . - /F d2Y
vs.
Q7 19 _?l,
?iiitaEfl IN. SAtr1t$, COUR Adn, u115.1atOf
City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, py
u::?-?rr
Respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The above-entitled appeals from the assessments levied by
the City of Eagan have been consolidated for the purposes of the
trial and were heard by the undersigned on the Court calendar and
without a jury on Friday, November 15, 1991, and Friday,
November 22, 1991, at the Dakota County Judicial Center,
Hastings, Minnesota.
The Appellants appeared in person and were represented by
Howard Groves, their attorney. The Respondent City was
1
represented by Annette M. Margarit, its attorney.
The Court having considered the evidence adduced at trial,
having examined the evidence offered by the respective parties
and alI the records of the proceedings and being fully advised,
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the above-named property owners appealed from a
Special As'sessment levied by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991,
for Project No. 584. The Projeat as proposed by the city council
included the widening, grading, base and bituminous resurfacing,
curb and gutter and utility improvements on Rafin' Road between
Beau 'D Rue Drive and Shale Lane.
2. That Appellant Nathan R. Benoy is the owner of a parcel
of land abutting onthe 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 Poot 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
r
Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment'levied against said property was $30.79
per front foot for,a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for
residential use, and the highest and best use of said parcel is
for residential use.
4. That Appellant Irene Gillespie is the owner of a parcel
of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally
s
described as follows:
Lot 22, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
?--
Said Appellant has 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for
residential use and highest and best use of said parcel is for
residential use.
5. That Appellants Dean and Karen Goche are the owners of a
parcel ot 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 ancl the
amount of the assessment levied' against such property was.$30.79
per front foot for a total of $4,178.20. The parcelis zoned for
residential use 'and the highest and best use of said parcel is
for residential use.
6. That Appellants Darrell and Pat Haines are the owners of
3
,
a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and
legally described as follows: .
Lot 11, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County,
Minnesota. • .
Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79
per front foot for a total of $3,694.80. The parcel is zoned for
residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is
for residential use. • 7. That Appellants Robert and Antoinette Keeney are the
owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road
and legally described as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1, Sons Addition, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
Said Appellants have 125 feel of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79
per front foot for a total of $3,848.75. The parcel is zoned for
residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is
for residential use.
8. That Appellants Vernon and Janet Nelson'are the owners
of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and
legally described as follows: .
- Lot 10, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 5, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 4
G
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 Appel].ants Paul and Deb Notermann are the owners of
a parcel of land abutta.ng 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 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 i.s 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 totaT of $2,309.25. The pareel is zoned for
residential use and the highest and best Ise of said parcel is
6
6 '
for residential use.
14. Upon the trial of the above enumerated appeals the
City's value witnesses offered testimony as to the amount of the
assessment that would be reasonable and did not specifically
address the before and after value as to each property that is
the subject of this appeal. Enumerated herein is a summary of
the City's value witnesses.
?
Citv's Value •
Witness's Opinion Amt of
Name Scr.ft. /house As to Amt of Benefit Assmt.
Benoy 1,176 $ 2,500.00 -$- 2,617.15
Cox 1,120 2,309.25 2,309.25
Gillespie 912 2,309.25 2,309.25
Goche 990 2,500.00 ' 4,178.20-
Haines 864 2,500.00 - 3,694.80
Keeney 2,184 2,500.00 3,048.75
Nelson 1;066 . 2,500.00 3,694.80
Notermann 1,112 2,500.00 2,801.58
Olwein 1,008 2,309.25 2,309.25
Rock' 1,236 21309.25 21309.25
Trenary 912. 21500.00/3,000.00 6,010.52
Weidenhaft - 1,232 2,309.25 2,309.25
14. That the Appellant's value witness testified
follows:
Name Iiefore Value After Value
Benoy $ 99,500.00 $ 99,500.00
Cox 89,000.00 89,000.00
Gillespie 72,500.00 . 72,500.00
Goche 80,000.00 .80,000.00
Haines 72,500.00 . 72,500.00
Keeney. , 130,000.00 130,000.00
Nelson 95,000.00 95,000.00
Notermann ' -110,000.00 110,000.00
Olwein 84,000.00 84,000.00
RoCk 85,000.00 . • 85,000.00
Trenary . 74,500.00 74,500.00
Weidenhaft 95,000.00 95,000.00
as
7
?
15. That the abutting properties enumerated herein have
borne prior street resurfacing, curb"and gutter assessments.
16. That prior to the improvement, Rahn Road was a quiet,
residential street.
17. That the improvement established Rahn Road as a heavy
capacity roadway, invited and did, in fact, substantially
increase truck and other vehicular traffic.
18. }That the increased traffic flow, change in the type of
traffic and its attendant characteristics`create hazards, noise
and pollution, all of which are detrimental to abutting
residential properties. 19. That the overall evidence shows that the fair market
value of the Appellants' property did not change in the before
and after value following in the installation of the improvement,
that is, the improvements did not increase the value of the Appellants' property. •
20. That by reason thereof, the City of- Eagan Improvement
Project No. 584 did not specifically benefit each of the
Appellants' properties.
CONCLIISIONS OF T,AW
1. That the assessments levied against the Appellants'
properties be and the same are hereby vacated and set•aside.
2. The following Memorandum is incorporated herein by
ref erence . .
3. _Let judgment be entered accordingly after a stay of 30
8
I
days.
DATID: 12-18-91 BY THL COIIRT:
Jt-•-:.
IN SIIR
Judge o Di trict Court
I?IEMORANDIIH
The assessment of benefit to Appellants' properties as
indicated in the assessment roll was sufficientl,y cauntered 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 testimor?y of the Appellants'
witnesses. Mr. Daniels formed his conclusions as to the market
value of the respective properties in the year the assessment
roll was adopted. His opinion as to the properties was further
supported by realtors active in the sale of residential homes in
the area, one of whom testified that the improvements of Rahn
Road changed the character of the neighborhood, and this change
impacted in•a- negative manner as to value of the Appellants'
properties. In addition, one or more of these realtors cited
actual sales listing experiences to further support their
testimony. , •
Mr. Metzen's opinion as to value is based upon his knowledge
. 9 I
}
as to the builder of the homes in the area, and the type of homes
t.
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. Met2en 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 apinion as to value in the before and
the after, whereas the city's value witness testified from his
?
10
. .
c
knowledge of the area, the builder whom he was acquainted with,
` 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 to'a high of
1;232 square feet. This approach appears to treat each parcel
the same, I 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.
,
I
11
;' ..
. uv•?oo?i?l .
?bwo+ ?? ( K^0. G+A'1r, O?ee1+?+0
f HOWARD J GROVES
ATTY AT LAW
STE 260 SKYLINE SQ
12940 HARRIET AVE S
(BURNSVILLE MN 55337
?ANNETTE M MARGARIT.
ATTY AT LAW
600 MIDidAY NATL BANR BLDG
7300 W 147TH ST
LA_PPLF. VALLEY MN 55124
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLIISIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JIIDGMENT '
Yow ere heroby noUfiad thot on nFrEMBFR t RTH _ 18 91 en Order
was duly flled In the above entitied mattor.
? Ybu ere horoby nollMed lhnt on 19 a Jvdgment
wna duly entered In Ihe,above enllqed matler.
? You ere heroby nollNed ihai on 19 a Judpment
ws.a duly dxketed in the sbove entiqed maNer in the amounl ot S
.r . ?-
A true onJ corroct copy ot lhlt Noltos hne been eerved by mall upon the perllss namsd hsroln at the
1ast known eddreea ot oach, purounnt to Minneeota Rulee ot Civti Proceduro, Rute 77.04.
Daled, DECII"ER 18TH 1991 ROGER W. SAISES
Court Administrator
by
Depufy
• RW W'sAAES. oM aamw&rrta
eY r--7 6L23-.,4
cF%I(lf
/o -i67D3 -200- a1
BTATE OF MINNfSOTA
COUNTY OF - DAKOTA
NOTICE OF;
x FIUNC3 OF ORDER
O ENTRY OF JUDC#MENT
O DOCKETINt3 OF JUDC3MENT
Coutt Fli• No.: C5-91-7756
0 1 N R E: NATHAN R. BENOY ET AL VS. CITY OF EAGAN ETC.
.j
?
: ? =-
1,0 1?(44 s w LL.'% Ir ???_ f s I
,
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: CONCLIISIONS 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'
Zrene 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 .
EtFUER tK. sAMes. courc A*nrLrrzWr
City of Eagan, a municipal
corporation, By ?-
Respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The above-entitled appeals from the assessments levied by
the City of Eagan have been consolidated for the purposes of the
trial and were heard by the undersigned on the Court calendar and
without a jury on Friday, November 15, 1991, and Friday,
November 22, 1991, at the Dakota County Judicial Center,
Hastings, Minnesota.
The Appellants appeared in person and were represented by
Howard Groves, their attorney. The Respondent City was
1
' represented by Annette M. Margari-`, its attorney.
The Court having considered the evidence adduced at trial,
having examined the evidence offered by the respective parties
and all the records of the proceedings and beinq 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 Nathar? 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 frontaga on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79
per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for
residential use, and the highest and best use of said parcel is
for residential use.
4. That Appellant Irene Gillespie is the owner of a parcel
of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally
described as follows:
Lot 22, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
Said Appellant has 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79
per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for
residential use and highest and best use of said parcel is for
residential use.
5. That Appellants Dean and Karen Goche are the owners of a
parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally
described as follows:
Lot 17, Block 7, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, •
Minnesota.
?
Said Appellants have 120 feet of 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 Appeilants 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
I
for residential use.
8. That Appellants Vernon and Janet Nelson are the owners
of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and
legally described as follows:
,- Lot 10, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 5, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79
4
per front foot for a total of $3,694.80. The parcel is zoned for
residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel if
for residential use.
9. That Appellants Paul and Deb Notermann are the owners of
a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and
legally described as follows:
Lot 104, Block 1, Meadow Land, First Addition,
Dakota County, Minnesota.
Said Appellants have 90.98 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79
per front foot for a total of $2,801.58. The parcel is zoned for
residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is
for residential use.
10. That Appellants Brian and Carrie Olwein are the owners
of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and
legally described as follows:
Lot 24, Block 1, Cedar.Grove No. 4, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road, and the
amount of the assessment levied against said 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
aparcel 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 u'se and the highest and best dse of said parcel is
6
for residential use.
14. Upon the trial of the above enumerated appeals the
City's value witnesses offered testimony as to the amount of the
assessment that would be reasonable and did not specifically
address the before and after value as to each property that is
the subject of this appeal.
Enumerated herein is a summary of
the City's value witnesses.
City's Value
Witness's Opinion
Name Sq.ft. /house As to Amt of Benefit
Benoy 1,176 $ 2,500.00
Cox 1,120 2,309.25
Gillespie 912 2,309.25
Goche 990 2,500.00
Haines 864 2,500.00 .
Keeney 2,184 2,500.00
Nelson 1,066 2,500.00
Notermann 1,112 2,500.00
Olwein 1,008 2,309.25
RoCk 1,236 2,309.25
Trenary 912 2,500.00/3,000.00
Weidenhaft 1,232 2,309.25
14. That -the Appellant's value witnes
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
Amt of
Assmt.
$ 2,617.15
2,309.25
2,309.25
4,178.20
3,694.80
3,048.75
3,694.80
2,801.58
2,309.25
2,309.25
6,010.52
2,309.25
s testified
After Value
$ 99,500.00 ;
89,000.00
72,500.00
80,000.00
72,500.00
130,000.00
95,000.00
110,000.00
84,000.00.
• 85,000.00
74,500.00
95,000.00.
as
7
15. That the abutting properties enumerated herein have
borne prior street resurfacing, curb and gutter assessments.
16. That prior to the improvement, Rahn Road was a quiet,
residential street.
17. That the improvement established Rahn Road as a heavy
capacity roadway, invited and did, in fact, substantially increase truck and other vehicular traffic.
18. That the increased traffic flow, change in the type of
traffic and its attendant characteristics create hazards, noise
and pollution, all of which are detrimental to abutting .
residential properties.
19. That the overall evidence shows that the fair market
value of the Appellants' property did not change in the before
and after value following in the installation of the improvement,
that is, the improvements did not increase the value of the
Appellants' property.
20. That by reason thereof, the City of Eagan Improvement
Project No. 584 did not specifically benefit each of the
Appellants' properties.
1. Tha
properties be
2. The
reference.
3. Let
CONCLIISIONS OF LAW ?
t the assessments levied against the Appellants'
and the same are hereby vacated and set aside.
following Memorandum is incorporated herein by
judgment be entered accordingly after a stay of 30
8
days. _
DATED: 12-18-91 BY THE COIIRT:
, /,,?
SIIR
?VARTIN Z?NA
Judge J Di trict Court
!?l+IORANDUK
The assessment of benefit to Appellants' properties as
indicated in the assessment roll was sufficiently countered by
Appellants to require the fact issue as to the reasanable 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 jof 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 toox into
consideration his knowledge, his experience, the type of homes
that the builder whom he was acquainted with construets, 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
' knowle??ge of the area, the builder whom he was acquainted with, ,
and some comparables, and then he concluded that the properties
benef itted 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 fram 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
• ' . f?
.??
?
STATE OF MINNESOTA O DISTRICT COURT
?
COUNTY OF DAKOTA 400<\k 00, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
? CASE TYPE: 10 OTHER CIVIL
? SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEAL
)
?
---------------------------- ?- --------
-------- --------
In Re: Court File No.
?
Assessments for Project 584,
known as Rahn Road Reconstruction
adopted by the City of Eagan kOTICE OF APPEAL
on June 18, 1991
T0: THE ABOVE-NAMED COURT AND THE CITY OF EAGAN:
NOTICE is hereby given pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec: 429.081
that each of the property owners listed below hereby appeal the
adoption of the above-referenced Assessment Roll as the same
relates to property owned by each of the parties set forth below at
the address and property identification-number set forth next to
their respective names, all of which property is located in the
City of Eagan, County of'Dakota, and State of Minnesota. Written
objections to said Assessments were duly made to the City by each _
of the property owners listed below prior to or at the hearing at
which said Assessments were adopted.
Said Assessment Rolls were adopted by the City Council of the
City of Eagan at its meeting held on June 18, 1991 as evidenced by
a copy of the Minutes of said meeting which are attached hereto and
marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof.
The bases for this appeal with regard to each of the
properties listed is as follows:
1. There is no special benefit to the property as a result of
the "improvements".
2. The market value of the property has not been increased in
the amount of the assessments adopted.
3. The assessment was not regularly and properly adopted.
The property owners making this Appeal and the address and
property identification number of their respective properties are
set forth below:
NAME ADDRESS
Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road
Gregory Cox and 4369 Rahn Road
Cindy Cox
Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road
Dean Goche and 4065 Rahn Road
Karen Goche
Darrell Haines and 3990 Rahn Road
Pat Haines
Robert Keeney and 4370 Rahn Road
Antoinette Keeney
Vernon Nelson and 399.6 Rahn Road
Janet Nelson
Paul Notermann and 4374 Rahn Road
Deb Notermann
Brian Olwin and 4363 Rahn Road
Carrie Olwin
Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road
Ron Trenary and 4137 Rahn Road
Lorri Trenary
Mark Weidenhaft and 4345 Rahn Road
Kathy Weidenhaft
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
2
0\
Dated this day of July, 1991.
' Howar J. Grove
Attorney for Pr4erty Owners
on Rahn Road
260 Skyline Square Building
12940 Harriet Avenue South
Burnsville, Minnesota 55337
(612) 890-2477
Atty. I.D. No.: 38313
3
- EXHIBi.'_ A
Page 6/EAGAN C17Y COUNCIL MINZJTFS
June 28, 1991
PROJEC't384fFTT?iAL.i?USE'SSM.£NT HEARING
BAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION
Atter inUoduciion by Mayor E;gas and City AdminisUator Hedges, Director of Public Works ?'om
Colbert provided a brief overview of the assessmtnts aad the neighborhood meeting 6e1d on lunc il, 1991. He
said seventy propertics with direct access onto Rahn Road reaived aotices of assessmcnt on this projed.
Mayor Egan t6cn opened the public bearing to public oDmment. Mr. Charlcs MacDonald, of 4145 Rahn
Road, said 6e had filed written objeciiol:tts:the assessments against 6is property. Mr. MacDonald said the walue
of ltis home had actually droppod because.:ot the upgrade of Rahn Road and the resultant 6eavy trafTc. He said
evidence o( that is the Dakota County Aisessor'a 6tGte laaering the value o[ his 6omc by a S pereeat due to
Rahn Road. • • • . . . .
Mayor Egao asked Mr. Bill Petttson?.o?thc ?Coun?ry:Ass?'ssor's oRa to e?lain the S percent deduction
Gom property taxes because a number oi homeowners had referenoed it in connection wit6 the Rahn Road
improvements. Mr. Petersoa said a misunderstandiag exists among the bomeowers as ro the meaaing of the S
percent modif'ier. He said the moditier has been used since 1983 and was used for property along Rahn Road.
lt was done, however, for 1990 valualions and, t6erefore, preceeded roconstruction of Rahn Road. T6e Dakota
Counry Assessor's oftice uses mass appraisaI and deals witb avtrages and norms. He said they use a standard
aite value and then look at each property and add or snbti. ct:frtim this standard value considering a number of
factors, including being located on a major.sire?et:?` ?e: s?3d the County Assessor's of(ice uses moditiers quite
frequently and is not implying ehat the imprcivpm?tits on :-tahn Road 6ad any impact on the'v valuations.
Mr. Mark Weidenhah, of4345 Rafii'ktiad, said..widening and improving Rahn Road 6ad eompounded
the negative ctfecl ot the road on tbe'u property. Nt:'diied ifiat,the State Attorncy General 6as niled that to
be assessed for improvements, the City has to prove beneGt to:t#ie property. He said his property could not be
aorth more %ith more Uaftic.
Mr. Darrell Haines, of 3990 Rahn Road, complained about the poUcy used for assessments, the loss oF
6omc value and said additional properties on Bluestone, Carnelian, Jade, Flint, dc. s6ould sharc in the costs.
Ms. Laur;e Luconic, of 4137 Raha:1f69ti,?s?id sbt:hdoi?e an informal survcy of otber atics and [ouod
that many do not assess by [ront footage$?e also*ooaipi 'ained*
6ecause the lach of double atriping on the road
bas led motorists to beliave that passing U":perm.isssli
Mr. Gerard Bents, representuig;mouat G?v?ty Lutberan Church, objuted to the asseasment against
the entire cburch property at the public:&:pd.tted out that this rate was the aamc as that oi
eommercial property. Ht said they hsve`maae'tbe'6urcb?eva&file to organizadons tor meetiags free o[ charge
and have, as a result, generated additional VafGc. He pointed out, 6owever, t6at approximately 190 [eet of the
frontage on Rahn Road belongs to the parsonage and (elt it s6onld be:ssessed at a siagle-(amily rate. Mr. Bents
wished to note that the 544,000 ass?asment oDnstitutes LS percent d the cburch's annual budget. Diredor of
Public Works Colbcrt said the tatire paral 6as.qw.Jegyt), dr,saiptioe and it was assessed at one nte based on
the zoning. Mr. Coibcrt said tbat the Cou?csl;?ad :c?sidet?d assessments on a differcnt case at the last City
Council meeting and had determined tbat,E?S'sIDents sboiila:based on zoning. Mr. Bents asted tbat the City
Council make an exoeptioc. ..... ...
Councilmember Pawlenty tben %uvssed the situadon ' i?erred to by Mr. Catbert. lo thet instana, J
the Ciry Council had assessed at a hightr;iii?:gtopetfj!oietsQtid 6ave had 'SSeSsR+CIII-baCJCCd t.xpCdaLI0II5'
(or a higher and better use of the propeity;;::le ":isstlnot; 4tte it a higher zoning and the property rnvner
is asking for assmmonts based on a loaver use. Direcior of Public Worics Colbert noted that if the property
Page 7fEAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTFS
)une 28, 1991
is assessed at a lower rate and 'u ullimalCliput to a higher use, the City would not 6ave the opportunity, once
the assessments are levied, to reassess am:d?:hi?}ttx;:tabe::::?:?;?:?::::::::;:;: "
. . . . . .•.•.. . . . . . . . . .•.•. .. . . . . .. . .
Mr. Terry Stover, o[ 3906 Ra4.:Raad, objecied to the aLSs«t++ents kviGd again.tt OuClot A o[ the
Woodhaven Additian. He said that oudoi::tloes not have asse.ss onto Rahn Road and, fusi6er, the development
plaa for the property indicates that atcess:must be oE Beau de Rue Drive. 1uii, Stover said any possibility of
acc.ess onto Rahn Road was a virtual imposa'biiity due to the new elevation of the road. He referred to the fact
that several properties along Rahn Road were noc asscssed because tbey had no driveway assess onto Rahn Road
aod said he be6eved Oullot A was tbe onty one without access beiag assesaed. He said his property has already been assessed for improvements to Beau:de Rue.
• Mr. Stover tben pointed out his:parcel's loss?of value because ot a permanent storm sewer easement
granted to the City. While he had rectiv,o4:38,000 fi?;the easement, he said an appraiser had estimated the loss
to his property at between S17,000 and 518,000. Ms. Lettie Knutson, of 2014 Shaft`Z:einie;?said:sh? bas??e:?gaiage wit6 access oN Rahn Road but her home
6as its drivew•ay access on Shale Laae. Ms: Kd'utsoii? pointed OtiE ihat two yoars ago her home was appraised at
S98,000 and now the County tax assessor had indicated the value as $91,000. She asked wby 6er property values
6ad gone dowm.
Mr. Paul Notterman, of 4374 Rahn Road, said it only took common sease to realiu that values had gone
dow-n with the wideaing and repairing of Rahn Road. .
Mayor Egan then asked City Attoto explain the process for objecting to assessmenls.
Mayor Egan said the City Council.bad na.cboice'tiut to make this road improvement as Rahn Road in
its previous condiuon was no longer fuacliond. ke8id iS.qne of the first reconstrudion projects in the City
and the City Council has tried to adopt a cost formiila Aai::tbty.believe eqtutable to all those concerned.
McCrea moved, Wachter seeonded a motion to close the public 6eariag, approve the final assessment
toll for Project 584 (Rahn Road Reconstruetion) and authoriu arlilication to Dakota Couaty.
Counc'dmember Gustaison asked, in regard to assessments based oa paazcels rather than front footage,
if Mount Calvary Lutheran Church oould h4ve.l6e..issue of,s,i? family and public facilities trontage resolved
by the City or whether the court would hay?-'tli:me:that_:deid#iaation. D'ur.ctor of Public Works Colbert said
an assessment heazing judge would not ?valtiate t6e:.t?'tihod used to urive at the assossments, 6owever, such
metbod wou)d be the prerogative of the City Councit: `Statute does raquire that the Gty Ueat all like properties
in a similaz man.ner and t6ere could be a:?allcnge br.om the Baptist Chureb J the City Cound assessea Mount
Calvary Lutberan Churcb at a ksser ratC:?:?:?..
Recognizing that there aas a wotionandaseconabe[ore the City Coundl, Mayor Egan asted City
Attoroey Shcidon whether the City Council oould iecorporate some diicretionary policy in regard to the Mount
Calvary Lutheran Chwc6 property. Mr. Sheldon aaid the City Counril oould complete the motion and sand it
on in the process and then remove Moant Calvary Lutheran C6ureb Erom the process st a Iater date a tbey
could request that staN make a review of that.par?pp?t;?ityadon and return wit6 t6eir findings at the nemi City
Council meeting. . .
7'hc motioa betore the Councii iv??then revesed to ra4 McCYca moved, Wscbter seconded a motion
to close the public bearing, approve the rwal;assessment roll [orPfnjed 584 (Rahn Road Reconswetion) noling
all written objections, autboriu its certifric'atlpn to Dakota.!Cottcif j!;'aith speaal instructions to atafi to review the
situation involving the Mount Calvary L;aElse??ip¢tty wil6 partiuilar attenlion being paid to any
precedent-setting aciioa. .... ........... ...:..:.
.
04-Jun-91
ASSESSMENT COST BREAKDOb1N
PROJ NAME RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION
PROJ NUM? P584
SA NAME ST584
F
RANN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION
SA NAME ST584
SA# 2183
YEARS 15 SF 30.790 /FF
INT RATE .085 MF 75.160 /Ff
MOS 1ST YR INT 18 Ci 75.160 /Ff
YEAR 1991 L!C '-15.400 /FF ASSESSMENT
REC PROPERTY GROSS NET UNI7S PRO-RATA RATE AMOUNT
NMBR IDENT# CL UNITS CREDITS SUBTOTAL FA ASSIBLE SHARE
1 10-01900-050-09MP 0 0 0 1 0 1 75.160 0.00
2 10-01900-031-10MF 1245 0 1245 1 1245 1 75.160 93574.20
3 10-01900-020-10CI 220 0 220 1 220 1 75.160 16535.20
4 10-01900-010-10CI 150 0 150 1 150 1 75.160 11274.00
5 10-84700-020-01SF 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61
S 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 30.740 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
a 0 112.76 1 112.76 1 30.740 3471.88
11 10-84700-010-00MF 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.T90 4245.33
13 10-16700-020-09SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15
14 10-16T00-030-09SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15
15 70-16700-040-09SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.T90 2617.15
16 10-16700-050-095F 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.T90 2617.15
17 10-16700-060-0941C 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;4 0 388.87 1 388.87 1 75.160 29227.47
21 10-32800-010-01MF 583.3 0 583.3 1 583.3 t 75.160 43840.83
22 10-48050-104-01Sf 90.99 0 90.99 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 1 30.790 2617.15
25 10-16701-300-01SF 115.7 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.790 3562.40
26 10-16T01-310-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2304.25
27 10-16701-320-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
28 10-16701-330-015F 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
29 10-16701-340-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
30 10-16701-350-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.T90 2309.25
31 10-16701-360-01Sf 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
(Jp+B.t M4r1
J&?A e-y
&-ne?/
/
04-Jun-91
ASSESSMENT COST BREAKDOWN
PROJ NAME RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION
PROJ NUM P584
SA NAME ST584
F
RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION
SA NAME ST584
SA# 2183 ,
YEARS 15 SF 30.790 /FF
1NT RATE .085 MF 75.160 /FF '
MOS 1ST YR INT 18 C1 75.160 /fF
YEAR 1991 MC 15.400 /FF ASSESSMENT
REC PROPERTY GROSS NET UNITS PRO-RATA RATE AMOUNT
NMBR IDENT# CL UNITS CREDITS SUBTOTAL FA ASS'BLE SHARE ===---====-- -==--====--=
32 10-16701-370-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
33 10-16701-380-01Sf 75 0 , 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
34 10-16701-390-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
35 10-16701-400-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
36 10-16701-416-01Sf 75 0 . 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
77 10 16701-420-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
A 10-16701-430-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
39 10-16701-440-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.T90 2309.25
40 70-16701-450-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
41 10-76701-460-01Sf 95.73 0 95.73 1 95.73 1 30.790 ' 2947.53
42 10-16701-470-01SF 90 0 90 1 90 1 30.790 2771.10
43 10-16703-180-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.T90 2309.25
44 10-16703-190-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
?
45 10-16703-200-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 R o?
'e
r`?ei'h0i? ?
46 10-16703-210-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 +A
-
47 10-16703-220-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 i 30.790 2309.25 G+??=SP''e
48 10-16703-230-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
49 10-16703-240-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 O Lw ? n
50 10-16703-250-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 ?0.790 2309.25 0-0X
51 10-16703-260-01SF 90 0 90 1 90 1 30.790 27T1.10
52 10-16703-010-02WC 121.96 0 121.96 1 121.96 1 15.400 1878.18
53 10-16702-080-03SF 145.21 0 195.21 1 195.21 1 30.T90 6010.52
54 14-16702-110-04SF 115.7 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.790 3562.40 ?
55 10-16702-120-04Sf 115.7 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.T90 3562.40
56 10-16702-170-07SF 135.7 0 135.T 1 135.7 1 30.T90 4178.20 G? ?h e-
57 10-02000-010-28MF 589.43 0 589.43 1 589,43 1 75.160 44301.56
58 10-02000-010-29MF 175.52 0 175.52 1 175.52 1 75.160 13192.08
59 10-16704-100-03SF 120 0 120 1 120 1 30.790 3694.80
60 10-16704-110-03SF 120 0 120 1 120 1 30.T90 3694.80 e'S
61 10-02000-011-52MF 262.01 0 262.01 1 262.01 1 75.160 19692.67
62 40-16704-090-04SF 95 0 95 1 95 1 30.790 2925.05
!
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
ECEii,
t` U ? [F'`a
ii
MEMORANDUM
Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works
Annette M. Margarit
November 4, 1991
RE: Rahn Road Assessment Appeal P"
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.
ANIlK/wkt
,.?._
:r
.. ?+? ?r r Mo. Gw, cda? r?e
? POWARD J. GROVES . . . ' . ,
. ATTORNEY AT LAW . SUITE 260-SKYLINE SqUARE . e7ATE OF MiNNES07A
12940 HARRIET AVENUE SOUTH COUMY OF DAKOTA
L BURNSVILLE MN 55337 . . ? .
NO71CE oFt .
. • . ' ' X'FlllhiG OF ORDER .
_ [ANNETTE M. MARGARIT -
ATTORNEY AT LAW ?FEWRY OF JUDC3MF-W .
600 MIbWAY NATIONAL BANK BLDG .
7300 WEST. 147TH ST ? DOCKETINa OF JUDaMENT'
APPLE VALLEY MN 55124 Covri F1I• No.t CS 91 7756
IN aE; ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584 KNOWN AS RAHN-ROAD RECONSTRUCTION ECT.
? 1'tw ere horoby noUnod 11in1 on OCTOBER 29 _ 19 91 an Order
waa dvly tlled ln ltio abovo onUUod mnttor. .
? Ybu oro horoby notl(iad thot on , 19^ -- n Judpmon?
waa duly onlerod In.lha above entlUod mnllor;
? You are tioroby notlned lhal on - • 10.__ a Judpmenl
w" duly docketed !n t}to, nbove entlqad m411or In lhe e.mounl ot S .
?•
.? . .
A,ria a n oddroaa ot oach, 'purouanl lo Mlnnoaol R loe ol Glvll Procodure Rulo 77a04?natth?
lesl kno
pa?ad? OCTOBER 29, 1991 _ . ROGER K. SAHES
ilatralor .' b
. • Co*Pvy
Y
. .
Fle thls :
o
t -A
ROGnER I
l.,
BY i
day
... /
wcAMt
s
,
.
File this ?d,?/
? t9..?>
? ROGEIi 11. 5l.?SEs, Court AdrtunisVator
STATE OF MINNESOTA By p DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In Re: Assessments for Project 584, File No. C5-91-7756
known as Rahn Road fteconstruction
adopted by the City of Eagan on ftQ DER
June 18, 1991
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the
undersigned on the Speeial Term calendar of the Court on Monday,
October.28, 1991, at the Dakota County Judicial Center, Hastings,
Minnesota.
Annette Margarit, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of.the
Respondent. Howard J. Groves, Attorney at Law,_appeared on
behalf of the Petitioners. The issue is the assessment for the improvement of Rahn
Road. The parties who are identified as the Petitioners
represent 12 property owners on Rahn Road and have filed a joint
appeal from the assessment promulgated by the Respondent City.
The City moves for severance and for separate trials for
.?
each of the Petitioners. Based upon the file, the record made,
the file and proceedings heretofore had,
IT I S 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 ;ARTIN,4. Y T E OURT:
?
UR
udge f D strict Court
1
< s .,
File this day
,
0! 19 '""" +
ROGER W. SAMES, Court Adrtunistratot
By DEPUN ?
MEMORANDUM
The property is unique and, as such, the issue of benefits
versus costs of improvements must be determined for each property
exclusive of the other. Here the Petitioners apparently are
residents on Rahn Road in the city of Eagan and have joined
together in appealing the assessments that have been certified by
the City against their subject properties for what the City
alleges to be improvements by the widening of Rahn Road.
The Petitioners contend that the improvements were initiated
by the City to serve the primary interests of the Target store
and Cub Foods store and to provide for better access to these
locations. Further, the Petitioners allege that their subject
property has diminished in value by reason of the widening of the
road, the increased traffic to the business entities referred to
herein.
There being a common theme that forms the basis of the
.?
appeal from the assessments, it is this Court's view that the
severance would not serve the interest of all parties, including
the City, but rather, would allow for an expeditious disposition
of the Petitioners' appeals and if either party is aggrieved by
the Court's decision, allow for the appellate process to go
forward without further delay. To grant the City's motion could
involve different judges for different property owners and could
possibly entail different results. This would cause confusion
for all and would not serve the best interest of all parties,
including the City.
2
a
R
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works
FROM: Annette M. Margarit
DATE: October 30, 1991
RE: Motion to Sever Rahn Road Appeals
On October 28, 1991 I appeared before the Honorable Judge Martin
Mansur to argue the City's motion to sever the twelve assessment
appeals currently filed as one action. The appellants' attorney
Howard Groves also appeared. Enclosed please find a copy of the
papers Mr. Groves had filed for the purposes of this motion.
Judge Mansurs' opening comments indicated his train of thought as he
told Mr. Groves that all parcels were unique, and inquired as to why
Mr. Groves believed the assessment appeals should be joined. Mr.
Groves argued that the properties are very similar in locati(in 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.
ANIlK/wkt
?? ??? 2004 RESIDENTIAL MECHANICAL PERMIT APPLICATION
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
U3 05D
Date 0
Site Address Unit #
Property Owner Telephone # ( (P, 2 ) ?? ? G_??
Contractor C'n
Yn r4
StreetAddress City ?l C)l1?
State rn ? Zip Telephone #
Bond Expires:
The Applicant is Owner X Contractor Other
Add-on or alteration to existing dwelling unit $ 30.00
l
( f
Additi ?
l
t
)
urnace _
ona ep
acemen
_ air exchanger
_ air conditioner _New _ Replacement
other
State Surcharge $ .50
9v
?
Total $
•
I hereby apply for a Residential Mechanical Perxnit 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
pernut, but only an application for a pernut, and work is not to start without a pernut; that the work will be in accordance with the
approved plan in the case of ork which requires a review and approval of plans.
6&Cq ? _
Applicant's P' ed Name Applicant's i tur
FE-B 1 3 2004
2004 COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL PERMIT APPLICATION
City Of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan MN 55122
Telephone # 651-675-5675
Please complete for: commercial/industrial 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 City
State Zip Telephone # ( )
Bond #: Expires:
The Applicant is Owner Contractor Other
Work Type
_ New Construction _ Underground Tank _ Install _Remove **see below
_ Interior Improvement _ Install Piping _ Processed _Gas
Nature of Work:
**When installing/removing underground tank, call for inspection by Fire Marshal and P/umbing Inspector
Pei Ii3i$ i a^.c5: a70.50L'a:dess.:,ar.d :a; k i;s?tlarcr?'rL:nL?a l -
$50.50 Minimum (includes State Surcharge)
or
Contract Value $ x 1% _ $ Perxnit Fee
• If nernut fee is $1,000 or less, add $.50 ? $ State Surcharge
If nernut fee is over $1,000, add $.50 for
every $1,000 nermit fee $ 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 pernut, and work is not to start without a pernut; that the wark 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:
PERMIT
City of Eagan Permit Type:Plumbing
Permit Number:EA113363
Date Issued:09/03/2013
Permit Category:ePermit
Site Address: 4339 Rahn Rd
Lot:20 Block: 1 Addition: Cedar Grove 4th
PID:10-16703-01-200
Use:
Description:
Sub Type:Residential
Work Type:Replace
Description:Water Heater
Meter Size Meter Type Manufacturer Serial Number Remote Number Line Size
Comments:Please call Building Inspections at (651) 675-5675 to schedule a final inspection.
Kris Oien
3670 Dodd Rd
Eagan, MN 55123
Fee Summary:PL - Permit Fee (WS &/or WH)$55.00 0801.4087
Surcharge-Fixed $5.00 9001.2195
$60.00 Total:
I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the information is correct and agree to comply with all applicable State
of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances.
Contractor:Owner:- Applicant -
Laura Nelsen
4339 Rahn Rd
Eagan MN 55122
Champion Plumbing
3670 Dodd Rd., #100
Eagan MN 55123
(651) 365-1340
Applicant/Permitee: Signature Issued By: Signature
PERMIT
City of Eagan Permit Type:Building
Permit Number:EA113667
Date Issued:09/06/2013
Permit Category:ePermit
Site Address: 4339 Rahn Rd
Lot:20 Block: 1 Addition: Cedar Grove 4th
PID:10-16703-01-200
Use:
Description:
Sub Type:Fireplace
Work Type:Gas Fireplace (new)
Description:
Census Code:434 -
Zoning:
Square Feet:0
Occupancy:
Construction Type:
Comments:Improvements to the home may require smoke detectors in all bedrooms. Chimney / flue must be inspected prior to
concealing.
Carbon monoxide detectors are required by law in ALL single family homes .
Fireplace:1, HEARTH ROOM, GAS FIREPALCE
Valuation: 3,000.00
Fee Summary:BL - Base Fee $3K $88.50 0801.4085
Surcharge - Based on Valuation $3K $1.50 9001.2195
$90.00 Total:
I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the information is correct and agree to comply with all applicable State
of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances.
Contractor:Owner:- Applicant -
Laura Nelsen
4339 Rahn Rd
Eagan MN 55122
Hearth And Home Technologies
2700 N. Fairview Ave
Roseville MN 55113
(651) 638-3309
Applicant/Permitee: Signature Issued By: Signature
PERMIT
City of Eagan Permit Type:Mechanical
Permit Number:EA141004
Date Issued:02/08/2017
Permit Category:ePermit
Site Address: 4339 Rahn Rd
Lot:20 Block: 1 Addition: Cedar Grove 4th
PID:10-16703-01-200
Use:
Description:
Sub Type:Residential
Work Type:Replace
Description:Furnace
Comments:Questions regarding electrical permit requirements should be directed to State Electrical Inspector, Mark Anderson at (952)
445-2840.
Carbon monoxide detectors are required within 10 feet of all sleeping room openings in residential homes (Minnesota State
Fee Summary:ME - Permit Fee (Replacements)$59.00 0801.4088
Surcharge-Fixed $1.00 9001.2195
$60.00 Total:
I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the information is correct and agree to comply with all applicable State
of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances.
Contractor:Owner:- Applicant -
Delores E Fink
4339 Rahn Rd
Eagan MN 55122
Bonfe's Plumbing & Heating
505 Randolph Ave
St Paul MN 55102
(651) 228-9071
Applicant/Permitee: Signature Issued By: Signature