The URL can be used to link to this page

4351 Rahn RdCITY OF EAGAN Remarks * Cedar Grove Acquisition Addition CIDAR GROVE #4 Lot 22 Bik 1 Parcel 10 16703 220 Ol Owner L 4??Street 4351 RdhIl RDdd State Eaq?, MN 55122 Improveme,,nt Date Amount Annual Years Payment Receipt Date STREET SURF. 4 1970 412.50 41.2$ 10 Pdid STREET RESTOR. GRADING SAN SEW TRUNK SEWER LATERAL 1972 1,304.00 52.16 25 Paid WATERMAIN * WATERLATERAL 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. Ea an, Minnesota 55122-1897 9 Date Issued: (612) 681-4675 SITEADDRESS: APPUCANT: a;AltN 111a H uI a. I sN ? ra 11 H ra ? r k ( ,:?N', r t S.l+i'it: iitdi.lVE. 4114 ( 61.:' ) 894 .:i i t'i . ? PERMIT SUBTYPE: TYPE OF WORK: kl`PA lVt t Vtlf)F: I IMfi) Permit No. Permit Holder Date Telephone # ELECTRIC PLUMBING HVAC Inspection Date Insp. Comments FOOTINGS FOUND FRAMING ROOFING ROUGH PLUMBING PLSG AIR TEST ROUGH HEATING GAS SVC TEST INSlJL GYP BOARD FIREPLACE FIREPLACE AIR TEST FINAL PLBG FINAL HTG ORSAT TEST BLDG FINAL ? // Y-All f ? ? BSMT F.I. ? BSMT FINAL DECK FfG DECK FINAL K ??? 4 0 7 9 ?s??- / / &a'-t ? Request Date ?'' ? ? Q Fire No. Rough-in Inspection Required? ?ZReady Now O Will Notify Inspector When Read ? - ? q Yes /'lo ' y Pi ensed contractor p owner hereby request inspection of above electrical work at: Job Adtlress (StreetlBox or Ro N ? 6 ? ? ?LJL- Section No. Township Name or No. Range No. Co ? ? Occupant(PRINT) , Phone No. Power Supplier Address Elect ica ontractor (Co any Name? Contractor's License No. Mailing Address ?,ontractor or Owp?r Making Installationy? ? Auth r?gn ture (Conirac oriOwner Making Installation) Phocr?i nNu er V l ?- MINNESOTA STATE BO RD O EL C?ICITY THIS INSPECTION REQUEST WILL NOT Griggs-Midway Bldg. - S-1?b \ BE ACCEPTED BY THE STATE BOARD 1821 University Ave., St. Paul, MN 53tie?? UNLESS PROPER INSPECTION FEE IS P?hone (`612) 642-0800 ENCLOSED. 9??`?j'/g?, REQUEST FOR ELECTRICAL INSPECTION ????? ? See instructions for completing this form on back ot yellow copy. K _ , _ X" Below Work Covered by This Request ee-ooooi-oe ew Add Rep. Type of Building AppiiancesWired EquipmentWired Home Range Temporary Service Duplex Water Heater Electric Heating Apt. Building Dryer Other-(Specify) Comm./Industrial Furnace Farm Air Conditioner I Other (specify) ContractoPs Remarks: (3? Compute Inspectron Fee Below: # Other Fee # Service Entrance Size Fee # Circuits/Feeders Fee Swimming Pool 0 to 200 Amps 0 to 100 Amps Transformers Above 200 Amps Above 100 Amps SignS Inspecto0s Use Only: TA Irrigation Booms /??,vv l V - Special Inspection ? Aiarm/Communication THIS INSTALLATION MAY BE ORDERE NNECTED IF NOT Other Fee COMPLETED WITHIN 18 MONTHS. I, the Electrical Inspector, hereby Rough•in 0 Date certify that the above inspection has been made. Final 4 Date OPFICE USE ONLY ?This request void 18 months from EAGAN TOV!/N SH I P BOJILDIfVG F9ERMIT Ownex ....... 6o'-? --- `----- 6-=...................... Address (Present) ---_.---- 'a----4 ?1.--•-•----•-----• ............... Builder .......... -•--••-•-----••-•--•--•--•-•-•---•-•-• ................••-•--••--••---...----.......__. Address ..__....••••-•-•-••---...--•-•--•--••-••----•-••-•--••-••----•-----------------•----------•--- DESCRIPTION N° 1262 Eagan Township Town Hall Daie ..__l._??L f... . --••••-----._.._. STories To Be Used For Froni Depth Heighf Esi. Cost ' Permii Fee Remarks LOCATIOfd Street, Road or other Descripfion of Location I Lot I Block f Addition or TracY i ? This permit does not sufhorize the use of streets, roads, alleys or sidewalks nor does it give the owner or his agent the righl to create any situatioa which is a nuisance or which presents a hazard to the healYh, safefy, 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 to certify, that...------- ?_ _____________has permission to erect aZ---- ....._ __._._ ........... .. _upon 3he above dESCribed premise subject to the provisions of the Building Ordinance for Eagan nship adop ed April 11, 1955. •-------•-------------•_?#I"`-??.r---------•--•--- Per .....-•-•--•-------?.Qe?.-•--•".-?--•-•????.------••- Chairman of Tnwn Board Building Inspector a •!3 .. PERMIT #: CITY USE ONLY RECEIPT DATE: 2008 R£SIDENTIAL 1VIECHANICAL PEft1VITf APPLICATION C1TY OF EAfiAN S$SO PILOT KNO$ FiD EAfiAP MN 55188 651-6$1-4675 please complete for: ? single family dwellings townhomes and condos when permits are required flor each unit Date: -(n- SITE ADDRESS: OWNER NAME: TELEPHONE #: INSTALLER NAME: STREET ADDRESS: CITY: ?----- Wohlers Southside Htg. & Air, Inc. 6950 W. 146' St., 4106 Apple Valley, MN 55124 _ ' (952) 431-7099 , -------?,r: Place a check mark next to the permit work type ? Add-on, modification or alteration to existinq dwelling unit $-- - ?!.OC • furnace replacement • air exchan er ' g • air conditioner . ? . , • other Nature of work:_??aC.Q j ?r f1G.Lo1 ?? --------------- amcA.r,c_ --? o cxDn ? _1U McAOeA : State Surchar e $ .50 Total $ " SI ATURE OF PERMITTEE 1/02 CITY USE ONLY PERMIT #: APPROVED BY: INSPECTOR RECEIPT DATE: 2002 Co?MEftCIAl. M$CRAMCA. PEftMrr 1??PLICATIOR CITY OF EAfiAN S$SO PILOT KRO$ ftD EAGA1v,MN 55122 651-6$1-4675 Please complete for: all commercial/industrial buildings multi-family buildings when separate permits are no# requirPd #or eac-h dwe!!i.^.C Gni± DATE: SITE ADDRESS: OWNER NAME: PHONE #: TENANT NAME (1MPROVEMENTS ONLY): WAS THERE A PREVIOUS TENANT IN THIS SPACE? Y N. NAME: INSTALLER: STREET ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIl': TELEPHONE #: WORK TYPE: New conshucrion Install U.G. Tank Ir_tericri:r,p::,.er.:e.t Reniove U.G. lanic Processed Piping Specify Nature of 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 removaUinstallarion = 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 . __ CITY OF EAGAN 3830 Pilot Knob Road • Eagan, Minnesota 55122-1897 (612) 681-4675 SITE ADDRESS: P.I.N.: 10-16703-220-01 PERMIT 4351 RAHN RD LOTs 22 BLQCKs 1 CEpAR GRqVE ATH PERMIT TYPE: BuIL pING Permit Number: 028095 Date Issued: 06/ 2 7/ 9 6 DESCRIPTION: (RooFxNG) Permit Type lrk Type S"fORM pAMAGE REPAIR 434 ALT. RESIDEN"CIAL REMARKS: 0 FEE SUMMARY: %.vi,i I r[F+?vivr[: - mppyieanz - Z? i . L J.t- .VwIVtFi: HULKONEN HUNTEF2 CONS7 18943113 2000922 GILLESPIE ZRENE 1004 KNqB HILL RD 4351 RAHN RD BURNSVILLE MP! 55337 EAGAN MN (612) 894-3113 (612)454-8865 ?(y I n koj-A l 1'd-- APPLICANT/PERMITEE SIGNATURE SSUED BY: IGN URE CITY OF EAGAN ISO u 3830 PILOT KNOB RD - 55122 1996 BUILDING PEaMIT APPLICATION (RESIDENTIAL) 681-4675 57-6iP 1`n New Construetion Reauirements Remodel/Reoair Reauirements ? 3 registered site surveys ? 2 copies of pian * 2 copies of plans (include beam & window sizes; poured fnd. design; etc.) ? 2 site surveys (exterior additions & decks) i 1 energy calculations ? 1 energy calculations for heated additions 1 3 copies of tree preservation plan if lot platted after 7/1193 required: _ Yes _ No DATE: CONSTRUCTION COST: DESCRIPTION OF WORK: ?bt) 7t- STREET ADDRESS: LOT ? j BLOCK SUBD./P.I.D. #: - PROPERTY Name: T Ro 4lc-- Phone #: MSEIL OWNER LM* FIRS7 Street Address, '`? 3,57'? City: A !vI State: Zip: CONTRACTOR Company: . 6 Phone #: f Street Address: /00 // 16AI0ef 41-Zo4,1- Re? License #• ?? ? ? City: 'euRNSk??State: AdZip: ??3 3 ARCHI7ECT/ Company: ENGINEER Name: Phone #: Registration #:. Street Address, C ity: Sewer & water licensed plumber: change are requested once permit is issued, State: Zip: Penalty applies when address change and lot 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. 11? Signature of Applicant: 449;?? X///, -"., e_"' OFFICE USE ONLY Y Certificates of Survey Received Yes No Tree Preservation Plan Received Yes No BUILDING PERMIT TYPE a 01 Foundation o 06 Dupiex a 02 SF Dweiling ? 07 4-plex ? 03 SF Addition o 08 8-plex ? 04 SF Porch ? 09 12-plex ? 05 SF Misc. ? 10 _-plex WORK TYPE ? 31 New ? 33 Alterations ? 32 Addition ? 34 Repair GENERAL INFORMATION OFFiCE USE ONLY ? 11 Apt./Lodging . 0 ? 12 Multi Repair/Rem. o ? 13 Garage/Accessory ? ? 14 Fireplace 11 0 15 Deck ? 36 Move ? 37 ' Demolition ? . __ ...??_?.? , •?• 16 Basement Finish 17 Swim Pool 20 Pubiic Facility 21 Miscellaneous Const. (Actual) Basement sq. ff. MC/WS System (Allowable) Main level sq. ft. City Water , UBC Occupancy sq. ft. Fire Sprinklered Zoning sq. ft. PRV # af Stories sq. ft. Booster Pump Length sq. ft. Census Code. Depth Footprint sq. ft. SAC Code Census Bldg Census Unit APPROVALS Planning Building Engineering Variance Permit Fee Valuation: $ Surcharge Plan Review License MCNVS SAC City SAC Water Conn. Water Meter Acct. Deposit S/W Permit S/W Surcharge Treatment PI. Road Unit Park Ded. - Trails Ded. Other Copies Total: +/?/+ x ?f'1lr % J SAC Units JUNE 179 1991 ASSESSOR'S OFFICE CITY OF EAGAN 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAO EAGAN, MN, 55122 OEAR SIR: RE: STREET ASSESSMENT ON RAHN ROAD oi . ? P ? THIS IS A FORMAL NOTICE TO YOU THAT 1, IRENE A. GILLESPIE, CONTEST THE ASSESSMENT LEUIED ON MY PROPERTY AT 4351 RAHhI ROAD,;EAGAN, MN. THE tMPROUEMENTS ON THE STREET HHUE ANQ WILL FURTHER DIMIINISN THE UALUE Of MY PROPERTY Ih1 THE FUTURE. 1 f ULLY I NTENO TO H iRE AN ENPERT APPRA I SER TO APPRA 1 SE MY PROPERTY AND TESTIfY IN COURT WITH TNE ASSISTANCE Of LEGAL COUNSEL TO OBTAIN REL I EF f ROtN THE ASSESSMENT THAT I S LEU I ED ON IMY PROPERTY. SINCERELY, . ,,, . IREIVE R. GfLLESPiE HOME PHONE: 454-8855 WORK: 894-4211 I MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS _ FROM: CITY ADMIIVISTRATOR HEDGES .._ _? --y- DATE: MARCH 17, 1992 SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA FOR iyIARCH 179 1992 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - C1TY ATTORNEY ' There are no items for a.n executive session at tbis time. Howtver, tbe Mayor, City Council and City Attorney have reserved ibe right to call an executive session to address any matters of pending litigation if desired. CITY ADMIrTISTRATOR ltem 1. Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs--Judge Mansw has granted the Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs in the sum of $5,593. Please refer to a oopy of the memo from the Ci Attorne?s office entided "Rahn Road Appellants" Afiotion for Costs" enclosed on pages ?adthrough Q.2F- ACI'ION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the issuance of a check to the appellants in the sum of $5,593 as ordered. by Judge Mansur. Item 2. Heller v. City of Eagan Assessment Appeal The City has received a Stipulation and Order resolving the Heller v. City of Eagan assessment appeal which in summary causes the Heller parcel to be reassessed from its levied assessment of $49,277.80 to $40,000 and to be proportionately divided up among all of the assessed items as presented in the enclosed memo. Enclosed on pages= through2.U is a copy of a memo from Annette Margarit entitled "Heller v. City of Eagan Assessment Appeal," a resolution adopting the settlement agreement and a copy of the Stipulation and Order. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny a Tesalution thax the Heller parcel be reassessed from its leyied assessment of $49,277.80 to $40,000 which in essence approves a Stipulation for Settlement resolving the Heller assessment appeal. Item 3. Northview-Building F'uv Restoration Contrsct/Defaatt to Contractnal Obligations-- As the City Council recalls, the Norttiview Park Building sustained oonsiderable damage as a result of a lightening strike and fire during tbe summer of 1991. Beaoon Builders Incorporated were awarded a bid in the amount of $8,883 to correct the damage and assured staff that the 60 day completion timeframe was adequate to finish the, projecK. Unfortunately, the 60 day construction period expired and staff is of the opinion that the contractor did not meet its oontractual obligations which are now impending the City's operational needs for the building. For additional information on why staff is requesting - .,w ,_. MEMORANDIIM TO: Tom Hedges, City Administrator- FROM: Annette M. Margarit DATE: March 4, 1992 RE: Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs " 16703 - ?aa - o / 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 Caurt 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 cos.ts. 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 tY:e 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 ?•Iw ?qwvj Noa- ol f 34X. E-ArY. 0->- ?+0 fHOGTARD GROVES A7'TY AT I.AW 260 SRYLZNE SQIIARE BLDG 12940 HARRIET AVE S (BRNS MN 55337 _ (- ANNETTE M MARGARIT ATTY AT LAW 600 MIDWAY NAT BANK BLDG 7300 W 147TH ST • LAPPLE VALLEY MN 55124 S7ATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF Dukota NOTlCE OF: O F1LING OF OROEA ? ENTRY OF JUDGMENT X3 DOCKETING OF JUDGMENT Court Flle No.: C5-91-7756 _ 1N RE: IN RE: ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584 RNOWN AS RAHN ROAD RECONSTRIICTION ETC. ? 1rUu an hereby nodAed that on 19__ an Order was duly llled ln tha above enUtled marier. ? You are hereby notiflad that on MARCH 2-1992 Amended , 19_____ Q Judgmont wna duly entered (n the above entitted mattor. ? You ue heraby notlflad that on ?? 2-1992 @ ? 18 a Judgment was duly docketed In the ebova enllUed matter ln lhe amount o( $5593.00 AGAINST CITY OF EAGAN - A true and correct copy o( thta Notlce has bean sarved by rrie11 upon the parttes namad heretn at tha last known addrass o( each, pursuant lo Minnesola Rules of Clvtl Prxadure, Rule 77.04. Dntod• MARCH 2ND 1992 ROCER W. SAHES " Court AdmlNstrator by • Deputy ..Aca .,.s FlB ?$ e day 19 q ,? ROGER W. SAMES. Cow Autunistraot gY t-S- ,._? UiY P k . ? ,_..y ,- 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 3une 18, 1991: ArID . dl?MENDID JODGMEN'T Name Address P.I.N. Nathan R.'Benoy 4372 Rahn Road 10-707775-020-01 Gregory/Cindy Cox 4369 Rahn Road 10-16703-250-01 Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road 10-16703-220-01 Dean/Karen Goche 4065 Rahn Road 10-16702-170-07 Darrell/Pat Haines 3990 Rahn Road 10-16704-110-03 Robert/Antoinette Keeney 4370 Rahn Road 10-70775-010-01 Vernon/Janet Nelson 3996 Rahn Road 10-16704-100-03 Paul/Deb Notermann 4374 Rahn Road 10-48050-104-01 Brian/Carrie Olwein 4363 Rahn Road 10-I6703-240-01 Mary Rock 4339 Rahn ftoad 10-16703-200-01 Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn Road 10-16702-080-03 Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft 4345 RAhn Road 10-16703-210-01 Appellants, vs. City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, Respondent. Motion of Appellants for an award of costs and disbursements was heard by the undersigned as a-telephone conference on February 28, 1992, at the Dakota County Judicial Center, Hastings, Minnesota. The Appellants were represented by Howard Groves, their attorney. The Respondent City was represented by Annette M. Margarit, its attorney. Re 1lf13?.?.?..?-?..? of ?-? 1 ROGER W. SAMES, CouR ACmm:s;rztot ?Ft ' ISSUE Appellants seek an award of costs and disbursements in the aggregate amount of $5,593. Based upon the trial, the arguments of counsel, the Memoranda submitted, the file and proceedings heretofore had, the Court FINDS 1. That there is no issue as to the award of $193.00 of costs per statute and service of process fees. 2. That the protracted hearings were necessary because the appeal was of twelve (12) individual properties consolidated for trial by Order of this Court dated October 28, 1992. 3. That the appraisal costs of $350 per parcel is reasonable, as is the cost of $100 per parcel for attendance at trial by Appellants' expert. 4. That Appellants are entitled to reimbursement in the aggregate sum of $5,593. ? ORDERS 1. That Appellants are entitled to Judgment against the Respondent City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, in the sum of $5,593.00. 2. That the followino Memorandum is incornorat.Pa hPrain l,v reference. 3. There being no justifiable reason for delay, the Court Administrator shall enter Judgment forthwith. 2 DATED: 2-28-92 BY THE COURT: . AM=ID . JIIDGMENT I hereby certify that the above Order modifies the ARTIN J MAN R Judgment ente=eci Jan 24-1992 and along with that " Judge Dis rict Court Judgment constitutes the Amended Judgment of the Gourt.' Date: March 2nd 1992 /? MEM08ANDUM Roger W. Sames, Crt Admr By!?J - .? ief Deputy (Seal) Costs an is urse 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, 287 N.W.2d 375 (Minn. 1979) the Minnesota Supreme Court stated "...we can see no logical reason why a prevailing municipality should be entitled to costs but not a prevailing land owner..." In addition, Minn. Stat. 549.04 provides, in part, as follows: "In every action in District Court, the prevailing party...shall be allowed reasonable disbursements paid or incurred, including fees and mileage for service of process by the sheriff or by a private person." The taxation of costs is governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure and by Chapter 549 of Minnesota Statutes. The City cites Minn. Stat. 645.21, Subd. 1, as a basis for the preclusion of awarding of costs and disbursements. However, a full reading of Minn. Stat. 645., and more specifically, 645.26, Subd. 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 r effect may be given to both. In addition, this Court concludes that where a conflict between two provisions is irreconcilable, the special provision shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision. Finally, in this particular case, the provisions of Minn. Stat. 549.04 and 429.081 are not irreconcilable and, pursuant to the specific provisions of Minn. Stat. 645.26, this Court construes each so that effect may be given to both of the aforementioned statutes. While the City's argument is one of inerit, under the facts of the case the Court is persuaded that the Appellant land owners are entitled to reimbursement and it is so ordered. 4 ? MEMORANDUM TO: Deanna Kivi FROM: Annette M. Margarit DATE: March 9, 1992 RE: Rahn Road Assessments Enclosed please find the Waiver of Notice provided by attorney Howard Groves on behalf of the Rahn Road Appellants in which they waive any public hearing for the purpose of reassessing the parcels. With this document, you may proceed to direct Dakota County to reassess.the parcels. I have also included a copy of the Court's Order and post-trial Order indicating that the parcels should be reassessed in the sum of $0. ' If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to call. AMM/wkt cc: Tom Hedges Gene VanOverbeke STA`iE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT CDUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: 10 OTHER CIVIL (SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEAL) In Re: Court File No. C5-91-7756 Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction WAIVER OF NOTICE adopted by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991: Name Address Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road Gregory/Cindy Cox 4369 Rahn Road Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road Dean/Karen Goche 4065 Rahn Road Darrell/Pat Haines 3990 Rahn Road Robert/Antoinette Keeney 4370 Rahn Road Vernon/Janet Nelson 3996 Rahn Road Paul/Deb Notermann 4374 Rahn Road Brian/Carrie Olwein 4363 Rahn Road Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn Road Mark/Kathy Weidenhaft 4345 Rahn Road Appellants, ? vs. City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, Respondent. P.I.N. 10-70775-020-01 10-16703-250-01 10-16703-220-01 10-16702-170-07 10-16704-110-03 10-70775-010-01 10-16704-100-03 10-48050-104-01 10-16703-240-01 10-16703-200-01 10-16702-080-03 10-16703-210-01 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 ,7udgment 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: ? - Howard J. Grov Attorney for Appellants 260 Skyline Square Building 12940 Harriet Avenue South Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 (612) 890-2477 Atty. I.D. No.: 38313 2 ucs•100 (4.a4) Norim or fi4,Q, cnlry, coc?.tlnq rMt HOWexn J 'GxOVEs ATTY AT LAW STE 260 SKYLINE SQ 12940 HARRIET AVE S L BURNSViLLE MN 55337 STATE OF MINNE80TA COUNTY OF DAKOTA NOTlCE OF: ? FIUNG OF ORDER r-MS ANNETTE M MARGARIT • ATTY AT LAW BZ ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 600 MID[dAY AIAT BANK BLDG : 7300 W 147TH ST ? DOCKETING OF JUDGMENT L PLE VALLEY MN 55124 ` Court Flle No.; C5-91-7756 ' ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584, KNOWN AS RAHN RD RECONSTRIICTION ETC. lN RE: NATHAN R BENOY ETAL V CITY OF EAGAN ETC. 13X l?w ere hareby noUfled that on JANUARy 24TH 1992 19an Order ? was duly flied ln the above entltted matler. X13 You are hereby notifled that on' JANIIARY 24TH 1992 , 19 a Judgment wa.a duly anterod In tha abova entitted rnatter. _ ? You ar+e hereby notiflad that on , 19 e Judgment was duly dockated In the above entltled matter In the amount ot S A true and corract copy of thta Notice has been served by mail upon the partles namad heretn at the last known sddrosa of each, purouant to Mlnnesota Rules af Clvli Procadure, Ruta 77.04, Oaled• JANIIARY 24TH 1992 ROGER W SAMES • Court Adminlstrator by J Deputy MwG ai69 Fle this daY Of _ y c?--,L1 1 ROGER W. AMES, Coun qeminisuator BY ? F? STATE OF MINNESOTA DSSTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT In Re: Assessments for Project. - 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction, adopted by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991: Name Nathan R. Benoy Gregory/Cindy Cox Irene Gillespie Dean/Karen Goche Darrell/Pat Haines Robert/Antoinette Keeney VernonJJanet Nelson Paul/Deb Notermann Brian/Carrie Olwein Mary Rock Ron/Lorri Trenary Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft Address 4372 Rahn Road 4369 Rahn Road 4351 Rahn Road 4065 Rahn Road 3990 Rahn Road 4370 Rahn Road 3996 Rahn Road 4374 Rahn Road 4363 Rahn Road 4339 Rahn Road 4137 Rahn Road 4345 Rahn Road Appellants, vs. City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, P.I.N. 10-70775-020-01 10-16703-250-01 10-16703-220-01 10-16702-170-07 10-16704-110-03 10-70775-010-01 10-16704-100-03 10-48050-104-01 10-16703-240-01 10-16703-200-01 10-16702-080-03 10-16703-210-01 Respondent. . The above-entitled motion for amended findings or in the alternative, a new trial came on for hearing on the Special Term calendar at 9:00 a.m. on January ?1, 1992 at the Dakota County Judicial Center in Hastings, Minnesota before the undersigned judge of district court. Annette M. Margarit, Attorney-at-Law, appeared on behalf of the City. Howard Groves, Attorney-at-Law, appeared for Appellants. Based on the arguments, the memoranda, 1 File No. C5-91-7756 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF I,AW. ORDER FOR JODGMEN'r affidavits and the FRa mis eay ot ts ROGER W. SAMES, Court Adminlstrucr ey r9 ;l?. Q nr '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 lereby denied in their entirety. - 2. The following Memorandum is hereby incorporated by reference. • 3. That the Court Administrator sha11 forthwith enter judgment accordingly. DATED: January 23, 1991 BY THE COIIRT: Y,ARTIN J. S udge of is ict Court ... MEMORANDIIM Those proposed "technical" amended Findings which are not germane to the determinatian 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 • ? ? U to the Court. Appraisll or the properties was of the greatest import to the Eactfinder. As articulated in this Msmorandum and in the Deoember 18, 7.991 Findings, Order a?nd Memorandum, in the Eactfincler's visw, the faats tend to support Appellants. The crux oP Appellants' claim is that the City unfairly asse:?eed them Por stxeet improvemants. The etnndard Por valid speoial asseasmants is: (1) the ].and must receive aspecial benefit from the a.mprovement being aonstructed; (2) the assassment must be uniform upon the same alass oP property, and (3) the assessment may not exoeed the speaial benefit. Carlso - Lang Rpa ty Co. v_ City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 369, 240 N.W.2d 5170 519 (Minn. 1976). Special benefit fs measured by the inc:rease in . the markst value of the land owing td the improvement. id. In appraising the aubject property, "an appraiser determineg what 'a willing k?uyex would pay a willing seller for the property before, and than after, the improvement has been cvnatructed. ,?. While the government entity is presumed to have set the assessment legally, an appellant may overaoiua the presumptian by introduaing cQmpetent evidence that the assessment is greater than the increase in market val.ue o£ the prdperty due to the impxavement. ?j. These are the criteria whiah the Court applied to the Pacts pressnted at trial. It ahould be noted that in its Memaxandum supporting its motion for a new-trial or amended findings, the City 'reliea on Villag.n of Edina v. IZ,Qgggja, 264 Mirin. 84, 199 N..W.2d 809 (1962). In that aase, the residents whose property abutted the i.mproved 3 ECIi ? -iujlhoo-1dnoo loI JlsI Q 0:) d10>mQ 9'[ :ST 'c5iLciTO - 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 I? property affected... [b]enefits which may be demonstrated by a mathematical exactness are not always required in order to support an assessment." Villaae of Edina v. Joseph, 119 N.W.2d at 818. ?\ Minnesota has also adopted a specific test, as cited in Carlson-Lang Realtv Co., above, which this Court has chosen to apply. While the City asserts that Villaqe of Edina controls and that the December, 1991 decision fails to abide by it, it appears that the decision is consistent with both cases and in conformity . with Minnesota law. i I Both parties attempted to establish evidence of the ? i properties' market value. Appellants' expert, Mr. Daniels, ! appraised each property based on individualized, detailed inspection of the properties and analysis of "comparables". His written appraisals were for both "before" and "after" values. Mr. Daniels factored into his appraisals his analysis of the _ effect of the Rahn Road improvements. There was also evidence that many prospective buyers refused to make offers for purchase of Rahn Road property after the improvements, and because of them, and testimony about the actual sales data available for those properties. Some of that data indicated that average sale prices of 4 + Eagan homes in 1991'were 11.5% higher than 1988 averages_ Yet, an assessed Rahn Road home whose owner did not participate in this action, which was bought in 1988 (before improvements) and sold in 1991 (after improvements) failed to achieve that 11.5% increase. The City used this home in its effort to show that some increased value occurred. But the home's appreciation plus the cost of the improvements was significantly less than the price needed to justify the 11.5% average sale price plus the assessment cost. Mr. Daniels's credentials, his testimony and his exhibits were persuasive. That evidence indicated that the Rahn Road improvements had not only not benefitted. the Appellants' properties but that the real market value of the properties had been adversely effected. Where no benefit is conferred by the , improvement, no special assessment is permitted. The City, on the other hand, offered evidence which was less persuasive. The City's well-qualified expert,. Mr. Metzen, testif ied based upon more general presumptions. about the individual properties. He did not inspect or appraise the specific homes which were assessed but rather relied on square , footage and frontage statistics to determine.comparable prices. He further generalized from his comparables, using smaller homes, based on square footage, to generalize fair market value for larger homes. In its position as the finder of fact, the Court must choose one party's evidence over the other. Appellants' more specific 5 testimony was simply more convincing. The determination of Rahn Road as a"collector" street and the width of the improved road could be relevant as to whether the improvements directly caused increased traffic, if the Court had relied on that information alone, which is not the case. The Court found, based on testimony from residents and real estate experts, that Rahn Road changed after the improvement from a quiet street to one on which traffic increased. Determination of the date that it was designated a "collector" street and the exact width of the street are not significant to the Court's decision. Again, the criteria for the assessment must be whether the improvement benefitted the property, and the evidence indicated it did not. Finally, the method of assessment is not pertinent to the Court's conclusion that there is no benefit to the homeowners from the improvement. Any asssessment, regardless of its formula, is invalid. , 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT -? COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ----------------------------------------------------------------- In Re: Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction, adopted by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991: . Name Address Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road Gregory/Cindy Cox 4369 Rahn Road Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road Dean/Karen Goche 4065 Rahn Road Darrell/Pat Haines . 3990 Rahn Road Robert/Antoinette Keeney 4370 Rahn Road Vernon/Janet Nelson 3996 Rahn Road Paul/Deb Notermann 4374 Rahn Road Brian/Carrie Olwein 4363 Rahn Road Mary Rock 4339 Rahn' Road Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn Road Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft 4345 Rahn Road File No. C5-91-7756 FINDINGS OF FACT._ CONCLIISIONS OF LAW. ORDER FOR JIIDGMENT P.I.N. 10-70775-020-01 10-16703-250-01 10-16703-220-01. 10-16702-170-07 10-16704-110-03 10-70775-010-01 10-16704-100-03 10-48050-104-01 10-16703-240-01 10-16703-200-01 10-16702-080-03 10-16703-210-01 Appellants, rass42 VS. Q7 ?? 19? R417En W. SNAts. CiOUn G1lS7ilOf City of Eagan, a municipal ??; corporat ion, Dy?.L-L.)aa= U;:PJW 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 i -. . . . . . __.; represented by Annette M. Margarit, its attorney. . J The Court having considered the evidence adduced at trial, having examined the evidence offered by the respective parties and all the records of the proceedings and being fully advised, . makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT' 1. That the above-named property owners appealed from a Special Assessment levied by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991, for Project No. 584. The Project as proposed by the city council included the widening, grading, base and bituminous resurfacing, curb and gutter and utility improvements on Rafin* Road between Beau 'D Rue Drive and Shale Lane. 2. That Appellant Nathan R. Benoy is the owner af 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 $21617.15, 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 . o. - .. , . ; • Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the ,. amount of the assessment'levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for,a total of $2, 309 .25. ' The parcel is zoned for residential use, and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 4. _ That Appellant Irene Gillespie is the owner of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally. i described as follows: Lot 22, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. ?-. Said Appellant has 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 5. That Appellants Dean and Karen Goche are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally . 4 described as follows: Lot 17, plock 7, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota.. Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied` against such property was.$30.79 per front foot for a total of $4,178.20. The parcel is zoned for residential use 'and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 6. That Appellants Darrell and Pat Haines are the owners of 3 G a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and ° legally described as follows: , y Lot 11, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. • . Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $3,694.80. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. • 7. That Appellants Robert and Antoinette Keeney are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Sons Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have -125 feel of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $3,848.75. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel-is for residential use. 8. That Appellants Vernon and Janet Nelson'are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: - Lot 10, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 5, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said-Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 4 per front foot for a total of $3,694.80.' The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel if for residential use. 9. That Appellants Paul and Deb Notermann are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: 1 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 is the owner of a parcel of . land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: r.? Lot 20, Block i, Cedar Grove No. 41,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 tront foot for a totaT of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best xise 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. i City's Value • Witness's Opinion Amt of Name Sa. ft. jhouse 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 11066 . 2,500.00 3,694.80 Notermann 1,112 21500.00 21801.58 Olwein 1,008 2,309.25 2,309.25 Rock' 1,236 2,309.25 21309.25 Trenary 912. 2,500.00/3,000.00 61010.52 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 reasbn thereof, the City of Eagan Improvement Project No. 584 did not specifically benefit each of the Appellants' properties. CONCLIISIONS OF LAW 1. That the assessments levied. against the Appellants' properties be and the same are hereby vacated and set•aside. 2. The following Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. . 3. Let judgment be entered accordingly after -a stay of 30 8 a days. a DATID: 12-18-91 BY THI: COIIRT: ??-••:. . TIN SIIR Judge o Di trict Court HEMORANDIIH The assessment of benefit to Appellants' properties as indicated in the assessment roll was sufficien'?-iy countered by Appellants to require the fact issue as to the reasonable value of the property assessed before and after the improvement, and to what extent the properties may have benefitted. In considering the evidence of the before and after value, greater weight was given to the testimony of the Appellants' witnesses. Mr. Daniels formed his conclusions as to the market value of the respective properties in the year the assessment roll was adopted. His opinion as to the properties was further supported by realtors active in the sale of residential homes in the area, one of whom testified that the improvements of Rahn Road changed the character of the neighborhood, and this change impacted ina- 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 oPfered no testiinony in the before and after value of the individual parcels. Its expert testimony was based on a sale or sales that were not too remote in time but were not within the affected time frame; that is, at or near the improvement, or subject to the improvement. Mr. Metzen took into , consideration his knowledge, his experience, the type of homes that the builder whom he was acquainted with constructs, and then the sale or sales that he relied on as comparables,to the subject properties in forming an opinion as to whether the assessment, as adopted by the city, met the statutory requirements. One should note that his opinion is that the assessment as adopted by the city did not for the most part meet the statutory requirements. As his testimony indicated, for most of the parcels he formed an opinion that if there was a benefit, it was less than the assessment levied by the city. Both value witnesses considered the rate of inflation and the flat real estate market in arriving • at their conclusions. It is this Court's view that .the difference between the conclusions reached is that the city's value witness considered the availability of the use of the improvement rather than the increase in value. Additionally, it should be noted. that the Appellants' value'witness submitted written appraisals for each parcel in support of his opinion as to value in the before and the after, whereas the city's value witness testified from his 10 . % ? . , ? . . . 4 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, 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 r- ' .. ? tJGT • 100 (1 ? ? N1b1 Of / A14 G+1'Y. Deeki6-4 FHOWARD J GROVES ATTY AT LAW STE 260 SKYI.INE SQ 12940 HARRIET AVE S LBIIxxsvILLE MN 55337 ID «?? 71)3- 2 ?rO- OI BTATE OF MiNNESOTA COUNZY OF DAKOTA NO71CE OF; . ? FILiNQ OF ORDER O ENTRY OF JUDC'iMENT • O DOCKETIN(3 OF JUDC3MENT `ANNETTE M MARGARIT ATTY AT LAW 600 MIDWAY NATL BANR BLDG 7300 W 147TH ST LAPPLF. VALLEY MN 55124 Coutt Fl1• No.; C5-91-7756 0 1 N R E; NATHAN R. BENOY ET AL VS. CITY OF EAGAN ETC. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLIISIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JIIDG2MM You a,re heroby noUtled that on nFr FR t RTH 19 91 nn Order was duly ftied ln the ebove entitied mattor. ? Ybu ere horoby notifled {hal on , 19 s Judgment we.e duly enlered In the ;above enpqed maNer. 1 C] You ere heroby notMed thet on - 19 a Jvdpment wde duly docketed In the above enUtled meNer In the amount oI S .,. _? A irve ond correcl copy ol ihte Notloe hoe been eerved by metl vpon the psrtlse named hsreln aI the iast known addroaa ot oach, puraunnt to Minneaota Ftulee oi Ctvll Proceduro, Rule 77.04. Dated` DECII4BER 18TH 1991 iM? ?? ' C?06ER W. SJiMES. Oout A*WNrM --IV 61? Wiff ROGER W. SAMES Cour1 Admtnl3trator ay - Deputy M.c. af.r ?????? ???? ??. (ZN STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ----------------------------------------------------------------- In Re: Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction, adopted by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991: Name Address Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road Gregory/Cindy Cox 4369 Rahn Road Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road Dean/Karen Goche 4065 Rahn Road Darrell/Pat Haines 3990 Rahn Road Robert/Antoinette Keeney 4370 Rahn Road Vernon/Janet Nelson 3996 Rahn Road Paul/Deb Notermann 4374 Rahn Road Brian/Carrie Olwein 4363 Rahn Road Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn Road Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft 4345 Rahn Road File No. C5-91-7756 FINDZNGS OF FACT. ,CONCLIISIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JUDGMEI'1T 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 10-26704-100-03 10-48050-104-01 10-16703-240-01 10-16703-200-01 10-16702-080-03 10-16703-210-41, Appellants, _ ? t ? b" ? vs. W 1921 . RaGER W. sat&S. courc W?n?m:ca City of Eagan, a municipal y corporat ion, By...1?5.?? Dc?J7Y 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 ti 1 represented by Annette M. Margaril`., its attorney. The Court having considered the evidence adduced at trial, having examined the evidence offered by the respective parties and all the records of the proceedings and being fully advised, makes the following: . FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the above-named property owners appealed from a Special Assessment levied by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991, for Project No. 584. The Project as proposed by the city council included the widening, grading, base and bituminous resurfacing, curb and gutter and utility improvements on Rahn Road between Beau 'D Rue Drive and Shale Lane. 2. That Appellant Nathan R. Benoy is the owner of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as: Lot 2, Block 1, Sons Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellant has 85 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,617.15, and the highest and best use of said parcel is residential. 3. That Appellants Gregory and Cindy Cox are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as: Lot 25, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. 2 Said Appellants have 75 feet of 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 il, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $3,694.80. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 7. That Appellants Robert and Antoinette Keeney are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: - Lot 1, Block 1, Sons Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 125 feel of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $3,848.75. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 8. That Appellants Vernon and Janet Nelson are the'owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: ,- Lot 10, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 5, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property. was $30.79 4 per front foot for a total of $3,694.80. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel if for residential use. 9. That Appellants Paul and Deb Notermann are the owners of a pareel 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 €ront 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: c Lot 21, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County , Minnesota. Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied, against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best iise of said parcel is 6 I for residential use. 14. Upon the trial of the above enumerated appeals the City's value witnesses offered testimony as to the amount of the assessment that would be reasonable and did not specifically address the before and after value as to each property that is the subject of this appeal. Enumerated herein is a summary of the City's value witnesses. City's Value Witness's Ovinian Amt of Name Sq_ft. jhouse 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 2,309.25 2,309.25 Trenary 912 2,500.00/3,000.00 6,010.52 Weidenhaft 1,232 2,309.25 2,309.25 14. That -the Appellant's value witness testified follows: Name Before Value 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 LAW 1. That the assessments levied against the Appellants' properties be and the same are hereby vacated and set aside. 2. The following Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. 3. Let judgment be entered accordingly after a stay of 30 8 days. DATED: 12-18-91 BY THE COIIRT: J'e? Z'l , TIN ' SIIR Judge o Di t=ict Court IIMORANDIIli The assessment of benefit to Appellants' properties as indicated in the assessment roll was sufficiently countered by Appellants to require the fact issue as to the reasonable value of the property assessed before and after the improvement, and to what extent the properties may have benefitted. In considering the evidence of the before and after value, greater weight was given to the testimony of the Appellants' witnesses. Mr. Daniels formed his conclusions as to the market value of the respective properties in the year the assessment roll was adopted. His opin.ion as to the properties was further supported by realtors active in the sale of residential homes in the area, one of whom testified that the improvements iof Rahn Road changed the character of the neighborhood, and this change impacted in a negative manner as to value of the Appellants' properties. In addition, one or more of these realtors cited actual sales listing experiences to further support their testimony. Mr. Metzen's opinion as to value is based upon his knowledge 9 ,l ? as to the builder of the homes in the area, and the type of homes the builder constructs. He elected not to inspect the subject homes. Additionally, the city offered no testimony in the before and after value of the individual parcels. Its expert testimony was based on a sale or sales that were not too remote in time but were not within the affected time frame; that is, at or near the improvement, or subject to the improvement. Mr. Metzen took into consideration his knowledge, his experience, the type of homes that the builder whom he was acquainted with constructs, and then the sale or sales that he relied on as comparables to the subject properties in forming an opinion as to whether the assessment, as adopted by the city, met the statutory requirements. One should note that his opinion is that the assessment as adopted by the city did not for the most part meet the statutory requirements. As his testimony indicated, for most of the parcels he formed an opinion that if there was a benefit, it was less than the assessment levied by the city. Both value witnesses considered the rate of inflation and the flat real estate market in arriving at their conclusions. It is this Court's view that the difference between the + conclusions reached is that the city's value witness considered the availability of the use of the improvement rather than the increase in value. Additionally, it should be noted that the Appellants' value witness submitted written appraisals for each parcel in support of his opinion as to value in the befare and the after, whereas the city's value witness testified from his 10 knowledge of the area, the builder whom he was acquainted_ with, and some comparables, and then he concluded that the properties benefitted in the amount that he testified without regard to the before and after value as to each. It should be noted that five of the parcels have 75 foot frontage and the square footage for each of the dwellings ranges from 912 square feet. to a high of 1,232 square feet. This approach appears to treat each parcel the same, regardless of size, whereas in addition to ?the' differences noted with the properties that have 75 foot frontage, one need only review Finding No. 14 to see the further disparity. Finally, the Court has determined the assessments must be vaeated for the reasons set forth herein. Therefore, it- is not necessary to determine whether the method employed by the City in computing the assessment is statutorily proper. ? 11 STATE OF MINNESOTA ? C. Olk . ? IWEZ-1 7? i ? DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ? CASE TYPE: 10 OTHER CIVIL ? SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEA L ) -------------------------------- a_ -.06 \ -________________________ In Re: ??\q0Court File No. Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction adopted by the City of Eagan QOTICE OF_APPEAL on June 18, 1991 TO: THE ABOVE-NAMED COURT AND THE CITY OF EAGAN: NOTICE is hereby given pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 429.081 that each of the property owners listed below hereby appeal the adoption of the above-referenced Assessment Roll as the same relates to property owned by each of the parties set forth below at the address and property identification number set forth next to their respective names, all of which property is located in the City of Eagan, County of Dakota, and State of M.innesota. 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 Exnibit "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 t.he property has not been increased in the amount of the assessments adopted. 3. The assessment was not regularly and properly adopted. The property owners making this Appeal and the address and property identification number of their respective properties are set forth below: NAME ADDRESS P.I.N. Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road 10-70775-020-01 Gregory Cox and 4369 Rahn Road 10-16703-250-01 Cindy Cox Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road 10-16703-220-01 Dean Goche and 4065 Rahn Road 10-16702-170-07, Karen Goche Darrell Haines and 3990 Rahn Road 10-16704-110-03 Pat Haines Robert Keeney and 4370 Rahn Road 10-70775-010-01 Antoinette Keeney Vernon Nelson and 3996 Rahn Road 10-16704-100-03 Janet Nelson Paul Notermann and 4374 Rahn Road 10-48050-104-01 Deb Notermann Brian Olwin and 4363 Rahn Road 10-16703-240-01 Carrie Olwin Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road 10-16703-200-01 Ron Trenary and 4137 Rahn Road 10-16702-080-03 Lorri Trenary _ Mark Weidenhaft and 4345 Rahn Road 10-16703-210-01 Kathy Weidenhaft 2 Dated this 1? ? day of July, 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 CITY COUNCII. T??IVTFS June 28, 1991 PRO.}EC'r??84ff7NAF,?'l?SE§S,?'?£NT HEARING R.AHN ROAD RECONSTRUCi70N After inUOduction by Mayot Egas aad City Administrator Hedges, Direclor of Public Works Tom Colbert provided a brief overview of the aLwt«*+ents and the ncigbborhood meeting 6eld on lune 11,1991. He 6aid scventy properties witb direct access onto Rahn Road received notices of asscssment on this project. Mayor Egan then opened t6e public 6earing to public commeet. Mr. C6.aries MacDonald, of 4145 Rahn Road, said 6e had filed written objectiod f6:the assessments against his property. Mr. MacDonald said the value of h;s home had actually dropped because::ot the opgra?e of Rahn Road and the resultant beavy traffic. He said evidence of that is the Dakota Cottnty Assessor'a gir.e lowering the value of his 6ome by a S percent due (o Rahn Road. • • . • . Mayor Egan asked Mr. Bill Petttsoa? otthc??Coiiery.A?.SOr's officc to e?lain the S percent deduaion Gom propert), taxes because a number of 6omeowners had referenced it in conaect.ion aich the Rahn Road improvements. Mr. Peterson said a misunderstanding exasts among the bomeowers as to the meaning of the S percent modifier. He said the modifier has been used since 1983 and was used for property along Rahn Road. lt was done, however, for 1990 valuations and, therefore, preceeded rtconstruction of Rahn Road. ?he Dakota Counry Assessor's office uses mass appraisal and deals witb anCages and norms. He said tbey use a standard site value and then look at each property and add or subtiac; frtim this standard value considering a neimber o[ factors, including being located on a major?sg3d?the County Assessor's office uus modifiers quite [requently and is not implying Lhat dbe i?apr'ciycmeiits on;itahn Road 6ad aay impad oa their valuations. Mr. Mark Weidenhah, of 4345 Ralu'i ?ttiad, said..widening and improving Rahn Road had compounded the negative c[fect of the road on their property. Ht 4t3?d #hat..tlu State Attorney General has ruled that to be assessed for improvements, the City has to prove benefit to:tbe property. He said his property could not be worth more with more Uaftic. Mr. Darrell Haines, oi 3990 Rahn Road, complained about the policy used [or assessments, the ioss of 6omc value and said sdditional properties on Bluestone, Carnelian, Jade, flint, dc, should sharo in the oosts. Ms. Laurie Luconic, of 4137 Raha:R 6 2?a?id she:ha;d.:d'oi?e aa intormal survey oi other ades and tound that many do nw assess by [roat footage:::;$?iE also. ooti?pl?ed"u.se the laclc of double sUiping on the toad has led moeorists to believe that passiag ?:petmissAk': Mr. Gcrard Bents, representin0bunt Ca7v?ity Lut6eran Cburch, objeded to the asseasment against the entire churc6 propcrty at t6e public:t?ciSliii,s':i;iitt?; ::p*ted out that this rate wras the same as that of commercial progerty. Ho said they have?msaetbe?urcb?avaita?sle to organi:ations for mectiags free of cbsrge and have, as a result, generated additionat tragic. He pointed oui, 6owever, that approxdmatefy 190 [cet of the frontage on Rahn Road belongs to the parsoaage aad telt it sboWd be assessed at a aingle-family nte. Mr. Bents wished to note that the S4d,000 assessment constitutes 15 perant of the cburc6's aanual budget. Director ot Public Works Colbort said I.be entire parcet ha4 .qw.lco. description and ii was assesud at one rate based on the zoning. Mr. Colbcrt aaid that the Cou?l:?ait?:sid'tix,d assessments oa a d.if?erent ase at the last City Council meeting and had determined Lhat,"s'sments aboul$:btbased on zoniag. Mr. Benta asked t6at the City Council make an eucptiaa. ..... ... Councilmember Paalenty then OKvsud the sitnation'rtferred to by Mr. Coibcrt. In that iastance, if the Ciry Coundl had assessed at a higher;io; tt?.pCtfj!tiiv?vex'fi oo?1d have had'assessmtnt-backed expedations" tor a higher and better use of the propeity;::*:?a "'iashariet{ '[?itte is s higher zoning and the property owner is asking for assessments based oa a ioavor use. D'ucaor of Public Works Cotbore naed cbai if the property Page 7/FAGAN CTTY COUNCIL MINUTFS t lune 28, 1991 is assessed at a lower rate and is ullimattly put to a higher use, the City would not have the opportunity, once the asscssments are levied, to teassest at Mr. Terry Stover, oi 3906 Ra.4.;Road, objcec.ted to the assessments kvied against Oudot A of the Woodhaven Addition. He said that oudoc:does not have assess onto Rahn Road aad, furt6er, the development ptan tor the property indicates that acccss'mnst be oB Beau de Rue Driva Mr. Stover said any possibility of sccess onto Rahn Road was a virtual imposv'bility due to the new elevation of the toad. He refened to the fact that several properties along Rahn Road were not asse.ssed because t6ey had no driveaay assess onto Rahn Road and said he believed Outiot A was the oaty one witbout access beiag assesud. He said bis property 6as already been assessed for improvements to Beau:de Rue. •` Mr. Stover then pointed out h44-arcel's loss of value because of e permanent storm scwer easement granted to the City. While he had receiv,ed:S8,000 [a:r;tbe easement, 6e said an appraiser bad estimated the loss to his property at betweea S17,000 and 518,000. Ms. Lettie Knutson, of 2014 Shak:said:sht?w??e;gaiage wit6 access ofI Rahn Road but 6er home has its driveway access on Shale Lane. M3: Kifutson`pc'iioEed oiit 'that two years ago her home was appraised at $98,000 and now the County lax assessor had indicated the value as 591,000. She asked wby her property values bad gone dov.m. Mr. Paul Notterman, of 4374 Rahn Road, said it only took common aense to realiu that values had gone down wilh the widening and repairing of Rahn Road. . Mayor Egan then askcd CityAttotney;Jiiti:S#ialdoe to explai.n the process for objed.ing to assessments. Mayor Egan said the City Council,hati ito.Choice'but to make this road improvement as Rahn Road in its previous condition was no longer functioaA e:?Wd it:.is,one of the fust reconstrudion projects in the City and the City Council has tried to adopt a oost [ormula t?at.:tb-y,beUeve equitabic to atl t6ose concerned. McCrea moved, Wachter seconded a motion to close the public 6earia,g, approve the 6na1 assessment roll for Project 584 (Rahn Road Reconstroction) aod aulhoriu eertitication to Dakota County. Councilmember Gustafson asked, in regard to assessments based on parcels rat6er than front tootage, it Mount Calvary Lutheran Church could bave:tbe..issue of,s,in,g1C family and public facilities frontage resolved by the City or whether the court would 6a?te?tb:m:aiice:th?t.?aettfl?iihation. D'uector of Public Works Colberi said an assessment heuing judge would not ?vAluate tbe;tit?thod used to arrive at the asscssments, 6owever, suc6 met6od would be the prerogadve ot the City Council: :?S'tatute does tequire tbat the City Ueat all like properties in a similar manncr and there oould be a:?atlenge fiom the Baptist Cburcb if the City Couoa! assesses Mount Calvary Lutheran Churc6 at a Iesser tatE:?: Rccogniring that tbere was a motioeanda aecond'before the City Couadl, Mayor F.pn asked City Attorney Sbeldon whet6er the City Couacil could incorporate some diseeGonary policy in tegard to the Mount Ca)vary Lutheran C6urcb property. Mr. S6eldon aaid the City Cound could oomplete the motion and send it on in the process and then remove Mount Calvary Lutberan Churcb from the process et s Iater dste or they could request that 6taR make a review of tbat.p.atppAi4iittadon and retura witb t6eir findiags at the neid City Cauncil meeting. , T6e motion before the Counn'1 "Ihen tevised to tesd; McCrea moved, Wachier seoonded a motion to dose thc pubGc hearuig, approvr the W;assessmeat roU forPfvjed 584 (Rahn Road Reconstrvclion) noliag all written objections, authoriu its etrtifeit?f{An to Dakota.Co ,., ;.witb sPe.a'al iastrudioas to staN to review the ue?'? situation involving the Mount Calvary l;aftly wilb particular attenGoa being paid to any precodeat-setting action. .... ............ ..:.::. 04-Jun-91 ASSESSMENT COST BREAImOHN PROJ NAME RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJ NUM P584 SA NAME ST584 F RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION SA NAME ST584 SA# 2183 YEARS 15 SF 30.790 /FF INT RATE .085 MF 75.160 /Ff MOS 1ST YR INT 18 CI 75.160 /Ff YEAR 1941 WC 15.400 /FF ASSESSMENT REC PROPERTY GROSS NET UNITS PRO-RATA RATE AMOUNT NMBR IDENT# CL UNITS CREDITS SUBTOTAL fA ASSIBLE SMARE ==- 1 10-01900-050-09MF 0 0 0 1 0 1 75.160 0.00 2 10-01900-031-10MF 1245 0 1245 1 1245 1 75.160 93574.20 3 10-01900-020-10CI 220 0 220 1 220 1 75.160 16535.20 4 10-01900-010-10CI 150 0 150 1 150 1 75.160 11274.00 5 10-84700-020-01SF 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61 ? 10-84700-030-O1SF 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.T90 1126.61 8 10-84700-050-01SF 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61 9 10-84700-060-01SF 61.4 0 61.4 1 61.4 1 30.790 1890.51 10 10-84700-070-01SF 112.76 0 112.76 1 112.76 1 30.790 3471.88 11 10-84700-010-OOMF 299.7 0 299.7 1 299.7 1 75.160 22525.45 12 10-16700-010-09Sf 137.88 0 137.88 1 137.88 1 30.790 4245.33 13 10-16700-020-09Sf 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 261T.15 14 10-16700-030-09Sf 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15 15 10-16700-040-09SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15 16 10-16700-050-09SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15 1T 10-46700-060-09WC 0 0 0 1 0 1 15.400 0.00 18 10-16700-110-11SF 116.18' 0 116.18 1 116.18 1 30.790 35T7.18 19 10-11700-010-02MP 155 0 155 L 155 1 75.160 11649.80 20 10-22470-010-01MF 388.87 0 388.87 1 388.87 1 75.160 29227.47 21 10-32800-010-01MF 583.3 0 583.3 1 583.3 1 75.160 43840.83 22 10-48050-104-01SF 90.99 0 90.94 1 90.99 1 30.790 2801.58 23 10-70775-010-01SF 125 0 125 1 125 1 30..790 3848.75 . 24 10-T0775-020-01SF 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 10-16701-310-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.T90 2309.25 27 10-16701-320-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 28 10-16T01-330-01SF 75 0 T5 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 29 10-16701-340-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 30 10-16701-350-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 31 10-16701-360-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 Np+e.r or+a.1 ,& e- ne-y Benb/ 04•Jun-91 RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION SA NAME ST584 SA# 2183 YEARS 15 INT RATE .085 MOS 1ST YR INT 18 1'EAR 1991 REC PROPERTY GROSS NMBR IDENT# CL UNITS 32 10-76701-370-01SF 75 33 10-16701-380-01SF 75 34 10-16701-390-01SF 75 35 10-16701-400-01SF 75 36 10-16701-410-01SF 75 77 10-16701-420-01SF 75 -P8 10-16701-430-01SF 75 39 10-16701-440-01SF 75 40 10-16701-450-01SF 75 41 10-16701-460-01SF 95.73 42 10-16701-470-01SF 90 43 10-16703-180-01SF 75 44 10-16703-190-01Sf 75 45 10-16703-200-01SP 75 46 10-16703-210-01SF 75 47 10-16703-220-01SF 75 48 10-16703-230-01SF 75 49 10-16703-240-01SF 75 SO 10-16703-250-01SF 75 51 10-16703-260-01SF 90 52 10-16703-010-02WC 121.96 53 10-16702-080-03SF 195.21 54 10-16702-170-04SF 115.7 55 10-16702-120-04SF 115.7 56 10-16702-170-07SF 135.7 57 10-02000-010-28MF 589.43 58 10-02000-010-29MF 175.52 59 10-16704-100-03SF 120 60 10-16704-110-03SF 120 61 10-02000-011-52MF 262.01 62 10-16704-090-04Sf 95 ASSESSMENT COST BREAIm0WN PROJ NAME RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJ NUM P584 SA NAME ST584 ? F SF 30.790 /FF MF 75.160 /FF ' CI 75.160 /Ff WC 15.400 /FF ASSESSMENT NET UNITS PRO-RATA RATE AMWNT CREDITS SUBTOTAL fA ASSIBLE SHARE 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 . 0 75 T 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 95.73 1 95.73 1 30.790 2947.53 0 90 1 90 1 30.790 2771.10 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 r? a"' ha ?•?' We 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 - 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 G??k=S P? ? 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 U 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 O Lw ? n 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 Co X 0 90 1 90 1 30.790 2771.10 0 121.96 1 121.96 1 15.400 1878.18 0 195.21 1 195.21 1 30.790 6010.52 ?rQna*J 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.790 3562.40 ? 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.790 3562.40 , 0 135.7 1 135.7 1 30.790 4178.20 G 4?h ?- 0 589.43 1 589.43 1 75.160 44301.56 0 175.52 1 175.52 1 75.160 13142.08 0 120 1 120 1 30.790 3694.80 Ne(sa+?- 0 120 1 120 1 30.790 3694.80 e' S 0 262.01 1 262.01 1 75.160 19692.67 0 - 95 1 95 1 30.790 2925.05 - R E C ? E i Vi ?.fs: ? ?.?:.•r MEMORANDIIM TO: Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works FROM: Annette M. Margarit DATE: November 4, 1991 : RE: Rahn Road Assessment Appeal ?? ?SY Enclosed }please find Judge Mansur's Order and accompanying memorandum denying our motion to sever the twelve assessment appeals for Rahn Road that are combined into one action. The Judge seemed to basically buy the argument that because the parties are raising the same issue, namely, that increased traffic has diminished the value of their properties, the combination is appropriate. The trial is currently scheduled for November 15, 1991. I understand that you will be on vacation on that date. Rather than continuing this trial because there are so many appeals that have been set for December and into January, I would prefer to have Mike Foertsch testify or get someone from Bonestroo to be available for this trial. I will contact Mike to see if he is available.on that date. ANIIM/wkt ,?._ r a ' UV•10 1141l » ?%#oi .c r Ara. rr+?-r, cda, w.o : ' POWARD J. GROVES . . ' , , . ATTORNEY AT i.AW . • . SUITE 260-SKYLINE SqUARE , BTATE O? MINN?S07A • 12940 HARRIET AVENUE SOUTH COUN'iY OF DAKOTA LBURNSVILLE MN 55337 . . ' . NO71C5 OFt . . X-F1L1NG OF ORDER _ [ANNETTE M. MARGARIT ATTORNEY AT LAW ?EhfTRY OF JUDaMEKT 600 MIDWAY NATIONAL BANK BLDG • . 7300 WEST. 147TH ST C] DOCKETINC3 OF JUOOMEt?fC APPLE VALLEY MN 55124 L Coutt Ftl• No.t C5 91 7756 1N RE: ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584 KNOWN AS RAHN-ROAD RECONSTRUCTION ECT. ??bu nra heroby noUnod Ulnl on OCTOBER 29 . 19..91_... an Ordet waa duly (lled ln l}io abovo onllllod matlor, . (] 1'bu aro horoby nollfled lhal on a Judpmonl . we.& duly ontvrod In.the:above enltUnd malter; y . ? You e.re horoby nolltiod Ihnl on 10.____ s Judpmenl , - . ., - ?. wu duly dockelod In lhe.ubove enllUad malter In th• amount o( $ etnRtth? ' . A1rue ond corroclcopyof Ih(t Nollae hae boon nervod byme.lluponlhe par11es nemedhat ? Iesl known addroa3 o( uaeti, pureuanl lo Minncaoln Fluloo ot Clvil Procodurct Rule 77.04. Dalod- OCTOBER 29, 1991 _ . ROGER H. SAHES . . • Courl Adminletralor • . byD?p ? • . . File thls day y . oi ROG?R WE. Coun ?/ Ad ? ?0? /11? an BY Fle this day C. _ 19 -tv ? R06EI? W. SAME"s, Court Adrtunisuatot STATE OF MINNESOTA ey pEp DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ----------------------------------------------------------------- In Re: Assessments for Project 584, File No. C5-91-7756 known as Rahn Road Reconstruction adopted by the City of Eagan on ORDER June 18, 1991 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the undersigned on the Special Term calendar of the Court on Monday, October 28, 1991, at the Dakota County Judicial Center, Hastings, Minnesota. Annette Margarit, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Howard J. Groves, Attorney at Law, appeared,on , behalf of the Petitioners. The issue is the assessment for the improvement of Rahn Road. The parties who are identified as the Petitioners represent 12 property owners on Rahn Road and have filed a joint appeal from the assessment promulgated by the Respondent City. The City moves for severance and for separate trials for .? each of the Petitioners. Based upon the file, the record made, the file and proceedings heretofore had, IT IS HEREBY ORDEftED: 1. That the Respondent-City's motion be and the same is hereby denied. 2. That the follo.wing Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. DATED: 10-28-91 BY T E OURT: , -4445 ARTIN . UR Jud$e f D strict Court 1 Fle tliis ,day ot 19- ? ROGER W. SAMES, Coun Adrtunistratot By OEPUTY t MEMORANDUM The property is unique and, as such, the versus costs of improvements must be determined exclusive of the other. Here the Petition, residents on Rahn Road in the city of Eagan together in appealing the assessments that have issue of benefits for each property Brs apparently are and have joined been certified by the City against their subject properties for what the City alleges to be improvements by the widening of ftahn Road. The Petitioners contend that the improvements were i44iated 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 si.bject 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' apgeals 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 eonfusion for all and would not serve the best interest of all parties, including the City. 2 r TO: FROM: DATE: RE: 4p l U ? Mansur 8• 1991 t° 2 aApeared aPpeals current? the Cityfs before the Howarc? ?' f??er? as motion to sever ?Honorable Jud paPers GrO?'es a had action, ge Martin Mr. Groves appeared.? Enclo?e? ?he e tj''elve assess filed aPPellants ment Judge for the Please find ' attorney told Mansurs, o puz'Poses of this a copY of the Mr. Groves pening COmments motion, Mr. Groves that all indicated his Groves believed the parcels were uni train of thought basicallargued that the assessment que? and inquired as he ben?fitted are properties areppeals should be aS tO why themarguing the same very similar 7Oined. Mr. property. Throu at a1l but i issue that the ln location and Judge was not totall°fie °f his n fact has been PrOject has not y SuPportivether questions? itasdetriment to The Court °f Mr• Groves eemed apparent their the own comfients Sked for the Cit f? p°Sition. of the namely that y S position and heater Special be each parcel r reiterate than theassessment, the d the Judge•s Court nefit to lS unlque and b gre the parcels that that city particular ?ay not Parcely the very nature indicating that le? an assess?,ent the were event the they differed not all assessed l p°lntec? .?o benefitted tO ?ourt did ln some respect. G be the ?Ot agree I also are sam? ???unt able to arrive atmount of the that the gued that, in in the some e assessment? properties had aSSessment, quitable the Court would been stics Without means of determinin need to a blanket t?,pe °f the pro e knowledge 1 a ireduction reduction likely °f reductlo? ties, the Court Of the ' tolndividual also the landowners. Which would have would be unfair to resort to sort to The Court noted the City and stated th that a Qn October -, order, at he AMM/wkt M?0RANDUM Tom Colbert, Director of Anne pub?,?? tte ?. ?t?rks Margrara t October 30, 1991 Mation to Sever Rahn Road APPeaIs would ppellants paid take the matter only one filinq fee. The under advisement and Judge issue an 5072433818 10/14I2008 10:51 5072433818 4OP11' City of Eapn 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan pAN 55122 Phane: (651) 675-5675 BDELTER SIDNG PAGE 01/02 ------------------ ? j Per,,,a 97 i t Pertnit Fee: ??, ? ? Date Received: j r i I Staff: 1 Fax. (651) 675-5694 ? I .;.. ,...' ?..`-_____-__- - _-___J 2008 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING{PERMIT APPLICATI4N oate: ? site Address: ?? ? Ro, ?,,\ koc,-B . Tenant: Suite #: RESIf)ENT / OWNER Narne: P ne: 43 k Add / Ci Zi ? ress p: ty / Applicant is: dwner 1/1Contractor TYPE QF WQRK Description of work• Constructian Cost? _1 CAiCo Multi-Family Buifding: (Yes / NoOK-) CONTRACTOR ? Nams: License 4 4N636 Q ' " ? Address: ' `"'"" - rv i SQr\ 1--A SL sL.. Z& S(04(03 . rYt ) ? Gity: l state: zP: Phone: JC0-1`a.14-3 ^435 `-i Contaat Person: Rol-\ U(__ CONfPLETE THIS AREA ONLY !F CONSTRUCTING A NEW BUILDING _ Minnesota Rules 7670 Category 1 Minnesota Rules 7672 Energy Code • Resldential Ventilation Category 1 Worksheet • Naw Energy COde Worlcsheet Category Submitted, Submitted (4 submissbn type) • Energy Envelope Calculatione SubmiHed !n the last 12 months, has the City of Eagan Issued a permii br a simiFar plan based on a master plan? ?Yes No If ye$, date and address of master plan: Licensed Plumber- Phone: nnecnanicai Contractor: Phone: 5ewer & Wster Contractor: Phone: NOTE: Plens and supporting dacumenis that yau suhmit are consldered to tie pu611c infarmation. Partinns of the Infarmatidn rnay be C1assff/ed as nn» public if you provide specltlc reasons that would permlt the City to conalude thar the are trede sesrets. t neredy acKnowledge that ihis information is completa and aoCUrate; that the work an'll be in conformance with the ordlnanoes and codes of the City ot Eagan; that I understand this is not a permit, but only an atoplicaiion for a permit, and work is not to start wlthpUt a pertnk; fhal the work will be in accord nce wkh the approved plan in the case of work whfch rec{uires a review and approval of plans. l Q.._,? x Applica t' Prfnted Nsme Applican 's g ature . Page 9 of 3 \ `? 41/11' City of Eapll 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan MN 55122 Phone: (651) 675-5675 Fax: (651) 675-5694 Use BLUE or BLACK Ink r -+ For Office Use Permit #: Permit Fee: Date Received: () _f / /( 5 Staff: 2013 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Date: Site Address: Unit #: Name: 11.-e. y'\€ j 1 1.-e i(i C.,_ Address / City / Zip: � 6. - �f Applicant is: Description of work: coo OC..) Construction Cost: Company: Owner Contractor Phone( 3S if3U^ lJ 525-t 2 2 Multi -Family Building: (Yes / No ) c, 1 )l 7ontact: ��_ �� 11 Address: T2 2-)41— !) 1) t-(3) Je C Ute- City: C.f nei5tA k— V_ — _./ Zip: 5:35 7 Phone: 6J/'i) State: License #: 2 O31 --f--17,5 Lead Certificate #: If the project is exempt from lead certification, please explain why: (see Page 3 for additional information) COMPLETE THIS AREA ONLY IF CONSTRUCTING A NEW BUILDING In the last 12 months, has the City of Eagan issued a permit for a similar plan based on a master plan? Yes o If yes, date and address of master plan: Licensed Plumber: Mechanical Contractor: Sewer & Water Contractor: Phone: Phone: Phone: NOTE: Plans and supporting, documents, that you submit are considered to be public information. Portions o the information may be classified as non-public if you provide specific reasons that would permit the City to conclude that they are trade secrets. CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. Call Gopher State One Call at (651) 454-0002 for protection against underground utility damage. Call 48 hours before you intend to dig to receive locates of underground utilities. www.ciopherstateonecall.org I hereby acknowledge that this information is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City of Eagan; that I understand this is not a permit, but only an application for a permit, and work is not to start without a permit; that the work will be in accordance with the approved plan in the case of work which requires a review and approval • -ns. Exterior w days of p or . utho mit iss zed by a building permit issued in accordance with the Min nce. Appl's Printed Name 1 sota St e Buildi : C �• •licant's . fture e must be completed within 180 Page 1 of 3