The URL can be used to link to this page

4363 Rahn RdCITY OF EAGAN Remarks *?edar GroVe ACQtlis].tlori Addition CEDiAR GROVE #4 Lot 24 Bik 1 Parcel 10 16703 240 Ol irr: r i' f::( ?4363 Rahn Rc?nd Ed an, MN 55122 Owner Street State g Improvement DcVe Amount Annual Years Payment Receipt Date STREETSURF. $ 1970 412.50 41.25 10 Paid STREET RESTOR. GRADING SAN SEW TRUNK * SEWER LATERAL 1972 1,304.00 52.16 25 Paid WATERMAIN * WATER LATERAL 1972 WATER AREA STORM SEW TRK STORM SEW LAT CURB & GUTTER SIDEWALK STREET LIGHT WATER CONN. BUILDING PER. SAC PARK CITY OF EAGAN i0 /'wo 3 a9? 0) 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 N2 4549 PHONE: 454-8100 BUILDING PERMIT '50(". ReceiPt # ` To be used for . ` ' Date 19 Site Address - - Erect ? Occupancy Lot -.' Block { Sec/Sub. Parcel # z Name Phillip C:hristenson z Address - o >. • `?,'.!:;%? City F Phone - - - C? Name `" o , ?Q Address ? ~ Cit Phone U? ,,, W Name FW UtD Address _ 0?Z Q W Citv Phone. I hereby acknowledge that I hove read this application and state that the informotion is correct and ogree to comply with all applicable State of Minnesota Statutes and-City of Eogon Ordinances. Signoture of Permittee '-:,i ; Ff ? stencern Alter ? Zoning Repair ? Fire Zone _ Enlarge 0 Type of Const. Move ? # Stories Demolish ? Front ft. Grade ? Depth ft. Approvals Fees Assessment _ Water & Sew Pol ice Fire Eng. Planner _ Council _ Bldg. Off. _ APC Permit Surcharge - Plan check _ SAC Water Conn. Water Meter Total ? . • ()0 A Building Permit is issued to: - - - on the express condition that all work shall be done in aceordance with all applicable $tate of Minnesato Statutes and City of EoSan Ordinances. Building Officiol Pan+it # Dafa laued ParAlflw Plumbing Mechanical INSPECTIONS DATE INSP. Rouyh-In Final Footings Date Insp. Date Inap. Foundation Frame/ins. -.;Y-,7 Plumbing Mechanicol Finul INSPECTION RECORD CITY OF EAGAN PERMIT TYPE: 'A I 1 " t 3830 Pilot Knob Road Permit Number: Eagan, Minnesota 55122-1897 Date Issued: (612) 681-4675 SITE ADDRESS: APPLICANT: ? , ?.iit? ??,i? .. ;?: ?,t<?,??? PERMIT SUBTYPE: TYPE OF WORK: ,, I I, nll ltl_`{tt!!1'! lflp! II l1il tI ;-y fir 11 1 i INSPECTION D• • ? ?. D` , i r t f•f ? Permit No. Permit Holder Date Telephone # EIECTRIC PLUMBING HVAC Inspectfon Date Insp. Comments FOOTINGS FOUND FRAMING - ROOFING 7 ? ??}(? /..Lr?v -)_ .v -9L7 I'AS -ryia,. o$Zr ?'+ ?n ?K ?1.5 rL-Gr ROUGH PLUMBING PLBG AIR TEST ROUGH HEATING GAS SVC TEST INSUL GYP BOARD FIREPLACE FIREPLACE AIR TEST FINAL PLBG FINAL HTG ORSAT TEST BLDG FINAL BSMT R.I. BSMT FINAL DECK FTG DECK FINAL ; ; ? ? . ? ? ? - ? , ? ?. 7AGAN TOWN S I-I I P BUILDINC PERMIT Owne; ...... L.G..LR?.-....... A -......... •.--•"•-••.?._ ..-••------•---- I Address (Presen!) . .-•-••.!?.?---•-- --.... ,-• ............... I . Build r ...........:............ ...-• • • •--•--• •... • •---•----......-• •--.....---•---•--...-•--•--•---•--• Addre s .......--••• .................••••-••--..._..•-•••••••-••---•• ? --•--•-..._....-•--•-•-•-•-...... I DESCRIPTIOPi N? 1062 Eagan Township Town Hall Date u---- -•-----.- ---- 5toriesl To Be Used For Froni Depth Height Esi. Cos! Permit Fee Remarks j LOCATION ' Street, Rmq or o her Description of Locafion Lo! Block Addifion or Trac! l7 y / - /-V *7 This the i THIS This the a 1955. i rmii does not authorize the use of sfreets, roads, alleys or sidewalks nor does it give the owner or his agen! 3 fo create any si2ualion which is a nuisance or which presenls a hazard !o the heallh, safe3y, convenience and welfare to anyone in the community. ERMIT MUST BE EP O THE,PREMISE WHILE THE WORK IS IN PROGRESS. to ceriify, lhat---- :•-,-'•--.... --•-••----`• .......:.....•---.has permission to erec2 a•---. f•°°•--• ---••••••-•--- ••-••••----••--upon ve described remise sub'ecf to the p 7 provisions of the Building Ordinance for Eagan Township ado !ed April 11, ? • .,!L,'?y?si4??••--????.?J--•-••-. Per ?/'?+?? . -t-'•-c--.._.. • •---•-•••-•••--...••• ----•--?---...•--i-••--•••--•••----•-----•---••••• .............. ............. Chairman of Tnwn Board Building Inspeclor P r ? _ CITY OF EAGAN 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 N2 4549 PHONE: 454-8100 BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION $1,500. ReceiPt # 7917 To be used for Garage Addn. Date October 27, , 19 77 Site Address 4363 Rahn Rd. Erect ? Occupancy I Lot 2 4- Block _.ISec/Sub. C.GAlter ? Zoning Parce1 # fd 7,9 3_g !,!4 /9f Repair ? Fire Zone _ E I [x T e of Const a Name Phillip Christenson z 4363 Rahn ?Rd. 3 Address o agan 4 2-5064 Cit Phone ? Name SAme ,o ?? Address ot,,,..e Nome Address n arge yp . Move ? # Stories Demolish ,? Front ft. 6rade ? Depth ft. Approvols Fees Assessment - Water & $ew. Police Fire Eng. Planner Counci I Bidg. Off. APC I hereby acknowledge thot I have read this application and state that the information is correct and ogree to comply with all applicable _pnd,.Gity:of Eq@?nances. State of Minnesota Staye7- .. ? ?, Signature of Permittek;;-?- A Building Permit is issued ali work sholl be done in c Permit 7.vv Surcharge 1.00 Plon check SAC Water Conn. Water Meter Totai 10.00 llip Christenson on the express condition that 19 applicable State of Minnesoto Statutes and City of Eagon Ordinances. Building Official (_I'Y'`! CII` I:"A(:,AN (;ASH:C!:"R". 9 'I'ERMth!A±._ Nt'lu 70 T.4A"f'Ett [l 71C_) i/`.°? i T:C A'tEu 0° i.'.fi; :fi•8 :CD:, NANi(::: c BR.l'AN i: t:l!_.M1:N :ic':'s.Cl 90()1 4;:;f'•_:3 Ra1F•IN RD 62.,25 205 9001 4363 RAHN RD 'I. aO(:i To'?:a.l. Rt;?re:i.p•F, i i1Yios..!r1'k• ^ E.,::#.,e' i CsRf:)77984 t.1Sla:F,: :I:Dr NANf:`'f l?cl<i 9d?'+'r ?Wi.??k?'1?i h<????r1(+?`.YF7h?:h4.?cYs. F)k'•t'•?`>r?(?>r?'1•?>K?kh'••kc???l C11'Y OF EAGAN 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122-1897 (612) 681-4675 SITE ADDRESS: P.I.N.: 19-16703-240-01 PERIVIIT PERMIT TYPE: Permit Number: Date Issued: 4363 RAHN Rq LOT: 24 BLOCKo 1 CECIAR GROVE ATH - BUILqING @30363 P7/Q13/97 DESCRIPTIOIV: TEAR-QFF RERQOF ermit Type SF (P9I5Ce) ?,rk T"ype REPAIR 434 ALT. RE5TqENTIAL g;u ? ? ?_ ? ? ? ?? a i ? REN9ARKS: FEE SIJMMARY: VALUATION $2,000 Bd5E F22 $62.25 5urcharge $1.00 Tptal Fee $53.25 ....,.I . I ...%........ P ......&-I I. -,- ? -- OLWIN fiRIAN 43&3 RAHN RD EAGAN MN 55122 (612)454-0661 997 BUILDtNG PERMIT APPLICATION (RESIDENTIAL) CITY OF EAGAN 3830 PILOT KNOB RD - 55122 681-4675 nsiruetion Reauiremen ? 3 registered site surveys ? 2 copies of plans (indude beam & window sizes; poured fid. design; etc.) ? 1 energy calculations ? 3 coples of tree preservation plan H fot platted after 7/1/93 required: _ Yes _ No DATE: 2- .3- y "7 CO DESCRIPTION OF WORK: - 1Pe - s'?''S 14, - OF . STREET ADDRESS: h/V. a ? LOT 0N BLOCK ?r SUBD./P.I.D. PROPERTY Name: _ 0Z, w , `,v Phone #: OWNER L„? FR8T Street Address: LZ" LLhAl ct, City: fa:y aN State: /-'l r' Zip: z , CONTRACTOR ARCHITECT/ ENGINEER Company: Phone #: Street Address: License #: City: State: Zip: Company: Name: Street Address: City: State: Zip: Sewer 8 wafier licer.ned plumber (new construction only): . Penalty applies when address change and lot change are ?equested once permit is issued. 1 hereby acknow{edge that I fiave read this appiication and state that the information is correct and agree to comply with all applicable State of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances. Signature of Applicant: OFFICE USE ONLY Certificates of Survey Received Yes No Phone #: Registration #: ir ? 2 aopies of plan ? 2 site surveys (exterior additions & dedcs) ? 1 energy calculations for heated additions Z,o S?- • - a,,, ;UCTION COST: ? / 6 D O Tree Preservation Plan Received Yes No Not Required OFFICE USE ONLY ? ? z . BUILDING PERMIT TYPE ? 01 Foundation ? 06 Duplex o 11 AptJLodging ?'16 Basement Finish ? 02 SF Dwelling a 07 4-plex ? 12 Multi Repair/Rem. 0 17 Swim Pooi 0 03 SF Addition ? 08 8-plex n 13 Garage/Accessory ? 20 Public Facility ? 04 SF Porch o 09 12-plex o 14 Fireplace D 21 Miscelianeous ,6-'05 SF Misc. 0 10 --plex o 15 Deck WORK TYPE ? 31 New ? 33 Alterations o 36 Move ? 32 Addition de--34 Repair ? 37 Demolition GENERAL INFORMATION Const. (Actual) Basement sq. ft. MC/WS System (Allowable) Main leve l sq. ft. City Wa#er UBC Occupancy sq. ft. Fire Sprinklered Zoning sq. ft. PRV # of Stories sq. ft. Booster Pump Length sq. ft, Gensus Code. Depth Footprint sq. ft. SAC Code Census Bldg Census Unit APPROVALS Ptanning Building En gineering Variance Permit Fee ? • ?-S Valuation: $ Surcharge l. ? Plan Review License MCNVS SAC City SAC Water Conn. Water Meter Acct. Deposit S/W Permit S/VN Surcharge Treatment PI. Road Unit Park Ded. Trails Ded. Other Copies Total: % SAC SAC Units /( 5W3 CE?VED J? June 17, 1991 T0: Eagan City C1erk RE: Assessmetit on Project 584 Dear Sirs: As residerits and awners of the property at 4363: =Rahn Roa&, we hereby fornlally obj ect to the assesstmt against aur property for Project 584 insofar as we believe there has been no tangible benefit to aur property as a result of this project. There have been noticeable detrirnents, nwnber one of which is wre difficult ingress and egress to our property due to increased traffic. We therefore reserve the right to appeal this matter to District Caurt. Thank yoz. 5 \ n/l?l.wlN-+ Brian K. Olwin 4363 Rahn Road Eagan, NN 55122 ? ? ? Ca rie D. O win 4363 Rahn Road Eagan, AMi 55122 Datf: : r L fo ' / T "? BUILIIIi3G PEP14IT APPLIC13TI0N LC3T--2,Z/- BLOCK ? A7DTTI01tT PaRCEL & SECTIOPI T3UI1BER IF UidPLATTED At7llRE5S OE` ? _ _-- - _ ZOi3IiIG OCCUPA3.VCY USE?? RCTTw,21^'+"il ('VlC 7 Ot•71 1ELZ AJDRESS COP1Ta'.'?CTO .? ADURESS TELEPHOYJE TTO. tJote° Include site planP building plans, and energy calculations viith this application , 11 ? Signed , OFFICE USE Ilf-V VALUATIOiI SAC TW^aER CO:MEC^IGiT CIATEk 1 ?TER BUILDIPIG PEb2t:-aIT FEE SiJRCHAR.GE FEE PLg:t3 Cr:ECK FE; PAEiK DEDICATIOt:i FEE OTI-MR TELEPHOISIE iV0 .__?? TOTAL* FIPPROVr,LS ? ?JA aSSESS;+IE:JT CLERI{ BUI7?DIiJG DE TPOLICE DEPT. T1ATER & SETdER DEP i. F I?2E DEPT. PAs'2K DEP'1'. ,_ Q??EE Tp ? c°m MIDWEST FEDER,AL a !SH! 4 7825 SOUTHTOWN CENTER • BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 September 15., 1971 0 Egan Tomahip 3795 Pilot Knob Roa.d St. Paul, Minnesota 55122 Re : Property at 4363 Rahri Roa.d, St. Paul Lot 24, Block l, in Cear Grove No. 4(#a 3817) Gentlemen: We are enclosing our check in the amount of $1004.00 representing flzll settknent of th e pending assessment on the captioned property. Kindly forward us your receipt for payment of the same. Sincerely, D.L. L arson Bloomington OPfice dll encl. MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMIrTISTRA'POR HEDGES . . _ ?._ , DATE: MARCH 17, 3992 SUBJECT: ADMIrTISTRATIVE AGENDA FOR iKARCH 17, 1992 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY ATTORNEY There aze no items for an executive session at this time. Hawaver, the Mayor, City Council and City Attorney have reserved the right to call an executive session to address atry matters of pending litigation if desired. CITY ADMI1vISTRATOR 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 rtfer to a capy of the memo from the Ci Attorne}'s office ntitled "Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs" enclosed on pages ?adthrough ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the issuance of a check to the appellants in the sum of $5,593 as ordered- by Judge Mansur. Item 2. Heller v. City of Eagan Assessment Appeal--The Gity 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 TI'EM: To approve or deity a resolution that the Heller parcel be reassessed from its leyied assessment of $49,277.80 to $40,000 which in essence approves a Stipulation for Settlement resolving the Heller assessment appeal. ltem 3. Northview-Building F'uv Restoration Contract/Defanlt to Contractnal Obligations-- As the City Council recalls, the Northview Park Building sustained oonsiderable damage as a result of a lightening strike and fire during the summer of 1991. Beaoon Builders Incorporated were awarded a bid in the amount of $8,883 to oorrect the damage and assured staff that the 60 day completion timeframe was adequate to finish the -projecrt. Unfortunately, the 60 day construction period expired and staff is of the opinion that the contractor did not meet its coatractual obligations which are now impending the City's operational needs for the building. For additional information on wby staff is requesting ? lw 16743 - a 440 - al ? . MEMORANDIIM TO: Tom Hedges, City Administrator- FROM: Annette M. Margarit DATE: March 4, 1992 RE: Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs Enclosed please find a copy of Judge Mansur's Order granting the Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for costs in the sum of $5,593.00. This Motion was heard by Judge Mansur on February 28, 1992. We opposed the granting any of Appellants' costs on the basis that the City Council had followed the Legislature's process in adopting the appraisal and the City should not be punished by having to pay expenses for the Appellants when they have already been afforded their remedy namely, vacation of the assessment. A problem with our position, however, is that Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 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 Villacte of Burnsville Assessments, 287 N.W.2d 375, 377 (Minn. 1979). The Court futher noted that awarding costs is up to the discreation of the trial judge. Id. In light of that case law, it is not surprising that the Judge awarded the Appellants their costs. I ask that this matter be placed on the March 17, 1992 City Council Agenda for approval of the issuance of a check to the Appellants in the sum of $5,593.00 as ordered by Judge Mansur. If you have any questions or need any further information, please cantact me. ANIlM/wkt cc• Tom Colbert fiaAw d FYnp, lNry. pocl,.ynp fHOGTEIRD GROVES A1TY AT LAW 260 SRYLINE SQIIARE BLDG 12940 HARRIET AVE S (BRNS MN 55337 r- ANNEITE M MARGARIT ATTY AT LAW 600 MIDWAY NAT BANK BLDG 7300 W 147TH ST . LAPPLE VALLEY MN 55124 , STATE -OF MINNESOTA COUN7Y OF Dukota NOTICE OF: CJ FlL.ING OF OROER ?1 ENTRY OF JUDGMENT )13 DOCKEfWG OF JUDGMENT Court Flle No.; C5-91-7756 1N RE: IN RE' ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584 RNOWN AS RAHN ROAD RECONSTRIICTION ETC. ? Nbu a» heraby notl}ied that on 18 an Ordar was duly (lled !n tha abova entltied marier. ? You are hereby naliflad that on ?? 2'1992 Amended , 19 a Judgmont wna duty entored tn the above ontltlad matter. )m You are heroby notlfied that on ?? 2-1992 @ j'. ? S? r? , 18 a Judgment was duty docketed In the abova enlltled matter in the amount of $5593.00 AGAINST CITY OF EAGAN A trua and correct copy of thia Notlce has baen served by rriali upon the partles named hereln at the last known address of each, pursuant lo Minnesota Rulas of Civtl Prxedure, Rule 77.04. Datod: MARCH 2ND 1992 ROGER W. SAxEs ' Court Adminlstrator ?? ?.L....?. .-• ?'??.r?_... by ' Deputy wca ?n Fli 0 ft-s day oi ?? °--'?-' 19 ?? ,?. ROGEA W. SAMES, CouR A?nunistrzta unr , 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 Reeonstruction, adopted by the City of Eagan on FINDINGS AND ORDER June 18, 19 91 ; ?AMUpID JIIDGMENT Name Address P.I.N. Nathan R.'Benoy 4372 Rahn Road 10-707775-020-01 Gregory/Cindy Cox 4369 ftahn Road 10-16703-250-01 Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road 10-16703-220-01 Dean/Karen Goche 4065 Rahn Road 10-16702-170-07 Darrell/Pat Haines 3990 Rahn Road 10-16704-110-03 Robert/Antoinette Keeney 4370 Rahn Road 10-70775-010.-01 Vernon/Janet Nelson 3996 Rahn Road 10-16704-100-03 Paul/Deb Notermann 4374 Rahn Road 10-48050-104-01 Brian/Carrie Olwein 4363 Rahn Road 10-16703-240-01 Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road 10-16703-200-01 Ron/Lorri Trenary. 4137 Rahn Road 10-16702-080-03 Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft 4345 Rahn Road 10-16703-210-01 Appellants, vs. City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, Respondent. Motion of Appellants for an award of costs and disbursements was heard by the undersigned as a telephone conference on February 28, 1992, at the Dakota County Judicial Center, Hastings, Minnesota. The Appellants were represented by Howard Groves, their attorney. The Respondent City was represented by Annette M. ' Margarit, its attorney. F#e 04--'dY i ,?- at 19 1 ROGER W, SAMES, Court Aenun:strztot B ? '?-- -- Y ISSU 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. ? OR ERS 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 followina Memorandum i s i nccsrnnrater3 hPrei n hv reference. 3. There being no justifiable reason for delay, the Court Administrator shall enter Judgment forthwith. 2 DATED: 2-28-92 BY THE COURT: AMEDTDID .TIIDGMEN'r ? I hereby certify that the above Order modifies the AFtTIN J MAN R. 3udgment ente:eci Jan .24-1992 and along with that " -Judge Dis rict Court Judgment constitutes the Amended Judgment of the Court.' Date: March 2nd 1992 ' MEMORANDUM. Roger W. Sames, Crt Admr By ief Deputy (Seal) Costs an Disburseiig nts - At oral argument the issue was not the amount or the reasonableness since it is slightly n?ore than $450 per parcel; rather, whether under the relevant statute and case law the Appellants are entitled to reimbursement for expert appraisal services and testimonial costs. In Village of Burnsville Assessments, 287 N.W.2d 375 (Minn. 1979) the Minnesota Supreme Court stated "...we" can see no logical reason why a prevailing municipality sho;zl.d 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 disb.ursements 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 con.strued, if possible, so that 3 effect may be given to both. In addition, this Court concludes . that where a conflict between two provisions is irreconcilable, the special provision shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision. Finally, in this particular case, the provisions of Minn. Stat. 549.04 and 429.081 are not irreconcilable and, pursuant to the specific provisions of Minn. Stat. 645.26, this Court construes each so that effect may be given to both of the aforementioned statutes. • While the City's argument is one of inerit, under the facts of the case the Court is persuaded that the Appellant land owners are entitled to reimbursement and it is so ardered. 9, 4 J- 1 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. ANIlM/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) 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-I6704-110-03 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 : ? - 'q1 7 a' Howard J. Grov Attorney for Appellants 260 Skyline Square Building 12940 Harriet Avenue South Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 (612) 890-2477 Atty. I.D. No.: 38313 2 uc.F.,oo c.-"l Nodcn or fiina. [-Ary. cocl.Ww rMR HoWaU J GRovEs ATTY AT LAW STE 260 SRYLINE SQ 12940 HARRIET AVE S L BuxxsvlLLE MN 55337 STATE OF MINNESOTA courvTY oF DAKOTA NOTICE OF: F-MS AxxF'r'rF M MARGARIT , lff FILINQ OF ORDER ATTY AT LAW %Z ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 600 MIDiJAY NAT BANK BLDG : 7300 W 147TH ST ? DOCKETlNG OF JUDGMENT L PI.E VALI.EY MN 55124 • Court Flla No.: C5-91-7756 ' ASSESSMENTS FOR PROSECT 584, RNOWN AS RAHrT RD RECONSTRIICTION ETC. M RE' NATHM R BENOY ETAL V CITY OF EAGAN ETC. 13K YW ane hereby noUflad that on JANUARy 24TH 1992 19sn Order was duly filed ln the above entitied matter. ? XE You aro hereb notlfled that on' J??y 24TH 1992 Y , 19 e Judgment wea duly anterod In the abova eniltlad matter. _ ? You aro heroby noUflad that on . 19 a Judgmant was duly docketed In the above entltled mattar in the amount ot $ A trve and corract copy of thle Notlce has baen sarved by mall upon tha parttes named hereln at the laat known addresa of each, purauant to Mlnnssota Rules ot Clvil Procadure, Rule 77.04. Oated• JANUARY 24Tg 1992 ROGER W SAMES • Court Administrator : by ? -? ---I , ' Oeputy M6CA 4N FAs 1}a 0f _,,,?,? M?l ROGER W. AMES, Coun a By - aaj _ ts Eministrltor _:?L STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT .' COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT In Re: Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction, adopted by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991: Name Nathan R. Benoy Gregory/Cindy Cox Irene Gillespie Dean/Xaren Goche Darrell/Pat Haines Robert/Antoinette Keeney Vernon/Janet Nelson Paul/Deb Notermann Brian/Carrie Olwein Mary Rock Ron/Lorri Trenary Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft Address 4372 Rahn Road 4369 Rahn Road 4351 Rahn Road 4065 Rahn Road 3990 Rahn Road 4370 Rahn Road 3996 Rahn Road 4374 Rahn Road 4363 Rahn Road 4339 Rahn Road 4137 Rahn Road 4345 Rahn Road Appellants, vs. City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, P.I.N. 10-70775-020-01 10-16703-250-01 10-16703-220-01 10-16702-170-07 10-16704-110-03 10-70775-010-01 10-16704-100-03 10-48050-104-01 10-16703-240-01 10-16703-200-01 10-16702-080-03 10-16703-210-01 Respondent. The above-entitled motion for amended findings or in the alternative, a new trial came on for hearing on the Special Term calendar at 9:00 a.m. on January 21, 1992 at the Dakota County Judicial Center in Hastings, Minnesota before the undersignad 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 LA.W, ORDER FOR JUDGMEN'P affidavits and the fde thls day ot 19 C. :)-, R4GER W. SANfES. Court kdmmistrator gy y?? • r??... a??." file, the Court FINDS • 1. That it is not necessary for the Court to adopt the City's proposed amended findings. 2. That no new facts have been presented which could result in a new trial. ORDERS 1. That the Respondent City's Motions be and the same are hereby denied in their entirety. 2. The following Memorandum is hereby incorporated by reference. 3. That the Court Administrator shall forthwith enter judgment accordingly. DATED: January 23, 1991 BY THL COIIRT: ? I YARTIN J. S udge of is ict Court ' ... MEMORANDUM 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 . . ? U to the Court. Appraisll of the properties was of the greatest • import to the Eaotfinder. As artioulated in this Nismorandum and in the December 181 1991 Findings, arder a?nd Memdrandum, in the Factfincler's visw, the taats tend to support Appellants. The crux of Appellants' olAim is that the City unPairly assegsed them Por street improvements. The standard for ,valid speCial assessmants is: (1) the land must receive a special benefit from the a.mpr'ovement being GUTI'3tx'tiCtBdj (2) the assossment must be uni.form upon the same alass of _property, and (3) the aasessment may not exceed the speoial benefit. Clrlso - Lcina R?,a1 .y Co. v. City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 369, 240 N.W.2d 5170 519 (Mi-nn. 1976). Speaial benafit fs measured by the increase in the market value of the land owing td the improvement. id. Tn appraising the aubject property, an appraiser datermineg what 'a willing buyer wouid pay a willing saller for the property before, and then after, the improvement has been conatructed. Id. While the government entity is presumed to have set the assesgmsnt legally, an appellant may overcouie tha presumption by introduafng cpmpetent evidence that the assessment is greater than the increase i.n market val.ue o£ the property due to the imnxovement. ,?. These are the criteria whiah the Court applied to the Pacta preaented at trigl. It shoula be noted that in its Memaxandum supporting its morion for a new tria1- or amencled Pindings, the City 'relies on. Villac?. Q._af Ed3na v. Joefagh, 264 Mirit1. 840 199 N.W.2d 809 (1962). Tn that aase, the residsnts whose property abuttecl the i.mpxoved 3 ui io -lUJ1N3D-l?If iUD l3I J1S I Q 00 d10>it+Q 9 ti:2ti z5iLz:i T 0 length of France Avenue objected to special assessments for . widening and paving of the street. Minnesota's Supreme Court stated the law in Villaqe of Edina, without setting out a standard or formula, by saying that "[t]he basis and justification of a special assessment are benefits to the property affected... [b]enefits which may be demonstrated by a mathematical exactness are not always required in order to support an assessment." Villaae of Edina v. Joseph, 119 N.W.2d at 818. -\ Minnesota has also adopted a specific test, as cited in Carlson-Lanq Realty Co., above, which this Court has chosen to apply. While the City asserts that Villaqe of Edina controls and that the December, 1991 decision fails to abide by it, it appears that the decision is consistent with both cases and in conformity : with Minnesota 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 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 specitic homes which were assessed but rather relied on square _ footage and frontage statistics to determine.comparable prices. He further generalized from his comparables, using smaller homes, based on square footage, to generalize fair market value for larger'homes. In its position as the finder of fact,. the Court must choose one party's evidence over the other. Appellants' more specific 5 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. QRDER FOR JQDGMENT P_I.N. 10-70775-020-01 10-16703-250-01 10-16703-220-01. 10-16702-170-07 10-16704-110-03 10-70775-010-01 10-16704-100-03 10-48050-104-01 10 1:6703-240-O1 10-16703-200-01 10-16702-080-03 10-16703-210-01 Appellants, ? ra i? ZV, ? V S . • 09 EtL'uER ?'V. 5Alr1ES. Cotut AM, ut?s:ratur City of Eagan, a municipal . ' ?? corporation, py li?i?J ? Y Respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------- The above-entitled appeals from the assessments levied by the City of Eagan have been consolidated for the purposes of the trial and were heard by the undersigned on the Court calendar and without a jury on Friday, November 15, 1991, and Friday, November 22, 1991, at the Dakota County Judicial Center, Hastings, Minnesota. The Appellants appeared in person and were represented by Howard Groves, their attorney. The Respondent City was 1 c represented by Annette M. Margarit, its attorney. . The Court having considered the evidence adduced at trial, having examined the evidence offered by the respective parties and all the records of the proceedings and being fully advised, . makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT • 1. That the above-named property owners appealed from a Special As'sessment levied by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991, for Project No. 584. The Project as proposed by the city council included the widening, grading, base and bituminous resurfacing, curb and gutter and utility improvements on Rahn Road between Beau 'D Rue Drive and Shale Lane. 2. That Appellant Nathan R. Benoy is the owner of a parcel of land abutting on' the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as: Lot 2, Block 1, Sons Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellant has 85, feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,617.15, and the highest and best use of said parcel is residential. . 3. That Appellants Gregory and Cindy Cox are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described.as: Lot 25, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. 2 • ' • . , ? . . ' Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment'levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for,a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use, and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 4. . That Appellant Irene Gillespie is the owner of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally t 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. Tlie parcel is zoned for residential use and highest and best use of sai:d parcel is for residential use. 5. That Appellants Dean and Karen Goche are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 17, plock 7, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota., Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied' against such property was-$30.79 per front foot for a total of $4,178.20. The parcelis zoned for residential use 'and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 6. That Appellarits Darrell and Pat Haines are the owners of 3 f a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and . legally described as follows: Lot 11, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. • Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $3,694.80. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 7. That Appellants Robert and Antoinette Keeney are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Sons Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 125 feel of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $3,848.75. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 8. That Appellants Vernon and Janet Nelson'are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: - Lot 10, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 5, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said-Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 4 ? , per front foot for a total of $3, 694.80. ' The parcel is zoned for , . residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel if for residential use. 9. That Appellants Paul and Deb Notermann are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: ' Lot 104, Block l, Meadow Land, First Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appeliants 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 Appeliants 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 Ra2in Road and the amount of the assessment levied againstsaid property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. ' 11. That Appellant Mary Rock is the owner of a parcel of land abutting on the east sicle of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: 5 s 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 A ppellants 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 parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best iise of said parcel is 6 for residential use. :? . 14. Upon the trial of the above enumerated appeals the City's value witnesses offered testimony as to the amount of the assessment that would be reasonable and did not specifically address the before and after value as to each property that is the subject of this appeal. Enumerated herein is a summary of the City's value witnesses. ? Citv's Value Witness's Opinion 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 .21309.25 Trenary 912. 2,500.00/3,000.00 Weidenhaft 1,232 2,309.25 14. That the Appellant's value witnes follows: Name Benoy Cox Gillespie Goche Haines Keeney. Ne15on Notermann Olwein Rock Trenary Weidenhaft 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 I3efore Value After Value $ 99,500.00 $ 99,500.00 89,000.00 89,000.00 72,500.00 . 72,500.00 80,000.00 80,000.00 72,500.00 72,500.00 . 130,000.00 130,000.00 95,000.00 95,000.00 ' •110,000.00 110,000.00 84,000.00 84,000.00 85,000.00 . • 85,000.00 74,500.00 74,500.00 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. jThat the increased traf f ic f low, change in the type of traffic and its attendant characteristics create hazards, noise and pollution, all of which are detrimental to abutting residential properties. 19. That the overall evidence shows that the fair market value of the Appellants' property did not change in the before and after value following in the installation of the improvement, that is, the improvements did not increase the value of the Appellants' property. . • 20. That by reason thereof, the City of Eagan Tmprovement Project No. 584 did not specifically benefit each of the Appellants' properties. CONCLIISIONS OF I,AW 1. That the assessments levied against the Appellants' properties be and the same are hereby vacated and set•aside. 2. The fol].owing Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. . 3. Let judgment be entered accordingly after a stay of 30 8 , days. . # -- - . DATED: 12-18-91 BY TIIE COURTz TIN SIIR Judge o Di trict Court liMoRANDIIK The assessment of benefit to Appellants' properties as indicated in the assessment roll was sufficien?-i,y countered by Appellants to require the fact issue as to the reasonable value of the property assessed before and after the improvement, and to what extent the properties may have benefitted. ? In considering the evidence of the before and after value, greater weight was given to the testimony of the Appellants' witnesses. Mr. Daniels formed his conclusions as to the market value of the respective properties in the year the assessment roll was adopted. His opinion as to the properties was further supported by realtors active in the sale of residential homes in the area, one of whom testifiejcl 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 1 • - ? 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 ir?dividual 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 testimany indicated, for most of the parcels he formed an opinion that if there was a benefit, it was less than the assessment Zevied 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 tfie city's value witness considered the availability of the use of the improvement rather than the increase in value. Additionally, it should be notedthat 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 1?? ? 10 . / .. .. ? . • • AP ? 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 toa high of . ?. 1;232 square feet. This approach appears to treat each parcel ? the same, regardless of size, whereas in addition to the' differences noted with the properties that have 75 foot frontage, one need only review Finding No. 14 to see the further disparity. Finally, the,Court has determined the assessments must be vacated for the reasons set forth herein. Therefore, it is not necessary to determine whether the method employed by the City in computing the assessment is statutorily proper. . Lil-I , 11 t, uv•1oo1i?rl . tbiw $I ( K^4 G+17. DeeL $4 FHOwAxn J GRovEs ATTY AT LAW STE 260 SKYLINE SQ 12940 HARRIET AVE S t BtrRNsvzLLE 14N 55337 ' rANNETTE M MARGARIT ATTY AT LAW 600 MIDWAY NATL BANR BLDG 7300 W 147TH ST LAPPLF. VALLEY MN 55124 0 ?N RE: NATHAN R. BENOY ET AL VS. CITY OF EAGAN ETC. /O-/G703 -Z1lb •O/ 8TA7E OF MiNNESOTA COUMY OF DAKOTA NOTICE OF; X FILINC3 OF ORDER O ENTRY OF JUDC3MENT O DOCKETINa OF JUDC3MEN7 Cour1 FlI• No.: C5-91-7756 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLIISIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JIIDGM ENT ? Ntw are heroby notltlad thol on nFCF?,MFR t ATff .19 9; en Order ? waa duly filed ln the above entltled malior. ? 1'bu nre hnroby notlMed lhat on , 19 e Judgmenl ves.a duiy enterod ln Ihe ;ebove entiUed mBtler. ? You ere heroby notiNed thel on - 19_... a Judpment waa duly dxkeled in the ebove enUtled maNer In the emounl ol $ ? A Irve nnd carrecl copy of lhle Nollos hae beon served by mall upon the panlse namsd hsreln at ths_ lasl known eddrea3 of oach, purevnnt to Mlnneaole Rulea ol Clvll P=edure, Ruls 77.04. Oeled• DECDffiER 18TH 1991 tm /S Z? ?? v„ Ji,,c- _19?, ROGER w. saAEs. cWc A"dgrM ajri ? ? ROGER W. SAHLS Courl Administretor by ? Deputy MACA " gft 4k *A??- 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, 1992: ame 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 Roacl Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn Road Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft 4345 Rahn Road File No. C5-91-7756 EINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLIISIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JUDGMENT P.I.N. 10-70775-020-01? 10-16703-250-01' 10-16703-220-01• 10-16702-170-07 10-16704-110-03 10-70775-010-01 10-16704-100-03 10-48050-I04-01 10-16703-240-01 10-16703-200-01 10-16702-080-03 10-16703-210-01, Appellants, t?B+4? d?Y vs . RauER t11, SAMES. Cact Adrnlnls;Teta 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 proceedinqs 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 tesidential 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 ' r a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 11, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $3,694.80. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 7. That Appellants Robert and Antoinette Keeney are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: • Lot 1, Block 1, Sons Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 125 feel of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $3,848.75. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 8. That Appellants Vernon and Janet Nelson are the owners ; of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: .- Lot 10, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 5, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 4 ` per front foot for a total of $3,694.80. The parcel is zoned for , residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel if for residential use. 9. That Appellants Paul and Deb Notermann are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 104, Block 1, Meadow Land, First Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 90.98 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,801.58. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 10. That Appellants Brian and Carrie Olwein are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 24, Block 1, Cedar.Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. . . Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 11. That Appellant Mary Rock is the owner of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: 5 , Lot 20, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4,,Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellant has 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 ` per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 12. That Appellants Ron and Lorri Trenary are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 8, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 195.21 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $6,010.52. The parcel is zoned for residential.use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 13. That Appellants Mark and Kathy Weidenhaft are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 21, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County Minnesota. Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best 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. the City's value witnesses. Name Benoy Cox Gillespie Goche Haines Keeney Nelson Notermann Olwein Rock Trenary Weidenhaft 14. follows: Name Benoy Cox Gillespie Goche Haines Keeney Nelson Notermann Olwein Rock Trenary Weidenhaft Enumerated herein is a summary of City's Value Witness's Oainion SQ.ft. /house As to Amt of Benefit 1,176 $ 2,500.00 1,120 2,309.25 912 2,309.25 990 2,500.00 864 2,500.00 2,184 2,500.00 1,066 2,500.00 1,112 2,500.00 1,008 2,309.25 1,236 2,309.25 912 2,500.00/3,000.00 1,232 2,309.25 Amt of Assmt. $ 2,617.15 2,309.25 2,309.25 4,178.20 3,694.80 3,048.75 3,694.80 2,801.58 2,309.25 2,309.25 6,010.52 2,309.25 That -the Appellant's value witness testified as Before Value $ 99,500.00 89,000.00 72,500.00 80,000.00 72,500.00 130,000.00 95,000.00 110,000.00 84,000.00 85,000.00 74,500.00 95,000.00 After Value $ 99,500.00 ; 89,000.00 72,500.00 80,000.00 ?2,500.00 130,000.00 95,000.00 110,000.00 84,000.00 • 85,000.00 74,500.00 95,000.00. , 7 ` 15. That the abutting properties enumerated herein have borne prior street resurfacing, curb and gutter assessments. 16. That prior to the improvement, Rahn Road was a quiet, residential street. 17. That the improvement established Rahn Road as a heavy capacity roadway, invited and did, in fact, substantially increase truck and other vehicular traffic. 18. That the increased 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: z /,,- TIN ' 4 -2! ?-' S IIR Judqe o o Di trict Court I?sORANDUI?i The assessment of benefit to Appellants' properties as indicated in the assessment roll was sufficiently countered by Appellants to require the fact issue as to the reasonable value of the property assessed before and after the improvement, and to what extent the properties may have benefitted. In considering the evidence of the before and after value, greater weight was given to the testimony of the Appellants' witnesses. Mr. Daniels formed his conclusions as to the market value of the respective properties in the year the assessment roll was adopted. His opinion as to the properties was further supparted 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 opiniori as to value is based upon his knowledge 9 a as to the builder of the homes in the area, and the type of homes the builder constructs. He elected not to inspect the subject homes. Additionally, the city offered no testimony in the before and after value of the individual parcels. Its expert testimony was based on a sale or sales that were not too remote in time but were not within the affected time frame; that is, at or near the improvement, or subject to the improvement. Mr. Metzen took into consideration his knowledge, his experience, the type of homes that the builder whom he was acquainted with constructs, and then the sale or sales that he relied on as comparables to the subject properties in forming an opinion as to whether the assessment, as adopted by the city, met the statutory requirements. One should note that his opinion is that the assessment as adopted by the city did not for the most part meet the statutory requirements. As his testimony indicated, for most of the__parcels he formed an opinion that if there was a benefit, it was less than the assessment levied by the city. Both value witnesses considered the rate of inflation and the flat real estate market in arriving at their conclusions. It is this Court's view that the difference between the ? conclusions reached is that the. city's value witness considered the availability of the use of the improvement rather than the increase in value. Additionally, it should be noted that the Appellants' value witness submitted written appraisals for each parcel `in support of his opinion as to value in the before and the after, whereas the city's value witness testified from his 10 knowledge of the area, the builder whom he was acquainted with, ? and some comparables, and then he concluded that the properties benefitted in the amount that he testified without regard to the before and after value as to each. It should be noted that five of the parcels have 75 foot frontage and the square footage for each of the dwellings ranges from 912 square feet. to a high of 1,232 square feet. This approach appears to treat each parcel the same, regardless of size, whereas in addition to the' differences noted with the properties that have 75 foot frontage, one need only review Finding No. 14 to see the further disparity. Finally, the Court has determined the assessments must be vacated for the reasons set forth herein. Therefore, it is not necessary to determine whether the method employed by the City in computing the assessment is statutorily proper. ? 11 f?eoel;ie..c1• Z-1 7- i, ` STATE OF MINNESOTA ?- DISTRICT COURT COUNT,Y OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ? CASE TYPE: 10 OTHER CIVIL ? SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEAL ) ? ---------------------------- - A ------------------------- In Re: *10,\%Court File No. Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction adopted by the City of Eagan ko-TICE OF APPEAL on June 18, 1991 TO: THE ABOVE-NAMED COURT AND THE CITY OF EAGAN: NOTICE is hereby given pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 429.081 that each of the property owners listed below hereby appeal the adoption of the above-referenced Assessment Roll as the same relates to property owned by each of the parties set forth below at the address and property identification number set forth next to their respective names, all of which property is located in the City of Eagan, County of Dakota, and State of Minnesota. Written objections to said Assessments were 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 hereta 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 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 day of July, 1991. Howar J. Grove Attorney for Pr4erty Owners on Rahn Road 260 Skyline Square Building. 12940 H-arriet Avenue South Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 (612) 890-2477 Atty. I.D. No.: 38313 3 EXHIBj.: i: Page 6/EAGAN CTTY COLJNCIL hZI1JLI'TES June 28,1991 ' _PROJECI`?W,ff`fNAL?ASS6§S14£NT HEARING RAHN kbAD RtCONSTRUCi70N Atter inUodusxion by Mayor F,.;gis and City AdminisUator Hedges, Diredor oi Public Works Tom Colbert provided s brief overview ot the asses.sments and the neighborhood meeting 6e1d oa )une 11,1991. He said seventy properties w;th direcx access onro Rahn Road ruxived notices of s«s«mcnt on this project. Mayor Egan then opened the public 6earing to public comment. Mr. Charles MacDoaald, of 4145 Rahn Road, said he had filed written objectioq:61he assessments against his property. Mr. MacDonald said the value oi his home had adually droppcd because?:oi the upgrade of Raha Road and the resultant beavy Uaffic. He said evidence of that is the Dakota Couaty Assessor's 6tirt lowering the value of Lis bome by a S percent duc to Rahn Road. • . . . . Mayor Egan asked Mr. Bill PetttSOa.?Rf thc:?ouAS9Cssor'a o?ce to e?lain the 5 percent deduction [rom property taxes because s number of homeowners had raferenced it in connection witb the Rahn Road improvements. Mr. Peterson said s misunderstandiag exasts among the bomeowers as to the meaning of the 5 percent modifier. He said tbe modifier has been used since 1983 and was used for property along Rahn Road. lt was done, however, for 1990 valuations and, thertfore, preceeded rotonstruction of Rahn Road. 7'he Dakota County Assessor's office uses mass appraisal and deals witb avtcages and norms. He said t6ey use a standard aite value and lhen look at each property and add or subtr.d:frtim this standard valut considering a number ot factors, including being located on a major,sir?eE<::?Id s23d ihe County Assessor's office uses moditiers quite frequently, and is not implying that the 'sfdprpvcmetits on";tahn Road had any impad on their valuations. Mr. Mazk Weidenhah, of 4345 Ra?:ktiad, said,.wideciing and improving Rahn Road had campounded the negative c(fect of the toad on Lheir property. Nt pdifed tbe State Attorocy General has niled that to be assessed for improvements, the City has to prove benefit to:the property. He said his property could not be aorth more with more Uaffic. Mr. Darrell Haines, of 3990 Raha Road, complained aboot the poticy used for assessments, the loss or home value and said additional properties on Bluestone, Carneliaa, Jade, 177int, etc. should ahare in the oosts. Ms. Laurie Luconic, of 4137 Raha.:1162ot-Ud shc-W, d'o,i?e an intorma] survty of otber aties and (ound that man}• do nw assess by front footage:;::$bE also?ootnplWned-becauu the lac?c of dauble striping on the road has Icd motorists 1o believe that pacsing ?:petm.issa?hk: Mr. Gerard Bents, representin0QUat C.sh"ify Lutheran Cburch, objected to the asses.sment against the entire church property at the public:ta&ltiessht:;: HiE;?pi"ted aut t6at this rate was tbe same ss that or eommercial property. He said tbey have:maae?thr?ie?iurcb4vai?elile to orgaaizadons (or meetings free of c6arge and have, as s result, generated additioaal VaBic. He pointed out, bowever, that approxdmatety 190 [eet of the frontage on Rahn Road belongs to the parsoaage and telt it a6ould be sssessed at a aingle-family rate. Mr. Bents wishcd to note that the 544,000 asstssment tonstitutes IS peroent of the e6urcb's annual budget. Director of Public Worhs Coibert said the tntire gvctl 6as.ow.icgatl. desaiption and 'u was assesud at one nte based on the zoning. Mr. Colbcrt aa;d t6at the asses.sments oa a differcnt ase at the lsst City CouncH meeting and had determined that tE?,c'sments s6oiit$bt;based on zoniag. Mr. Benta asted tbat the City . Council make an ex:cepliam ..... Councilmember Pawlenty then *;SCV.ssed the situadoa :tt?'orred to by Mr. CoTbcrt, ln that instancc, if the City Council had assesud at a higher:i2?:ptbpCtfYpwts?:ood have had'asse«**+ent-baeked expectations' tor a highec snd better use of the propeity;::?la t?ia'iasian?ti7?tte is i highcr wning and the property owner is asking for assessments based on a lower nu. Direcior o[ Public Works Colberi noted tbat i( the property Page 7/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUT'FS 7une 28, 1991 is assessed at a tower rate and is ultimaiCly put to a higher use, the City would not have the opportunity, once the asscssments are levied, to teassess . . . . . : : .. . . . . . . . . . •. . .. . . . .... . . Mr. Terry Stover, ot 3906 RahA.:Road, objecc:ted to the assessments ktied against Outlot A of the Woodhaven Addition. He said that ontloi;.Aoes nW have as.u.ss onto Rahn Road and, further, the development plan for the property indicates ehat access?must be e6 Bcau de Rue Drivc. tulr. Stover said any possibility of access onto Rahn Road was a virtua[ imposu'bilicy due to the new elevation of the road. He referred to the [act that scveral properties along Rahn Road were aoi assessed because tbey had no driveaay assess onto Rahn Road and said 6e believed Outlot A was the oaly one witbout access beiag assessed. He said his property Las already been assessed tor improvements to Beau:{k. Rue. •` Mr. Stover then pointed out his:parceTs los's?of value because ot a permanent storm sewer easement granted to the City. While he had receiv,od;38,000 fi?:r:t6e easement, he said aa appraistr had estimated t6e loss to his property at between $17,000 and 518,000. Ms. L.ettie KnuLson, of 2014 Shak ?nG;?said:sht?liAS ?e:?garage with access off Rahn Road but 6er bome has its driveway access on Shale Lane. M3: Kzutsoii- painEed otit ihat two years ago 6er 6ome was appraised at $98,000 and now the County tax assessor had indicated the value as $91,000. She asked wby her property values 6ad gone dowa. Mr. Paul Nottermaa, of 4374 Rahn Road, said it only took commoa sense to realize that valuos had gone down with the widening and repairing oi Rahn Road. . Mayor Egan then asked CiryAttorae?.??i?i:SJieli?oe*to explain the process for objccting to assessmenls. Mayor Egan said the City Couacil .had;tto.c6oice'tiut to make this road improvement as Rahn Road in its previous condit;on was no longer functioaa?:'?Ii;:W'd it:.is,one o[ the fust reconstruction projects in the City and the City Couacil has tried ro adopt a cost formiila t?iai.'tb. y.??elieve equitable to all those concerned. McCrea moved, Wachter seconded a motion to close the public 6earing, approve the final assessment roll tor Project 584 (Rahn Road Reconstroclion) and authoriu xrtitication to Dakota County. Councilmember Gustaison asked, ia regard to assessments based on parcels rather than front footage, if Mount Calvary Lutheran Church could h4wl6e. issne of,single tamily and pubtic facilities frontage resolved by the City or a•hetber the couri would hay??to:m:a3ce.tWt:deit?mation. Dirwor of Pablic Works Colbert sa;d an assessment bearing judge would not ?vaiuate ttie:4iethod used !o arrive at the assossments, however, such method would be the prerogative of the Cify Council:.:?'tatute does require that the City treat all like propertics in a similu manner and thero could be a:"enge 6r,ow the Baptisi C6urcb if the City Council assesses Mount Calvary Lutheran Churcb at a lesser ratCi?::::......... Recogniring thai tbere was a motion andaaecond *before the City Counal, Mayor Egan asked City Attorney S6eldon whcther the City Councit could iacorporate aome discetionary policy in tegard to the Mount Calvary Lutheran Church property. Mr. S6eldon said the City Counril eould complete the motion and send it on in l6e process and theo remove Mount Calvary L,utheran C'durcb from the proce,ss st a later date or t6ey could request that staR make a review ot that :,pamo.Ariit?,4ation and return witb their 6ndiags at the neg City Gouncil meoting. . . 7'6e motion betore the Coundl iv?is?then revised to raid; McCrea moved, Wachter seconded a motion to c]ose the public hearing, approve the W;assestment roU forPtvjed 384 (Rahn Road Reconstrudion) noting all written objectiops, authoriu its certif'it?ffAn to Dakota.C9maf3%.ait6 specia) iastructions to stafi to review the situation iavolving the Mount Calvary 3,.a&sea;?:?tty wil6 particular attentioa being paid to any precedent-setting action. .... ........... ........ • 04-Jun-91 RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION SA NAME ST584 SA# 2183 TEARS 15 INT RATE .085 MOS 1ST YR INT 18 YEAR 1991 REC PROPERTY GROSS NMBR IDENT# CL UNITS 1 10-07900-050-09MP 0 2 10-01900-031-10MF 1245 3 10-01900-020-10C1 220 4 10-01900-010-10CI 150 5 10-84700-020-01SF 36.59 ? 10-84700-030-01SF 36.59 , 10-84700-040-01SP 36.59 8 10-84700-050-01SF 36.59 9 10-84700-050-01SP 61.4 10 10-84700-070-01SF 912.76 11 10-84700-010-OOMF 299.7 12 10-16700-010-09SF 137.88 13 10-16700-020-09SF 85 14 10-16700-030-09SF 85 15 10-16700-040-09SF 85 16 10-16700-050-09SF 85 17 10-16700-060-0941C 0 18 10-16700-110-11SF 116.18 79 10-11700-010-02MP 155 20 10-22470-010-01MF 388.87 21 10-32800-010-01Mf 583.3 22 10-48050-104•01SF 90.99 23 10-70775-010-01SF 125 , 24 10-70715-020-01SF 85 25 10-16701-300-01SF 175.7 26 10-16701-310-01Sf 75 27 10-16701-320-01SF 75 28 10-16701-330-01SF 75 29 10-16701-340-01SF 75 30 10-16701-350-01SF 75 31 10-16701-360-01SF 75 ASSESSMENT COST BREAKDOWN PROJ NAME RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJ NUM P584 SA NAME ST584 F SF MF CI uc CREDITS SUBTOTAL FA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 1245 1 220 1 150 1 36.59 1 36.59 1 36.59 1 36.59 1 61.4 1 112.76 1 299.7 1 137.88 1 85 1 85 1 85 1 85 1 01 116.18 1 155 1. 388.87 1 583.3 1 90.99 1 125 1 85 1 115.7 1 75 1 75 1 75 1 75 1 75 1 75 1 30.790 /FF ' 75.160 /FF 75.160 /FF 15.400 /FF ASSESSMEN7 NET UNITS PRO-RATA RATE . AMOUNT ASS'BLE SHARE -==-=-=-===--=-=======-= 0 1 75.160 0.00 1245 1 75.160 93574.20 220 1 75.160 16535.20 750 1 75.160 11274.00 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61 61.4 1 30.790 1890.51 112.76 1 30.790 3471.88 299.7 1 75.160 22525.45 137.88 1 30.790 4245.33 85 1 30.790 2617.15 85 1 30.790 2617.15 85 1 30.790 2617.15 85 1 30.790 2617.15 0 1 15.400 0.00 116.18 1 30.790 3577.18 155 1 75.160 11649.80 388.87 1 75.160 29227.47 583.3 1 75.160 43840.83 90.99 1 30.790 2801.58 125 1 30.790 3848.75 85 1 30.790 2617.15 115.7 1 30.790 3562.40 75 1 30.790 2309.25 75 1 30.790 2304.25 75 1 30.790 2309.25 75 1 30.790 2309.25 75 1 30.790 2309.25 75 1 30.790 2309.25 flJp+2,r man "en e. y B?,ne? 04-Jun-91 ASSESSMENT COST BREAImOWN PROJ NAME RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJ NUM P584 SA NAME ST584 ? F RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION SA NAME ST584 SA# 2183 , TEARS 15 SF 30.790 /FF INT RATE .085 MF 75.160 /FF ' MOS 1ST YR INT 18 CI 75.160 /FF TEAR 1991 WC 15.400 /FF ASSESSMENT REC PROPERTY GROSS NET UNITS PRO-RATA RATE AMOUNT NMBR IDENT# CL UNITS CREDITS SUBTOTAL FA ASSIBLE 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 T5 1 30.790 2309.25 36 10-16701-410-01SF • 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.T90 2309.25 17 10-16701-420-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 j8 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 30.790 2309.25 40 10-16701-450-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.T90 2309.25 41 10-16701-460-01SF 95.73 0 95.73 1 95.73 1 30.790 2947.53 42 90-16701-470-01Sf 90 0 90 1 90 1 30.790 2771.10 43 10-16703-180-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 44 10-16703-190-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 45 10-16703-200-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 W?l? Q"ha ?t 46 10-16703-210-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 47 10-16703-220-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 G ?1 ks 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 50 10-16703-250-01Sf T5 0 75 1 75 1 30.T90 2309.25 e.o x 51 10-16703-250-01SF 90 0 90 1 90 1 30.790 2771.10 52 10-16703-010-02uC 121.96 0 121.96 1 121.96 1 15.400 1878.18 53 10-16702-080-03SP 195.21 0 195.21 1 195.21 1 30.T90 6010.52 ??^e na•?/ 54 10-16702-110-04SP 115.7 0 115.T 1 115.7 1 30.740 3562.40 55 10-16702-120-04SF 115.7 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.790 3562.40 56 10-16702-170-07Sf 135.7 0 135.7 1 135.7 1 30.790 4178.20 G 9?h ?- 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 Np-136y` 60 10-16704-110-03SF 120 0 120 1 120 1 30.790 3694.80 e'S 61 10-02000-011-52MF 262.01 0 262.01 1 262.01 1 75.160 19692.67 62 10-16704-090-045F 95 0 95 1, 95 1 30.790 2425.05 - , RECEi, Ii ° MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works FROM: Annette M. Margarit DATE: November 4, 1991 -• RE: Rahn Road Assessment Appeal ? S&y 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. AMM/wkt . ? ? lJCl-iDO (lil) 1+e*o1 ?1 f lh4. [nl"l, Odc3? 1ne POWARD J. GROVES . . ATTORNEY AT LAW SUITE 260•SKYLINE SQUARE 12940 HARRIET AVENUE SOUTH t BURNSVILLE MN 55337 rANNETTE M. MARGARIT ATTORNEY AT LAW 600 MIDWAY NATIONAL BANK BLDG 7300 WEST.147TH ST ?PLE VALLEY MN 55124 .?- . . 87ATE OF MiNNESOTA CO UNTY 0 F DAKOTA N071CE OF1- . ?('FIUNQ OF ORDER ? ENTRY OF JUDC3MEM" . O OOCKETINa OF JUOt3MENT Court FlIe No.t CS 91 7756 ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584 KNOWN AS RAHN-ROAD RECONSTRUCTION ECT. ? 1bu are heroby noll(iod Uinl on OCTOBER 29 18.91...-. an Order wna duly (lied In ltio abovo onlillod mnllnr. . ? 1'bu aro horaby nolltiad lhnt on , 19 f e Judpmenl we.a duly onlorod In lho,above ontltlnd mattor; O You ere horoby noUnod1lhal on s Judpmenl b w&e duly dockeled In lhe. ubove enUtlad malter In the smounl ot S .?- .,. le lvll Procodure, Rute 77aOd?n at lh? i knon addroaa o( aoct, ,pra'uanl lo Minnoaoln Hloe ol C OCTOBER 29, 1991 _ ROGER H. 5AHES Dnlod? . • Courl Admlitilelralur •. . .' bY6Dp ? ? . . Fle this ' day ot R06 ? . . 4nF ER W, ECoBY t _ FIe this , - day c' _ 19 22/ ROGEH W. SI:NSES, Coun Adrtunisuatw STATE OF MINNESOTA BY DEP)7W DISTRTCT 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 abave-entitled matter came on for hearing before the undersigned on the Special Term calendar of the Court on Monday, October 28, 1991, at the Dakota County Judicial Center, Hastings, Minnesota. Annette Margarit, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Howard J. Groves, Attorney at Law, appeared on ? behalf of the Petitioners. The issue is the assessment for the improvement of Rahn Road. The parties who are identified as the Petitioners represent 12 property owners on Rahn Road and have filed a joint appeal from the assessment promulgated by the Respondent City. The City moves for severance and for separate trials for .? each of the Petitioners. Based upon the file, the record made, the file and proceedings heretofore had, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. That the Respondent-City's motion be and the same is hereby denied. 2. That the following Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. DATED: 10-28-91 BY T E OURT: ? ARTIN. -MARSUR Judge f D strict Court 1 t •, MEMORANDUM Flle ttiis _ day of 19_"' ' R06ER W. SAMES, Coun Admmistrator By DEPUTY 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 ftahn 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 wauld cause confusion for all and would not serve the best interest of all parties, including the City. 2 . 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 location and basically are arguing the same issue that the project has not benefitted them at all but in fact has been a detriment to their property. Through some of his other questions, it seemed apparent the Judge was not totally supportive of Mr. Groves' position. The Court asked for the City's position and I reiterated the Judge's own comments namely that each parcel is unique and by the very nature of the special assessment, the City may not levy an assessment greater than the benefit to that particular parcel. I pointed out to the Court that the parcels were not all assessed the same amount indicating that they differed in some respect. I also argued that, in the event the Court did not agree that the properties had been benefitted to the amount of the assessment, the Court would need to be able to arrive at soine equitable means of determining a reduction in the ?assessment. Without knowledge of the individual characteristics of the properties, the Court would have to resort to a blanket type of reduction which would be unfair to the City and likely also the landowners. The Court noted that appellants paid only one filing fee. The Judge stated that he would take the matter under advisement. and issue an order. AMM/wkt City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Rd Eagan, MN 55122 (651) 675 -5675 www.ci.eagan.mn.us Site Address: 4363 Rahn Rd Lot: 24 Block: 1 Addition: Cedar Grove 4th PID:10- 16703 - 240 -01 Use: Description: Sub Type: e- Siding Work Type: Siding Description: House & Garage Census Code: 434 - Zoning: Square Feet: 0 Comments: Fee Summary: Valuation: 3,000.00 Contractor: Sandau Construction 12605 Creek View Avenue Savage MN 55378 (952) 403 -9100 Total: Applicant/Permitee: Signature PERMIT City of Eaan When installing ventilated soffit material, remove existing soffit mate take steps to ensure maximum ventilation into attic space. BL - Base Fee $3K Surcharge - Based on Valuation $3K - Applicant - Construction Type: Occupancy: $90.00 Owner: Brian Olwin 4363 Rahn Rd Eagan MN 55122 Permit Type: Permit Number: Date Issued: Permit Category: $88.50 0801.4085 $1.50 9001.2195 Issued By: Signature Building EA087797 12/17/2008 ePermit al (i.e. debris that could block vent openings) and I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the informa of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances. on is correct and agree to comply h all applicable State