The URL can be used to link to this page

4370 Rahn Rd41!1/ City of EaQau 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan MN 55122 Phone: (651) 675-5675 Fax: (651) 675-5694 Use BLUE or BLACK Ink Permit #: I Permit Fee: 55'-4°4 I 1 Date Received: � I Staff: I 2011 RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING PERMIT 7PLICAT Date: Z/ 1 `ii C Site Address: Tenant: Suite #: RESIDENT / OWNER Name: / Phone: 45(--31f Address / City / Zip: 3 i A CONTRACTOR Name: ` ) ( C- ‘\..\ I t)wt�� License #: C%} s'9 Address: State: /17 � 'j JO ".4 ^ : g__ City: ..,.4).:51„ , i6), �62 1 k5i Ii (V Zip: 33 Phone: 67 9t v()3 3 `550 Contact: Email: TYPE OF WORK 47 Description Modify Space Work in R.O.W. Repair Rebuildil/ New Replace ent4,„ �_ _ // of work: C 4 :6- ( ` -h,00) S (f ' l %,i2 y PERMIT TYPE RESIDENTIAL Water / Water Softener Heater 5 Add Plumbing Fixtures ( `Man / -.Lower Level) Lawn Irrigation (_ RPZ / PVB) Septic Water Turnaround System New _ Abandonment RESIDENTIAL FEES: $55.00 Minimum Water Heater, (includes Fixtures, (add $166.00 New ($10.00 Water Softener, or Water Heater and Softener (includes $5.00 State Surcharge) $35.00 Lawn Irrigation $55.00 Add Plumbing *Water Turnaround $105.00 Septic System $95.00 Fire Repair (replace $5.00 State Surcharge) Septic System Abandonment, Water Turnaround* (includes $5.00 State Surcharge) if a 5/8" meter is required) per as built) (includes County fee and $5.00 State Surcharge) out appliances, ductwork, etc.) (includes $5.00 State Surcharge) TOTAL FEES $ burned CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. Call Gopher State One Call at (651) 454-0002 for protection against underground utility damage. Call 48 hours before you intend to dig to receive locates of underground utilities. www.gopherstateonecall.orq I hereby acknowledge that this information is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City of Eagan; that I understand this is not a permit, but only an application for a permit, and work is not to s .rt without a •-rmit; that the work will be in accordance with the approved plan in the case of work which requires a review and approv. .f -fans. Applicant's Printed Name x Appl' - ant's Signature Required Inspection ough- Te MI6 02-11 12:30P CROWN RENOVATIONS ' c 400, City of hop 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan MN 55122 Phone: (651) 675-5675 Fax: (651) 675-5694 Date: RESIDENT / OWNER 110/ 83d INC 7635463635 P.02 Ccs (6s X �, I l � Use BLUE or BLACK Ink For Office Use Permit # Permit Fee. \:2„.—\ _ Date Ret:raived: Staff:.... 2011 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION -./‘A)/-\ — ,, Site Address: 4 3 7 1i _1 Ianf`1 1� Unit #: Name: R (i 4\ek J6 p �1+�71 �'1f' �A3r' ' C �' Phone: J:5/ J 1,'S ! 1 TYPE OF WORK Address I City / Zip: -! 3 / 0 RA }jn Applicant is: _. Owner X Contractor Description of work:. t ``1R'/�Yll1��0nVtt4Q4 C *) Construction Cost: d—/, 1J 1i. V 1 '' 1. CONTRACTOR Company: C CQ R 'v�aittiq R) VA) IN' L .S ' r1 C ( Address: 9g9 I . ! 3 4\ ' State' M 1- Zip: S C 1 q License #: v` V 7 J r 0 Phone: Lead Certi fp 14'1.1j(Z) Multi -Family Building: (Yes No %{ ) _ Contact: _ 1 •1S YJ City: P1 r] sr 1('3rrb1{r • [ IN/kr-34/68-1 ficato #: )99 Does this project require Lead Remediation? If no, please explain: XYes ❑ No (see Page 3 for additional information) COMPLETE THIS AREA ONLY IF CONSTRUCTING A NEW BUILDING In the last 12 months, has the City of Eagan issued a permit for a similar plan based on a master plan? Yes _No If yes, date and address of master plan: Licensed Plumber: __.._ .... Phone: Mechanical Contractor: Phone: Sewer & Water Contractor: Phone: NOTE: Plans and supporting documents that you submit are considered to be public information. Portions of 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 Cali at (651) 454.0002 for protection against underground utility damage. Call 48 hours before you intend to dig to receive locates of underground utilities. ipetiy+,lztict,gtecrttecnll,urtt I hereby acknowledge that this information is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with too ordinances and codes of the City of Eagan; that I understand this is not a permit, but only an application far a permit, and work is not to start without a permit: that the work will he in accordance with the approved piari in the case of work which requires a review arid approval of plans. co,,L riciA,Rsi) ti/eike,-F\ Applicant's Printed Name Applicant's Signature Page 1 of 3 R SUB TYPES Foundation Fireplace Garage Deck Lower Level Single Family Multi 01 of _ Plex Accessory Building WORK TYPES New Addition Alteration' Replace Retaining Wall DESCRIPTION Valuation Plan Review DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE Porch (3 -Season) _ Porch (4 -Season) _ Porch (Screen/Gazebo/Pergola) Pool t3L \O Interior Improvement Move Building Fire Repair Repair (25%_ 100% Census Code # of Units # of Buildings Type of Construction REQUIRED INSPECTIONS Footings (New Building) Footings (Deck) Footings (Addition) Foundation Drain Tile Roof: _Ice & Water _Final XFraming Fireplace: _Rough In Air Test Insulation Meter Size: Occupancy Code Edition Zoning Stories Square Feet Length Width Final Siding Reroof Windows Egress Window Storm Damage Exterior Alteration (Single Family) Exterior Alteration (Multi) Miscellaneous Demolish Building* _ Demolish Interior _ Demolish Foundation Water Damage *Demolition of entire building — give PCA handout to applicant MCES System SAC Units City Water Booster Pump PRV Fire Sprinklers Sheetrock Final / C.O. Required Final / No C.O. Required HVAC Other: Pool: _Footings Air/Gas Tests _Final Siding: _Stucco Lath _Stone Lath _Brick Windows Retaining Wall: _ Footings _ Backfill _ Final Radon Control Erosion Control Reviewed By: , Building Inspector RESIDENTIAL FEES Base Fee Surcharge Plan Review MCES SAC City SAC Utility Connection Charge S&W Permit & Surcharge Treatment Plant Copies TOTAL rti Page 2 of 2 CITY OF EAGAN Remarks ?1?1,1y L-Z-11.".r` `. ' . ? / Addition SECTION 29 Lot 01,2 B?k 26 cel 0 02900 012 26 Owner -???':;1 :• " IniG ? Street State EAGAN N 55122 ? Improvement Date Amount Annual Years Payment Receipt Date STREET SURF. STREET RESTOR. GRADING SAN SEW TRUNK * SEWER LATERAL 4932 WATERMAIN * WATER LATERAL 1981 WATER AREA .0 15.40 5 STORM SEW TRK IAC 971 686.07 34.30 20 * STORM SEW LAT 1981 10 CURB & GUTTER SIDEWALK STREET LIGHT WATER CONN. BUILDING PER. sAC 275.00 8483 7-10-73 PARK ..?`? ? ?, - =-? - ¢ ?,? ?( ?? ? ?? ?» ?r?=?? c/?'JLGU.-???Lt-Gl?e?l? . ..OF EAGAN Remarks / Additinn SEC't10II 29 Lot Blk Parcel 10 02900 010 26 Owner Street State 1 Improvement Date Amount Annual Years Payment Rec Date STREET SURF. 1970 14 245.0 1424.50 10 ' ' /? - - STREET RESTOR. GRADING qC) SANSEW TRUNK 1970 1, 37.25 $545.49 25 ,'?,SEWERLATERAL 1974 $8 00 $56.00 15 WATERMAIN WATER LATERAL ?WATER AREA 1973 16,667.75 $11 .1 15 J(?5STORM SEW TRK 1971 51,400. $2570.00 STORM SEW LAT CURB & GUTTER SIDEWALK STREET LIGHT WATER CONN BUILDIN ER. sAC $275.00 8483 p 7 0-73 ,PARK Y OF EAGAN Remarks Additio SECTION 29 ?ot O11 Blk 26 Parcel Ow er Street State i?Qftn n i ( 3'S _ /ib 00bg Q t'1-I- 1 an-:;? 10 02900 O11 26 I rovement Date Amount Annu I Years Payment Recei Date STREET SURF. 1970 STREET RESTOR. m GRADING SAN SEW TRUNK 1970 9 .00 378 SEWERLATERAL -'2 1974 $46 * ?'`' 1983 883,974.01 ,8397.60 WATERMAIN * WATER LATERAL 1981 WATER AREA 1973 11,550.00 * services - 1981 STORMSEW TRK r 1971 41.186 2059.32 2 STORM SEW LAT CURB & GUTTER SIDEWALK STREET LIGHT WATER CONN 13UILDIN ER. SAC RK CASH RECEIPT ' Y? 'CITY OF EAGAN ? 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD ' EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122 DATE RECErvEo FROM , AMOUNT $ _. i & DOLLARS ia ? CASH ? CHECK FM . . .. i ! , ! ? , ; .. ? . BY T . ? ? Whit?Payers CoPY ?? 8?9 ? fi$ i y Yellow-Postin9 Copy Pink-File Copy Thank You CONTRACT PRICE: Site Address ' X ^-? Lot -? Block . ? Name ,a Addre?,ss d? c Ci ?`rF'?C' PLUMBING PERMIT CITY OF EAGAN 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, EAGAN, MN 55122 , PHONE:454-8100 PERMIT # ? -, RECEIPT # 7 j DATE: ? BLDG. TYPE iub % Res. X Mult. Comm. ?= . Other Phone ? Name T i/i v?a v 3 Address r 11 p City??- Phone FEES COMM/IND FEE - 1% OF CONTRACT FEE APT. BLDGS - COMM RATE APPLIES TOWNHOUSE 8 CONDO - RES. RATE APPLIES MINIMUM - RESIDENTIAL FEE - $12.00 MINIMUM - COMM/IND FEE - $20.00 STATE SURCHARGE PER PERMIT - .50 (ADD $.50 S/C IF PERMIT PRICE GOES BEYQND $1,000.00) 1 SIGNATUR'1?,OF PERMITTEE FOR: CITY OF EAGAN WORK DESCRIPTION New Add-on ?- Repair RES. PLBG. ONLY - COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: NO. FIXTURES TOTAL + Water Closet - $3.00 $ `6ath Tubs - $3:00 JII WCI ' yJ.VV Kitc en Sink - $3.00 Urina?,(Bide,t - $3.00 Laund Tr;hy - $3.00 Floor Dr i?s - $1.50 Water Hekter - $1.50 Whirlpoql - 3.00 Gas PipJng utlets - $1.50 (MIN MUM 1 PER PERMIn Softenr - $5.0 ? Well - 10.00 Priva Disp. - $10.00 Rou h Openings - $1.50 -• t ,r FEE: A ??.• . ? ` ??? STATE S/C: GRAND TOTAL: ?'? " ? J CITY OF EAGAN 3795 Pilot Knob Road Ea9un, Minnesofo 55122 Phone: 454-8100 Water Softener PERMIT No 296 Date: 10 / 11 / 79 cirp ad.f.o«• 4370 Rahn Road Lot Block v26" Sub/Sec. Name ;:t.n_P1c9_ =Jlscn t Address `370 Rann °raa 9 City T'ara:i1 , ??i?d Phone: - Receipt No.: 1625 Single Residential Multi Res., Comm./Ind. I New/Alter./Repair Cost of Installation Permit Fee Name Con?ers Soft Water SurcFwrge . t Address 38-01 California P?r: V >..,,?_ *r -_ . ?s4:? •;? City Phone: Total This Permit is issued on the express condition that all work shall be done in accordance with all opplicable State of Minnesota Stotutes and City of Eagan Ordinances. Building Official CITY OF EAGAN 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122-189 (651) 681-4675 SITE ADDRESS: PERMIT SUBTYPE: h,li 1t f? f N('n ?? :; x ;? ?Y r•f N/;` o; l< ? F3 . r k x,rl 93Ipa i((?a . INSPECTION RECORD PERMIT TYPE: Permit Number: 7 Date Issued: APPLICANT: TYPE OF WORK: , , . , ,, Permit Hoider Date Telephone # SEWER/ WATER PLUMBING HVAC Inspection Date Insp. Comments FOOTINGS FOUND FRAMING ROOFING / ROUGH PLUMBING PLBG AIR TEST ROUGH HEATING GAS SVC TEST INSUL GYP BOARD FIREPLACE FIREPLACE AIR TEST FINAL PLBG FINAL FFTG ORSAT TEST BLDG FINAL DOMESTIC METER IRRIGATION METER FLUSH MAINS CONDUCTIVITY TEST HYDROSTATIC TEST BSMT R.I. BSMT FINAL DECK FfG DECK FINAL ?----a CITY OF EAGAN Permit No: ' 17 ?$ ; Date: 3830 Pilot Knob Road Meter No: . 1 Size: P.O. Sox 21199 - Reader Na ? Date Eagan, MN 55121 : Owner. ;./''-_;ry OIsojz 5 SiteAddress: P.nad 2(? Plumber. xt C Pl;?bin , Conn. Chg: 5?'?'• ncpd - Zoning: ' < AcctDep:_ S.frOp? 2?.? ; Permit Fee: _ ()Pd No. of Units: j ? Surcharge: • S0Pe !() . I a ree to comp Iy with the Ctty of Ea an j Tr. Plant •, Ad Ordinances. g ? Meter. - 67 .inn : Misc.: ' By i WATER SERVICE PERMIT ? t CITY OF EAGAN Permit No: Date: ; 3830 Pilot Knob Road Meter No:1/03 Si ' P.O. Box 21199 Reader No: ze: Date: ?? 3-?f , Eagan, MN 55121 Owner. `)on/t"arv Olson ?,SiteAddress: 4?70 jkahn p,oad 1n r)!? 'Plumber. : C Pl.unbhij-, :Conn. Ch SSc), Oppd 9? - Zoning: -,1 'Acct. Dep: i 5•oopd No. of Units: 1 ?Permit Fee: 1 `% • 0'?Ud :Surcharge: • 5?T)e. I agree to compl y with the City of Eagan Tr. Plant_ 204•00Ad Ordi n ea. ? 'Meter n7 1.9pr , _ Misc.: gy I WATER SERVICE PERMIT QUICKI - NOTE° DATE J&iuar,Z 24 19?U ??i.ff Road Properties M'z SUBJEC?ewer Lateral Assessment Attention: Mr. Jack Daly Pa 3391 " Since the assessment for the sewer hook-u for the above mentioned arcel was not included in an blic hearin w ar a 1 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEPARTMENT ` / SNAP-A-PART ? 47-232 NaTiONAL MADE IN U. S. A. FROM BLDG. PERMIT NO. r , b"-N 01-3210 Bldg. Permit 01-3422 Plan Check 01-3445 Surch./Adm. G?Z 01-3446 SAC/Adm. 01-2155 Surcharge i 75-3860 Road Unit 20-2275 SAC 20-3865 Water Conn. ?c an, 20-3868 Water Trmt. ? 00 20-3716 Water Meter 0-7 nc 20-2252 Acct. Dep. ? W 20-3713 Water Permit ? cc _ 20-3743 Sewer Permit 79-3866 Sewer Conn. 28-3855 Park Ded. , ol - i? r?m??n I Z cx? TOTAL L YILLAGE OF EAGAN SEWER SERVICE PERMIT 3795 Pilot Knob Road PERMIT NO.: 2045 Eagan, MN 55122 DA°[E:. -'- 7/13173 _ Zoning:. R-1 No. of Units: 1 _ Owner: Donald J. Olson Address: iD D c? Site nddress: 370 Rahn Road,' Eagan 55122 Plumber: - _1elen7el Plu mhing & Heating I21c . 275.00 pd 7/1i 1 ayrea to eomply with the Vi lla9e of Eoyan Connection Chazge: Ordinances. Account Deposit: 15.00 pd 711? Permit Fee: 10.00 pd 7/13/73 SurchargWill pay . 50 7 a r By: Misc. Charges: Date of Insp.: Total: Insp.: Date Paid: Wquest void 18 months from ? d Ua qU0 0/0 /, -:7 7-7 ? akd.., ?, ?c• R 46867 I3gte of this Request . 67 c I, as EtkLicensed Elec al Contractor Owner, do hereby request inspection of theabove electri- cal wiring installed at: Street Address or Route No. 51 ?-??(?_ ?s ./??J City Section Township Range County Which is occupied by Is a roughin inspection required on this job? No ? Yes 2--- Ready Now ? Will Call 19-- Power Supplier Address, Electrical Contractor KENDRIC? ELECo?a&wko. Mailing Address U-.?4601t?YM??K LA?'°?' A?PLE VT?LLI-Eff (Ele ?gn ractr vy eI)- Authorized Signature Phone No. (Electrical Contractor or Owner Making This Installation) ?: pp; ? This inspection request will not be accepted by the S#ate Board unless proper inspection fee is enclosed. jibs, . ,. ? ?a e ooara of Electricity 111111hL54 University Ave., St. Paul, Minn. 55104-Phone 645-7703 REQUES'd FOR ELECTRICAL INSPECTION CHECK BFLOW WOItK COVERED BY THIS REQUEST ` , --* 7' ? <-' `R 46867 ype of Building New Add. Rep. Check Appliances Wired For Check Equipment Wired For Home ? ? Range ? Temporary Wiring ? Duplex + ? ? ? Water Heater ? Lighting Fixtures ? Apt. Bldg. ? ? ? Dryer ? Electric Heating ? Commercial Bldg. ? ? ? Furnace ? Silo Unloader ? Industrial Bldg. ? ? ? Air Conditioner ? Bulk Milk Tank ? Farm ? ? ? List List Other ? ? ? p HerersI 2ehers? COMPUTE INSPECTIO N FEE B ELOW Service Entrance Size: # Fee Feeders& Sub feeders: # Fee Circuits: # Fee 0 to 100 Am s. 0 to e 0 to 30 Am eres d 101 to 200 Amps. ao- 31 t 31 to 100 Am eres Above 200 Amps. Abo 100 Abdve 100 Amps. Transformers Remote Con ol C. Partial or other fee Signs Special Inspection Minimum fee $5. Remazks / TOTAL FEE I, the Electricat Inspector, herebtl?' ?fy t t bove i ection has been ma (Rough-in) _ Date (Final) Date This request void 18 months fr ., EAGAN TOWNSHIP BUILDING PERMIT owne1 ..... ..... ...------------------------------------------- Address (P=esen!) -, .. ?----?-=----------------.------- Builder -•-••------•-.._.....-•••----••••--• ..................•••--•-•--...----••-••--?---•--••-_•-•-.-•- Address ........ ? ...... ................. DESCRIPTION N° 1853 Eagan Township Town Hall Date ...... Slories To Be Used For Front Depth Heighi Est. Cos! ' Permi! Fee Remarks fa? ?7, ?y LOCATION Sireet, Road or other Description of Location ? Lot ? Block ? Addition or Trac! o1c3 I SFcID c) 0 ??f This permi2 does aot authorise the use of streets, roads, alleys or sidewalks nor does it give the owner or his agent the right to create any situation which is a nuisance or which presen2s a hazard !0 the health, safefy, convenience and general welfare !o anyone in the communiiy. THIS PERMIT MUST BE I{,EPT ON THE PREMISE WHILE THE WORK IS IN PROGRESS. This is to certify, fhal--•-•-??-:•-••-•---(e??------------------------------- has permission to ereci a__.,??'.-?`..? .`..?. ?.--?`?.-••---.._upon the above described premise subject to the provisions of the Building Ordinance for Eagan 'lownship adopted April 11, 1955. r ? _? ??. ---.--•-•--•••---._. Per ._.............. . ........:.......•••- •• •- -•---._ ?. .` of Tnwn --....• ?•--•--??5`a?:??`?.ilding_.. ?.?.`?. Inspec2or_.... Chai?frliaa 8A ard ? Bu 6 • P PERMIT # 'I Please complete for: SITE ADDRESS: RECEIPT DATE: 2+?,?_ USll}]ENTIAL PLUbI$ING PERIVIIT APPLICATION CITY OF EACAN 3830 Pu.oT Kvoa Rn E46AN, MN 55188 651-6$1-4675 ? singie family dwellings ? townhomes and condos when permits are required for each unit ? backflow preventer for irrigation system 13 -?v /e4 OWNER NAME: : /2013 TELEPHONE #:C &-?7// (??v - (AREA CODE) INSTALLER NAME: M_..y' Rooter TELEPHONE #: (AREA CoDe) STREET ADDRESS: 2800 Camgus Dr., Ste. # 40 ymou , CITY: '7 ?3 SS 1-OSSS STATE: ZIP: Place a check mark next to the permit work tvpe _ New residential dwelling unit under construction and not owner/occupied $ 90.00 ^ Add-on, modification or alteration to existinp dwelling unit, including: $ 50.00 • abandonment of septic system • new instal lation/repair/rebu ild of RPZ • lawn irrigation system • water turnaround Nature of work: _ Septic 5ystem, new/rellurbished - $ 225.00 • includes County & Consulting Inspector fees • requires MPC license State Surcharge $ .50 T t l $ o a Reminder: Be sure to schedule inspections of alterations, i.e. water heaters, water softeners, etc. I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application, state that the information is correct, and agree to comply i all applicable City of Eagan ordinances. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the property owner that the City of Eagan assumes no liability, for any ages caused by the City during its normal operational and maintenance activities to the facilities constructed under this permit within City property/ri - ay/easement. SIGNATU/?J?16F PERMITTEE ?'% / Updated 1/01 PERMIT ? CITY OF EAGAN 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122-1897 (651) 681-4675 SITE ADDRESS: Pe x e Ne: 10-70775-0a.a-a1 DESCRIPTION: REMARKS: FEE SUMMARY: STORh1 DAMRGE REPAIf2 434 ALTo F2ESIDENTIAL ? ? ?°??@?? ? ra? %???? ? ?? ? W ?? i? ??? ? 0e??"? A CONTRACTOR: - Ap?' lican t - ST° !- IC° OWNER: FtQBLES BUILDERS LTDd 16494616 20080681 iCEENEY F2qBERT 13120 CTo PL4 4370 RAHN RD BURNSVILLE h1N 55337 EAGAN h9N 55122 (612) 649-4616 (651) APPLICANT/PERMITEE SIGNATURE PERMIT TYPE: Bu xLDz NG Permit Number: 033796 Date Issued: 10/ 26/98 a??0 RAHN Ro La r e 1 BLa c K e I sONs T.n R. RppnnF Q?-S SUED BY: SIGNATU E r 1998 BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION (RESIDENTIAL) , CITY OF EAGAN 3830 PII.OT KNOB RD - 55122 Q? 681-4675 New Construdion Requirements ? 3 registered site surveys ? 2 copies of plans (inGude beam 8 window sizes; poured fnd. design; etc.) 1 1 energy catculations 1 3 capies of tree preservation plan if lot platied aRer 7/1/93 required: _ Yes _ No DATE: l o 17- OA; ? RemodeVRepair Requirements ? 2 copies of plan ? 2 site surveys (exterior additions & decks) ? 1 energy calculations for heated additions CONSTRUCTION COST; 40190 °O DESCRIPTION OF WORK: ? Vv"\, STREETADDRESS: 4/3 7 d W I LOT: ? BLOCK: 1 SUBD./P.I.D. #: ?) V?.o C??.+l? PROPERTY OWNER CONTRACTOR ARCHITECT/ ENGINEER Name: ?4j?? ?-? 9?? Phone -, I.ast First Street Address: 37 D City g/) State: INIt-l' Zip: Company: ? -c?e Z-? -f3? L., t tO /--S ?.`TV. Phone #: (Co12 \ ( ; ? 1' V(,/, / (- Street Address: 13 i 2v (fT?'( t-' City ? cJ f? ? S ?J 1? 1? State: N, Company: Phone #: Name: Registration #: Zip: .? S ?'337 Street Address: City State: Zip: Sewer & water licensed plumber (new construction only): . Penalty applies when address chang and lot change is requested once permit is issued. I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the State of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances. Signature of Applicant: OFFICE USE ONLY Certificates of Survey Received Yes No License # 2-E) 0 is correct gnft\a9ree;to comply with all applicabl I DLP? ? ??u ---- ? OCT 2 O1998 ? i Tree Preservation Plan Received Yes No Not Required R '^... BUfLDING PERMiT TYPE O 01 Foundation ? 06 Duplex D 02 SF Dwelling ? 07 4-plex ? 03 SF Addition O 08 8-plex 0 04 SF Porch ? 09 12-plex ? 05 SF Misc. 0 10 = plex WORK TYPE ? 31 New ? 33 Alterations O 32 Addition ? 34 Repair GENERAL INFORMATION Const. (Actual) (Aflowable) UBC Occupancy Zoning # of Stories Length Depth APPROVALS OFFICE USE ONLY ? 11 Apt./Lodging ? O 12 Muiti Repair/Rem. ? ? 13 Garage/Accessory ? ? 14 Fireplace ? ? 15 Deck ? 36 Move ? 37 Demolition Basement sq. ft. Main level sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. Footprint sq. ft. 16 Basement Finish 17 .Swim Pool 20 Public Facility 21 Misceilaneous MC/WS System City Water Fire Sprinklered PRV Booster Pump Census Code. SAC Code Census Bldg Census Unit rz? Planning Building Engineering Variance Permit Fee Surcharge Plan Review License MCNVS SAC City SAC Water Cann. Water Meter Acct. Deposit S/V1/ Permit S/VN Surcharge Treatment PI. Park Ded. Trails Ded. Other Copies Total: Valuation: $ % SAC SAC Units APFLiCATION FOR PERMIT SEWER AND/QR WATER CONNECTION oFeagan x?*...x.x.xxxxxxxxxxxx,x.x..Rx>xx>, * - * NOTE: PAYMElP OF FEE AT TIME OF * ,*k APPLICATION ppFS NOT CpIJ- * STINPE APPRCJAL OF PII2MIT. INSPE)LTION OF SE.W32 AIID/OR WATER *. ,*k INSTIILSATIONS WIId, NOT SE SCIDULID * [!N1ZL PII2NIIT HAS BFESI APPROVID. .*k ************************************** 1) PROPERTY ADDRESS : ?9,729 . /d-/? T,FX;AT. DFSCRIPTION:?ag . Tw- r? ??'Z .`? r?:.?c ?2 3 Ii/,2 ? o, LOp S S"93- S"?'?? (L 3t B ock Subdivision or?Tax Parcel I-D #)g?e-) ? -71to? IF EXISTING STRL'CTCIRE, DATE OF ORIGINAL BLILDING PuRMIT ISSLANCE: . Nbnt Year PRESENT ZONING/PROPOSID LSE: ? CONMEZCIAL/RETAIL/OFFICE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY Q INDLSTRIAL ? R-2 DLPLEX (Ttvo C?nits) Q INSTITUTIONAL/GOVERNNNIEENT R-3 TOWNHOUSE (Three + Units) ( Lnits) Q R-4 APARTNIENT/CONDOMINILM ( Units) 2) : " • .AM%1 NANE: ? ADDRESS : CITY, STATE, ZIP: PHONE: ° ' C 7o.Z S?/ oZ ror uity use - 3) ' K1LTEwj NAME: . ?. - Plumbers License: -Active ADDRESS : Expired CITY, STATE, ZIP: Not recorded PHONE : 9 ?j MASTER LICENSE # ? StafT-InitiaT- 4) NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: PHONE: 5) s ?? c? • a? ? ?P . r?e Q CONNECTION TO CITY SEWER (,?,?. ? CONNECTION TO CITY WATER ? OTHER 6) ***?************************************************************************************************ * THE GOLD COPY OF THE PERMT WILL BE SEur DIRECTLY TO PUSLIC WORKS TO FACILITATE MEIM PICK-UP. * * PLF,A.SE ALIAW TWD WORKING DAYS FOR PROCFSSING. SOM0NE FROM TfIE CITY WILL CONrACT YOU IF THII2E * ** ARE ANY PROSLENlS. * 7Y*****?t7Y*7k**ir*****?e?t***?it?Y*yk*7Y7Y**?t'*?t7k**?I'7kyY?Y*?Y?k*?tit*?t?c*7k?t?ir?k7k*?k****'7k?t*?F*7k**7tir*7kyk****?t?k?t?t**?lc*ic*7k7k?ic***1F*?k; -FOR CITY USE ONLY PERMIT #.ISSUED Pd w/Bldg. Permit FEES: $ z?. $ $ $ $ $ $ . c-o $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -? • .?? 7?w=1a? $ - ?? 7?6 RECEIPT RECEIPT SEWER PERMIT (INCLUDE SURCHARGE) WATER PERMIT (INCLL1DE SLiRCHARGE) WATER METER/COPPERHORN/OL'TSIDE READER WATER TAP (INCLLDE CORPORATION STOP) SEWER TAP ACCOUNT DEPOSIT - SEWER ACCOUNT DEPOSIT - WATER WAC SAC TRUNK WATER ASSESSMENT TRLNK SEWER ASSESSMENT LATERAL BENEFIT/TRLNK SEWER , LATERAL BENEFIT/TRLiNK WATER WATER TREATMENT PLANT SURCHARGE OTHER: TOTAL DOES LTILITY CONNECTION REQLIRE EXCAVATION IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY? ? YES IF YES, THEN A"PERMIT FOR WORK WITHIN PLiBLIC Q ROADWAY" MLST BE ISSLiED BY THE ENGINEERING NO DIVISION. LIST AS A CONDITION. SLBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: APPROVED BY: TITLE: DATE : SEWER CONNECTION CHARGES: SAC 650.00 ACCOUNT DEPOSIT 15.00 SEWER PERMIT 10.50 TOTAL FOR SEWER HOOK-UP 675.50 WATER CONNECTION CHARGES; Z,IATER CONNECTION 550.00 METER 67.00 TREATMENT SURCHARGE 204.00 ACCOUNT DEPOSIT 15.00 WATER PERMIT 10.50 ? PLUMBING PERMIT 12.50 ` TOTAL FOR WATER AOOK-UP 859.00 TOTAL FOR SEWER & WATER HOOK-UP $1,534.50 MINIMUNI PLUMBING CHARGE FOR COIrMERCIALS - 20.50 , AA kIZ Y O L S d,c/ `7 7- ? pLSo? App ? 1°l 09 . . t? ii . . .. , . , . L: - (: ?' :' (. ?..? ' i1Yl ? .. :.' Pi...l._:-I,? •I" ;:) ._,;... ,....:??.•?? :?. ''• 4_.` C` ? : Ct . ?? ..(:? G'.` _ E_ •• ..? C: ' • ? _ + f•i r+ ,,; I?h.;• ?? :I 'I ,.? ,?i•?:r I ? i . .. F?1? ,..,: .. _.. ,.... ... .,.. . . ., . _ _. .... i t?1uf-; Y ?> . ..., i.? .. _ t-i f?i._' w 4i :l 9-i 8 8 ; : i.....::_; .:_ • ......... ...... .._ . , .___.------_.__. _ _ _ :...? 7 ??l ?_!'-- i i .L .?:. .... ? ? _.. ......._.....'.. .........._.. ..._ .? _ ..._?_.._.._...._._._...._ _.._.._._.? ?? ; ? ? l? .. _... . . ..__:... . .i. .._ - ... I .... - ..., _.. .. . i:: ..?.. , c.., • i . • .I. .. ..... ... , 'r'1-i Y'l?ia ..._.....__ ___._._.__ _--.__..... 1=tli"1"1=: i.t::1_fFiL iaP4 l'd „ F°'f-il:fu,. 1 'YUF'Y° C..IJP"IIYII::f`•I?! . . . . . . . .... _.... _... . .. ... I I . ?. I . . `ay - . . . : ? ?? :? ? .! ! ? .?. .? .::? „ t ) _) 0C) f..1 ?..y . ?.v I._ D .:i la . ..., _. , . ... .. . ? r._ . _. , ? ?' r ? :, .4.,_ w- i .. - : - 1t3`'. i1[_; i?li_; c?r1! ='1=if:;i-'i-i`r' , ... ;.4.?.! I.?._i;::? _. .. . _ . . C?• _.. _ . r>(... ? 6 7 t.1' ? F', 1 ( : y t ..... _ _• ' _ C_ ?.:_ •? .-. _ - •,`? .ti. ... u ' . _ r ?"' ?"'. ?:". ?'"? f•? ?, ,. a.:;z, .... , _. _ , ... ._: .. . ?? j I_1 l. l ,... :. ... „ . , . rs .: ? ?_? ?_i ?: ??• "1? •.::•:_' o ?. C} _? .. t_l I, i . . ? I ? ?.... I I 7 y . . . ... ?,?.;? ? . . ... ._ . _. .. : _., .. . . '. 11 ?r?aiPt Y L.l1-? i.ii.. I? .l'?. L•? . .. , l„);_i , i)i_) , „ .:,.. . , _ :. .. . . ?:::• . .. i". _. ... , 1 1-?:?`"1'i'il i ('il'° ?' % a/ ? : ,9 58 QA,T E f?'t?l? la?e-G 1 ? i ? ? ?- L N ??5, & s' ?? = I 7 1(3, 5 0 ? I .. ?? . ? ?'0 ? WAIG'r:R OF HEARIPJG ? . . REQUEST FOR UTILITY IMPROVEME13T5 I/u;e hereby request of the Village Council, Village of ? an, ? Minnesota., utility improvements on and over property _- i followss (Mention type af improvement, eeg. water, sanitary sewer, etco) SANITAHY SEWER LATERAL The location of said utilfty improvements shall be generaily as followss Parcel 3391, Section 29, Township 27, Range 23 100' at 8.40 per foot = 840.00 (Cliff Road Properties f or ponald Olson) I,/VTe hereby waive t?otice of any and all hearings necessary for tt?e ixistallation of said fmprovements and further consen` to any assessm^nts necessarily levied by the Village af Eagar. for such fmprovements. I/We furthex agree Co grant ro the. Village of Eagan any easements na.cns • sary for Lhe insta2ltion of such improvements. It is further understaod that this request shall be reviewed by the V:llagP Council of The Village of Eagan or its agent and I/we wiil be given reasonable not3ce as to whether this request is possible under present utflity plaaning as to timing, locat Dated: Januai gy_2L:. _1974 i'equest accepted by __-_ t17llagp of Eagan Request rpfeYred to Village Engineer: D:te Ccpies s 1. Vil.i_age 2. Village Engineer. 3. Applicant ? ?. , ??! ?=?r""?1 ^ ? . ? ? r, '4 ? 1914 0 ?`' ? WAIVER OF HEARITiG REQUEST FOR UTILITY TMPROVEMENTS I/G?e hereby request of the Village Councily Village of Minnesota, utility improvements on and over property owned ' 'N? followrsq (Meiition type of improvement, eog. water, sanitary sewer, etc.) SANITAII1.' SEWER LATERAL Ttie location of said utility improvemeats shall be generally as followss Pareel 3391, Section 29, Township 27, Range 23 1001 at 8.40 per foot - 840.00 (Cliff Road Properties for ponald Olson) I/V1e hereby waive notice of any attd all hearings necessary for the installatian of said improvemants and further consen: to any assessm:::)ts necessarily levied by the Village of Eagan for such improvements> I/GTe further agree to grant to the Village of tagan any easements n:.cns- sary for the installtion of such improvements. It is further understood that this request shall be reviecaed by the V'llzge Council of The Village of Eagan or its agent and I/we will be given relsonable :nofiice as to whether this request is possible under preseZt utilfty planaing as to timing, locat: Dated d JML= 21L0 197,L , :'equest accepted by t? illagp of Eagan Request refe?:reci to Village Engineer: D.-te Cnpiess 1, Village ?.. Village Engineer 3. Applicant LEO MURPHY , MAYOR THOMAS EGASV MAQK PARRANTo JAR4E5 A. SMITH THEODORE WACHYER COUNCIL MEMBERS September 13, 1978 Do Olson ??370 Rahn Road Eagan, MN 55122 Dear iton : CITY e AV Y 3795 PILOT ?KNOB - ROAD , EA•GA.N, MfNNEJoTA V;Zzlq?'W 2 9 ? PH6Pe9E 454-8100 TiiDM! S 1?-0ED'i;ES "TY' AG!^.I111?i?1[?A1[J: :,._.,.._ .;?Jl.i.... Yt has come to my attention that you have extended your fence to the • Rahn Ftoad curb. You apparently are unaware that the City of Eagan owns 66 feet of right"nf-t•aay f.or Rahtt Road. There are several ordinances ° prohibiting structures (fences) within 33 feet of the center of Rahn, . ancl this ksoulevard is for snova storage arad future sielewalks. It is very possible that if the fence is not,moved back tn the 33-foot mark, it wi11 be damaged or clestroyed by Cf ty crews when maintaining afid plowing snow. The City of Eagan is not responsib2e for any clamage c3one in tYiose areas. TYtYS may seem unfair as you have to k.e2p the area tri.mmed to enhance your property, but I am sure that you understanc3 the problems of snow storage, etc. in Minnesotaa -Please contact me if you have any questianso Thank youo Sincerely yours, CITY OF F°AGAI3 Dale S. Pe tersora Building Official dsp lco cc: tlma Branch THIE LOiJE OA@L TREE ..o TiiE SYPABOL OF 57F2EPIGTF9 AN€7 GRC7W':'f^$ iN UUR Ci::sAiviur,el-r'r'. , ?----- -- .----•---.- - ? :A iA ?? - A ? ( ?9 ?'. `,r'?????'r j;t •:4 ? 3 ?J'.?w.? ??... ?qr?va .. t ?.,. >, ?. .:?? -i,??.l??: d. C? ???i?P.j' ti ' ,.^C?:1=%?v i • " %s ."ro ".°,.,a J ?? fi .a".t ?vw '' ,{ «. ae•?.?qt `.;a '?. .?? t,? wi(+?i? o,.. ?t' 'y'?l??Sr ..., '37 ti?:r. (?4? #=?,4?t,`?u?'?: ') bs? ' ?.8?-1?? Cf'.f. 'i?Y? ? ? .... .. . ?.. .' '. . -. . . .. ? . ?.a .g 3"??;?' . ». •:?R'C?` ,ct ?i, :tiG-".?fi . . <.? t1 _. . ...,:°'.? . ,?4 11',' 1J3 '?,s?';??3c?',' C`>?e?''i?:.''?.vW?r1A?'°. t .mi3 r...? .. ••.• - 1 • Yl,i y? , ? r? T p? { p? t c ` a s. n 9x??> ?' r3••, ,? ??' •' ?r?nS' ??n?? Y 4r'?'?',,`%'M1"°fY.?f C1 .T!`?0?1/?L !.•?... 4? w.?7P??^. 1?'"y..?.? ?/ li?????"??i?, ? t.{. ....` 1 4 ?I...•E 47r L..l r?o f . r p., I? t? -? ? ) ? J i+? f ? fa5 V .-r .? r 1 ?h (?.?} /?(,,? n( v? 'e 1-? {r.R Q. ?„q "5 r.+?:+? i?t ??, ?F?..> , ?1 '? ? l 'Fi I . ^Oi\t J?? p• . F? ?ir /??..r?.ilVey? l .t 4y ?.<Cr?+?,it?i' L.11'? ?.^ ?.:vr ?7 ;?. S t j'?.hA 44?6.y1,..,?lc l.. ?'.^ ?.1,?al? aat.?.` 4t4? °Nl.?:; 'f`?;,;.[?U .?.i? '.4? ?.?wLl?`aai.. ? A.r?Cl rh+.?7e:j'fii.n}? ry.,? Vltc, r?\ t ? Y.„ v?in.y ?+ ?.", ?i.u ?'."is7":?`i'>`,y?'? ? ? ?li. a, t?? ? c?? , ?`'1 ..... ,,i .. p? ? 1.f ? e..? '1 e. A 8 t.tl' YY U?' i. 6. ?? cS 4 1 ' . b ? ., / °'1 ? .`? ,r?? ^?-e.?cj ? t? ???? ?;r ,3c,?':.;?c???n?; ?;?:_ t?ba?D ? ?e6'?: 93 (1? dc?f?;r,?.:R0?? o?' .. u" .?E ?.; `?hene(r rlort-hs.rly * '??e? f?a r:p ? i4?yrC.LrlJ iM 0,t1)l.C?..s??? "VL 10\,.+9 .?: ' ,.f+- J?• J 1j.?''?. .2,EvrYjC ?? ° Pl??'. 1.i r U? 'XC_ -. ? Of ?; 8.00 `?'c??t, ?;c? 4h?: po?.?.t o?' 1?n<_? ?,°?,E.y.F9A?r: th?= i???;ie 3?;. `0 fre?. f' r ??:::?:? :.' L.?.1C ` ?,, iv 6 • ? 6>,'". t+i.? f,?: q. A ?1°" .'+?+??? L. :+ . C -,L?.? ? "? t-.c} 1/4 " ?7 ?. ? .1?'?? b L? z;tCa ?,?i?1 T? , G.r (-, - o??i '?? . ?. ?j5r?r+? t ?-+?? ?ilC?Wn lf ? :_ab? ?al i?t?, fl dVi. - v ?Y. a?!? t/ ? Ca ?...?rs L d.. ?s?. 'tJ ?- e ..?.:.`,`?c?9 ???.°F.'.?i.F: l", ? 3??'Yf '?Q ?' ?'z.?P?at .0 U 1?c",Y??'.E)i a o? ?'E'.?t,; ' herce ???? ?L2"';y ri"' ? w!`?t{` r,f I' ?'4<g?'eez, <<€ " ez't - ?:???1?: ;i ?;?±rt?c?,?.?.?.cu?=??c ?:s? ts??? 5?7u":: n;,???..r; -?? cet?f,.rjuA ` ' C ?'?1C a,? F' ?,;-,?f}' ?.,E' ? ' F' ??T;9 '1,?,c'?Fi2?'?? .,•2?'4.1?"hE?:?.".w?:E..'rl;?° 4'zi?.fa2lt, LC1 tc?..:?, d?;ai:2'.)ev'? _ ;'i ?Yli? ? ?` e?.+.1?.Z.?;? fi. ; }?, ?- . , > ?-?•. ;v? ?Cl r??1 `i?:??I'L;f...'s a ,.s;i'taTlt'.!'.' C?f' •#°` , w be ? 4.?q s-??? S??° V? ? ?'?E: t, y`fGl?'?d?`.r' .'??? ??L>ud .+y?X"??r ??,`.S .?.E.?f.1,b`1_,f'? u, id?':?iC:f.' 1''Tl?z''.,..?7C:3f,£..2'' L??.::?2?'G' ,y • `J":?<a l'i??3`; ,?.?.Y?: ? f??.3L?:.?c c; w? ? /l-`. Y? !r Sy?t 3 . 59 f,e?;?; to thc? :.cr?r???:?=?4? ?c;.?r.e? ?`:? .r??.? f`ar4,nl. 1; ' ? ;?.tor?.cc of 3,:i1• - ?' ?d''? c??????,??y ? ??. t;? t?ae ?.? ?y?`(???^?°??J"?,Fni;$??'iC???? ppar'1a01 wlth scAu tipo:t 1in-- a 2?ietanec of C10.00 fcu?'? tJ tr.c Scuth.cas*.: cti7'7IC:T' 'f?r ?' ;?1.?','?t3 ?'eet 'tc: °.;t.l id ?d.,-cc:;. 22; `:icnoe V'c?Aer1y Ic.flect:'.rC: `cea ??v r?.e;ht QJ e?cgr°€;o°3 - :.,c o lin€: ; ?r?'?ncc _'a??x?;r yrer:??? a?.c?n? ? d ??. id 1,1e :? ?.ix?c a t??p?.o?%t€??.eej o?' 23+ n '?5 fc?:t to ?>???" ??o2.z?t4, ;?f ?''c'G' f"?I.?e? ?i1??;' ???? .'i"i : s?O .fo?';'v w°I?h ?oYIE? n ?:u?i??o?".?.y "?r.01?' v??ov ?`'.vs`?.f'e . • a " CIRTIPIC,AT;.. 0! StJSVaY I heraby certiy [hac on I•urveyed ths propsrty descr•ibed aeesve •nd that the abovs plat is • eorrect reprarentarion of •aid survey. 2 0 o ?G OD o o P p• %lb 6 -185.00 N89'19'1e„w 218.00 n = 17 °SS• N _ 14T.OO ?=/ 4I N89°l9'r8??b? : ? A= I7 *55'47•, ? 180.00 -- L° 99.19 ? K°31b.qg ??l.s? ? wes+ ScC-}%o- Z9 .,,,?',;..?.'3M.;" Jf'R^. .. ?, ?n? A,?.L?..t«r.'?. Cs].vtn H. Hwdlued. Minn. Rft. lls. 5942 - / ? ? ? ? ? O o? „ ? co-, 4 V";r ? MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS Y . . FROM: CITY ADMIrTIS1'RATOR HEDGES DATE: MARCH 27,1992 SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA FOR iViARCH 17, 1992 REGUI.AR CITY _ COUNCIL MEETING _ CITY ATTORNEY ' There are no items for an executive session at this time. However, the Mayor, City Council and City Attorney have reserved tbe right to call an executive session to address any matters of pending litigation if desired. CITY ADMIIVISTRATOR Item 1. Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs--Judge Mansur has granted the Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs in the sum of $5,593. Please refer to a copy of the memo from the Ci Attorne?s office '?Zahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs" enclosed on pages iadthrough 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. Heiler v. City af 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= throughQ?U is a copy of a memo from Annette Margarit entitled "Heller v. City of Eagan Assessment Appeal," a resoludon adopting the settlement agreement and a copy of the Sdpulation and Order. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS iTEM: 7'o approve or detry 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. Item 3. Northview-Building F'ire Restoration ContraM/Defanlt to Cantractual Obligations-- As the City Council recalls, the Northview Park Building sustained oonsiderable damage as a result of a lightening strike and fire during the sununer of 1991. Beacon Builders Incorporated were awarded a bid in the amount of Z8,883 to correct the damage and assured staff that the 60 day vompletion timeframe was adequate to finish the - project. Unfortunately, the 60 day construction period expired and staff is of the opinion that the contractor did not meet its c;ontractual obligations which are now impending the City's operational needs for the building. For additional information on why staff is requesting _ ,? ? TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDIIM Tom Hedges, City Administrator Annette M. Margarit Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs `707o75 'D/v-- , March 4, 1992 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 Villaqe of Burnsville Assessments, 287 N.W.2d 375, 377 (Minn. 1979). The Court futher noted that awarding costs is up to the discreation of the trial judge. Id. In light of that case law, it is not surprising that the Judge awarded the Appellants their costs. I ask that this matter be placed on the March 17, 1992 City Council Agenda for approval of the issuance of a check to the Appellants in the sum of $5,593.00 as ordered by Judge Mansur. If you have any questions or need any further information, please contact me. ANIlM/wkt cc: Tom Colbert _ --r. o«s,." rH0WARD GROVES A7TY AT LAW 260 SKYLINE SQIIARE BLDG 12940 HARRIET AVE S (BRNS MN 55337 F ANNETTE M MARGARIT ATTY AT LAW 600 MIDWAY NAT BANR BLDG 7300 W 147TH ST LAPPLE vALI.EY MN 55124 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF Dakota NOTICE OF: ? FILING OF OROER B?1 ENTRY OF JUDGMENT X3 DOCKE?ING OF JUDGMENT Court Flle No.: C5-91-7756 1N RE: IN RE' ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584 RNOWN AS RAHN ROAD RECONSTRIICTION ETC. 13 Nbu a^s hereby nodtlad that on 19 an Ordar was duly tliad 1n the above enUtled matter. ? You are hereby notifiad that on 14ARCH 2-1992 wna duy entored (n lhe above entitted mattor. Amended 19 a Judgment 2M You are heroby notlRad that on MARCH 2-1992 @ SID r? , 18 a Judgmant was duly docketed In the above entitted matter In the amount of $5593.00 AGAINST CITY OF EAGAN A true and correct copy ot thts Nofloa haa bean served by rriall upon the pa?11as named here(n at the last known eddress ol each, pursuant lo Mlnnesota Aules o( Clvfl Procadure, Rule 77.04, DAtod• MARCH 2ND 1992 ROCER W. SA2ES ' Court Adminlstrator by ' Oeputy ?.. .J . MAG? 4ff RB ft-e day oi '-1-) ?g ROGEA W. SAMES, Com Aeministrator By j "q-) ' I-?-__.0-, --, vnr s STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT In Re: Assessments for Project File No. C5-91-7756 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction, adopted by the City of E agan on FINDINGS AND ORDER June 18, 19 91 : g? AXUiDID JDDGMEN,r Name Address P.I.N. Nathan R.'Benoy 4372 Rahn Road 10-707775-020-01 Gregory/Cindy Cox 4369 Rahn Road 10-16703-250-01 Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road 10-16703-220-01 Dean/Karen Goche 4065 Rahn Road 10-16702-170-07 Darrell/Pat Haines 3990 Rahn Road 10-16704-110-03 Robert/Antoinette Keeney 4370 Rahn Road 10-70775-010-01 Vernon/Janet Nelson 3996 Rahn Road 10-16704-100-03 Paul/Deb Notermann 4374 Rahn Road 10-48050-104-01 . Brian/Carrie Olwein 4363 Rahn Road 10-16703-240-01 Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road 10-16703-200-01 Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn ftoad 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. f9o dw of ?'Yl o_? ?g ? ,? 1 ROGER W. SAMES, CouR Admin:strr.tot Ry ? ' I `.. . - r •.-_ „ .?;! "?' . ISSUE Appellants seek an award of costs and disbursements in.the aggregate amount of $5,593. Based upon the trial, the arguments of counsel, the Memoranda submitted, the file and proceedings heretofore had, the Court FINDS 1. That there is no issue as to the award of $193.00 of costs per statute and service of process fees. 2. That the protracted hearings were necessary because the appeal was of twelve (12) individual properties consolidated for trial by Order of this Court dated October 28, 1992. 3. That the appraisal costs of $350 per parcel is reasonable, as is the cost of $100 per parcel for attendance at trial by Appellants' expert. 4. That Appellants are entitled to reimbursement in the aggregate sum of $5,593. ORDERS 1. That Appellants are entitled to Judgment against the Respondent City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, in the sum of $5,593.00. . 2. That the following Memorandum is incorvorated herein bv reference. 3. There being no justifiable reason for delay, the Court Administrator shall enter Judgment forthwith. 2 r DATED: 2-28-92 BY THE COURT: . AMIIdDID .TUDGMIIdT ? I hereby certify that the above Order modif ies the AAPRCTIN J MAN R Judgment ente:eci Jan .24-1992 and along with that . udge 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 is urse 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 municipaiity 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 dislaursements 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 Civi1 Procedure and by Chapter 549 of Minnesota Statutes. The City cites Minn. Stat. 645.21, Subd. 1, as a basis for the preclusion of awarding of costs and disbursements. However, a full reading of Minn. Stat. 645., and more specifically, 645.26, Subd. 1, leads this Court to conclude that when a general provision in a law is in conflict with a special provision in the same or another law the two shall be construed, if possible, so that 3 effect may be given to both. In addition, this Court concludes that where a conflict between two provi5ions 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. ANIlM/ wkt , cc: Tom Hedges Gene VanOverbeke STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: 10 OTHER CIVIL (SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEAL) In Re: Court File No. C5-91-7756 Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction WAIVER OF NOTICE adopted by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991: Name Address Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road Gregory/Cindy Cox 4369 Rahn Road Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road Dean/Karen Goche 4065 Rahn Road Darrell/Pat Haines 3990 Rahn Road Robert/Antoinette Keeney 4370 Rahn Road Vernon/Janet Nelson 3996 Rahn Road Paul/Deb Notermann 4374 Rahn Road Brian/Carrie Olwein 4363 Rahn Road Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn Road Mark/Kathy Weidenhaft 4345 Rahn Road Appellants, vs. City.of Eagan, a municipal corporation, Respondent. P.I.N. 10-70775-020-01 10-16703-250-01 10-16703-220-01 10-16702-170-07 10-16704-110-03 10-70775-010-01 10-16704-100-03 10-48050-104-01 10-16703-240-01 10-16703-200-01 10-16702-080-03 10-16703-210-01 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 abovematter on January 24, 1992 vacating and setting aside the assessments against the above-described parcels and said Appellants further hereby specifically consent to the adoption of any resolutions or the taking of any other action which may be necessary to vacate and set aside the assessments against the above-described parcels. DATED : ? - 41 7 a' ? ? c? _ _ Howard J. Grov Attorney for Appellants 260 Skyline Square Building 12940 Harriet Avenue South Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 (612) 890-2477 Atty. I.D. No.: 38313 2 uc.F•too (4-") ?+a+w. or ?W4, ErAry, coa.&V ?MR HOidARD J GROVES ATTY AT LAN STATE OF MINNE80TA ' STE 260 SKYI.INE SQ DAROTA 12940 HARRIET AVE S COUNTY OF LJBURNSVILLE MN 55337 NOTICE OF: ? FIUNC? OF ORDER rMS ANNETTE M MARGARIT • ATTY AT LAW BZ ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 600 MIDkTAY NAT BANK BLDG : 7300 W 147TH ST 0 DOCKETING OF JUDGMENT L PI.E VALLEY MN 55124 ` . Court Flle No.: C5-91-7756 ' ASSESSMENTS FOR PROZECT 584, KNOWN AS RAHN RD RECONSTRIICTION ETC. IN RE: NA TgM R BE NOY ETAL V CZTY OF EAGAN ETC. 13X 1bu are hareby notiflad that on JANUARy 24TH 1992 ? 9 an Order was duly filad ln the above entitled matier. ? X0 You nre hereb notifled that on' J??y 24TH 1992 y , 19 a Judgment wea duly antered In the above eniltted matter. . ? You aro hereby notlflad that on ? 19 a Judgmant wa3 duly docketed In the above enUded matter In the amount ot $ A true and comect ccpy of thla Notlce has been sarvad by mafl upon the partles namad herein at the taat hnown addrasa of each, purauant to Minnesota Rules of Ctvll Procadure, Rula 77.04. Oated• JANUARy 24Tg 1992 ROGER W SAIiES ' Court Administrator by J • oeputy WCA 4N . Fi1e ttds ? ? Day • oi 6c'- 19 C. ROGER C-un MESAeminstrator 7 By ?cFL . " , STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT . COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT In Re: Assessments for Project. 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction, adopted by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991: Name Nathan R. Benoy Gregory/Cindy Cox Irene Gillespie Dean/Karen Goche Darrell/Pat Haines Robert/Antoinette Keeney Vernon/Janet Nelson Paul/Deb Notermann Brian/Carrie Olwein Mary Rock Ron/Lorri Trenary Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft Address 4372 Rahn Road 4369 Rahn Road 4351 Rahn Road 4065 Rahn Road 3990 Rahn Road 4370 Rahn Road 3996 Rahn Road 4374 Rahn Road 4363 Rahn Road 4339 Rahn Road 4137 Rahn Road 4345 Rahn Road Appellants, vs. City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, File No. C5-91-7756 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. ORDER FOR JODGMENT 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-entitl.ed motion for amended findings or in the alternative, a new trial came on for hearing on the Special Term calendar at 9:00 a.m. on January 21, 1992 at the Dakota County Judicial Center in Hastings, Minnesota before the undersigned judge of district court. Annette M. Margarit, Attorney-at-Law, appeared on behalf of the City. Howard Groves, Attorney-at-Law, appeared for Appellants. Based on the arguments, the memoranda, affidavits and the Fie thfs ? y day 1 ot L 19 '1, ? R06ERSAMES. Court Anmintsvuor ey Q r?r ile, the Court FINDS l. That it is not necessary for the Court to adopt the ity's proposed amended findings. 2. That no new facts have been presented which could esult in a new trial. ORDERS 1. That the Respondent City's Motions be and the same are ereby denied in their entirety. 2. The following Memorandum is hereby incorporated by eference. 3. That the Court Administrator shall forthwith enter udgment accordingly. )ATED: January 23, 1991 BY THE COIIRT: ., L, ! TIN J. S udge of ails ict Court ... ?S?IORANDUM Those proposed "technical" amended Findings which are not ?ermane to the determination of the trial's outcome have not been 3ddressed herein. The Court recognizes that there are two sides to this issue, ind the City's case was fully, competently and fairly presented 2 to the Court. Appraisll or the properties was of the greatest ° import to the Paotfinder. As articulated in this Msmorandum and in the Deaembsr 18, 1991 Findings, prder and Memorandum, in the factfinclerls view, the facts tend to support Appellants. The crux of Appellants' c1Aim ia that the city unfairly assesgad them Por street improvements. The standard for valid speoial assessments is: (l) thQ ].and must reaeive a apecial benefit from the a.mpr'ovement being aonstructed; (2) the assessment must be unitorm upon the same alass aP property, and (3) the assessment may not exceed the speaial benefit. C1rlsory- Lancr RPa]ty Cn, v_ City of Wincdm, 307 Minn. 368, 369, 240 N.W.2d 517, 519 (Minn. 1976). Speaial benefit fs measured by the increase in thQ market value of the land owing td the improvement. id. In appraising the aubaect property, an appraiser determines what 'a wil.ling kauyex would pay a willing se11er for the property befare, and then after, the improvement has been conatructed. While the government entity is presumed to have set the assessment legally, an appellant may OVAZ'COlIlQ tha presumptian by introduaing cQmpetent evidence that the assessment is greater than the increase i.n market value o£ the property due to the impxavement. Ij. These are the criteria whivh the Court applied to the Pacta pxesented at trigl. It shouia be noted that in its Memoxandum sunporting its motion for a naw trial or amended findings, the C3ty 'relies on. VillactQ of .2in-± v. Jog,ebh, 264 Miri11. 84, 199 N.W.2d 809 (1962). In that casa, the residents whose property abutt+ad the improvad 3 ??i IO 10d1M30-1JnUo nIJISIQ 0o d10>IuQ 9ti :Ei 'cSiLZiT[t length of France Avenue objected to special assessments for widening and paving of the street. Minnesota's Supreme Court stated the law in Villaae of Edina, without setting out a standard or formula, by saying that "[t]he basis and justification of a special assessment are benefits to the property affected... [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. ; . ? Both parties attempted to establish evidence of the ? 1 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 traff ic, 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 Raad 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 Fi1e No. C5-91-7756 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLIISIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JtTDGMENT 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-O1 10-16703-200-01 10-16702-080-03 10-16703-210-01 Appellants, ` ra ss+? ???f ?' ?y V S . 19 ? CtUuEfl W. 5AtYit$. COUtt Adr1G11naIM City of Eagan, a municipal . corporation, py Respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------- The above-entitled appeals from the assessments levied by the City of Eagan have been consolidated for the purposes of the trial and were heard by the undersigned on the Court calendar and without a jury on Friday, November 15, 1991, and Friday, November 22, 1991, at the Dakota County Judicial Center, Hastings, Minnesota. The Appellants appeared in person and were represented by Howard Groves, their attorney. The Respondent City was 1 represented by Annette M. Margarit, its attorney. . ? The Court having considered the evidence adduced at trial, having examined the evidence offered by the respective parties and all the records of the proceedings and being fully advised, makes the fallowing: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the above-named property owners appealed from a Speeial 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, qrading, base and bituminous resurfacing, curb and gutter and utility improvements on Ralin' 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 tront 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 • ' • . . ? a Said Appellants have 75 feet 'of frontage on Rahn Road and the . • --- amount of the assessment'levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for,a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use, and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 4. . That Appellant Irene Gillespie is the owner of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally s described as follows: Lot 22, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. .?-• Said Appellant has 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 5. That Appellants Dean and Karen Goche are the owners of a , parcel 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 120feet 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 ? 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, Bloak 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. • Saicl Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amaunt 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 Iegally described as follows: ' Lot 104, Block 1, Meadow Land, First Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have '90.98 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,801.58. The pardel is zoned for residential use and the.highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. • 10. That Appellants Brian and Carrie Olwein are the owners of a parcel of land• abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 24, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said, Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the C 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 4 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 iise of said parcel is 6 t for residential use. 14. Upon the trial of the above enumerated appeals the City's value witnesses offered testimony as to the amount of the assessment that would be reasonable and did not specifically address the before and after value as to each property that is the subject of this appeal. Enumerated herein is a summary of the City's value witnesses. Citv's Value • Witness's Opinion Amt of Name Sa.ft. /house As to Amt of Benef it Assmt. Benoy 1,176 $ 2,500.00 -$-2, 61.7.15 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 2,500.00 2,801.58 Olwein 1,008 2,309.25 2,309.25 Rock' 1,236 .2,309.25 21309.25 Trenary 912. 21500.00/3,000.00 6,010.52 Weidenhaft 1,232 21309.25 2,309.25 14. That the Appellant's value witness testified follows: Name I3efore 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 I,AW 1. That the assessments Yevied against the Appellants' properties be and the same are hereby vacated and set•aside. 2. The following Memorandum is incorporated herein by ref erence . 3. Let judgment be entered accordingly after a stay of 301 8 f days. DATID: 12-18-91 BY THE COIIRT: ?-.-:.. TIN SIIR Judge o Di trict Court The assessment of benefit to Appellants' prop$rties 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 in•a- negative manner as to value of the Appellants, properties. In addition, one or more of these realtors cited actual sales listing experiences to further support their testimony. , • Mr. Metzen's opinion as to value is based upon his knowledge 9 as to the builder of the homes in the area, and the type of homes the builder constructs. He elected not to inspect the subject homes. Additionally, the city offered no testimony in the before and after value of the individual parcels. Its expert testimony was based on a sale or sales that were not too remote in time but were not within the affected time frame; that is, at or near the improvement, or subject to the improvement. Mr. Metzen took into , consideration his knowledge, his experience, the type of homes that the builder whom he was acquainted with constructs, and then the sale or sales that he relied on as comparables,to the subject properties in forming an opinion as to whether the assessment, as adopted by the city, met the statutory requirements. One should note that his opinion is that the assessment as adopted by the city did not for the most part meet the statutory requirements. As his testimony indicated, for most of the parcels he formed an opinion that if there was a benefit, it was less than the assessment levied by the city. Both value witnesses considered the rate of inflation and the flat real estate market in arriving • at their conclusions. ' It is this Court's view that the difference between the conclusions reached is that the city's value witness considered the availability of the use of the improvement rather than the increase in value. Additionally, it should be noted. that the Appellants' value"witness submitted written appraisals for each parcel in support of his opinion as to value in the before and the after,- whereas the city's value witness testified from his } 10 ? . ? t . knowledge of the area, the builder whom he was acquainted with, : and some comparables, and then he concluded that the properties benefitted in the amount that he testified without regard to the before and after value, as to each. It should be noted that five of the parcels have 75 foot frontage and the square footage for each of the dwellings ranges from 912 square feet to'a high of 1;232 square feet. This approach appears to treat eaeh parcel i the same, regardless of size, whereas in addition to the' differences noted with the properties that have 75 foot frontage, one need only review Finding No. 14 to see the further disparity. " Finally, the Court has determined the assessments must be vacated for the reasons set forth herein. Therefore, it is not necessary to determine whether the method employed by the City in computing the assessment is statutorily proper. , , 11 ?. • ' uV•?oo(??) , ` ? Mb?o? ? 1?r?p lr?"Y? DecL w'+0 i . rHOWARD J GROVES ATTY AT LAW STE 260 SRYLINE SQ 12940 HARRIET AVE S ( BuxrrsvlLLE rN 55337 , I a-7O 7?S- 0IO.Ot BTATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA N071CE OF; X FILiNQ OF ORDER O ENTRY OF JUDOMEKT O DOCKETIND OF JUDGMENT Cout1 Fl!• No.: C5-91-7756 , j -- . 4 i '- rANNETTE M MARGARIT ATTY AT LAW 600 MIDWAY NATL BANR BLDG 7300 W 147TH ST LAPPLF. VALLEY MN 55124 0 IN RE: NATHAN R. BENOY ET AL VS. CITY OF EAGAN ETC. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLIISIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JIIDGMENT You nre heroby noUtled thnl on nFrFIOFR t 8TH _ 19 91 Qn Order wa.s duly ftiad ln lhe above enUtled matior. ? 1'bu ere horoby notltled lhnt on , 19 e Judgment wda duly enlered In the,above enUlled matter. ? You nre heroby nolifled lhet on _ 19_._._ a Judflmsnt wae duly dxketed In Ihe above anUtled maNet In the amount ot S .r .-- . A true nnd cc,rrecl copy ol lhle Nollos hae been served by mall upon Ihs partles namsd hersin &11he last known addresa of oach, purouanl to Minneaota Rulee ol Civll Pcocedure, Rule 77.04. Deted, DECII"ER 18TH 1991 Cb?s 8 t? ? ol • R69a w. saWs. oa.t A*WMTM gy r-?7 L?-??-???1 cFJTIf ROGER W. SAHLS Court Adminlslre?tor by ? . Deputy weA 4r" 1*- 15tiC% ffi11C Ir 017 ? 0\ STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT x 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 JUDGMENT P. .N. 10-70775-020-01` 10-16703-250-01' 10-16703-220-O1-. 10-16702-170-07 10-16704-110-03 10-70775-010-01 10-16704-100-03 10-48050-104-01 10-16703-240-01 10-16703-200-01 10-16702-080-03 10-16703-210-01, Appellants, vs . • ROuER iY. SANIES. Oaat Adm?nfs:rxta City of Eagan, a municipal y corporation, By_.LZS?? ? 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. Margark`, 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 _r described as follows: Lot 17, Block 7, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. ; Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $4,178.20. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 6. That Appellants Darrell and Pat Haines are the owners of 3 ; a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road.and legally described as follows: Lot 11, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for.a total of $3,694.80. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 7. That Appellants Robert and Antoinette Keeney are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Sons Addition, Dakota Caunty, 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 Nelsvn 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. il. 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 amourit 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 GravetNo. 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 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. Citv's value Witness's Ovinion Name Sq.ft. /house As to Amt of Benefit Benoy 1,176 $ 2,500.00 Cox 1,120 2,309.25 Gillespie 912 2,309.25 Goche 990 2,500.00 Haines 864 2,500.00 Keeney 2,184 2,500.00 Nelson 1,066 2,500.00 Notermann 1,112 2,500.00 Olwein . 1,008 2,309.25 Rock 1,236 2,309.25 Trenary 912 2,500.00/3,000.00 Weidenhaft 1,232 2,309.25 14. That -the Appellant's value witnes follows: Name Before Value Benoy $ 99,500.00 Cox 89,000.00 Gillespie 72,500.00 Goche 80,000.00 Haines 72,500.00 Keeney 130,000.00 Nelson 95,000.00 Notermann 110,000.00 Olwein 84,000.00 Rock 85,000.00 Trenary 74,500.00 Weidenhaft 95,000.00 Amt of ssmt. $ 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 er 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. 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: TIN SIIR Judge J/Diftrict Court I?SORANDDI? 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 rall 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 3of Rahn Road changed the character of the neighborhood, and this change impacted in a negative manner as to value of the Appellants' properties. In addition, one or more of these realtors cited actual sales listing experiences to further support their testimony. , Mr. Metzen's opinion as to value is based upon his knowledge 9 as to the builder of the homes in the area, and the type of homes the builder constructs. He elected not to inspect the subject homes. Additionally, the city offered no testimony in the before and after value of the individual parcels. Its expert testimony was based on a sale or sales that were not too remote in time but were not within the affected time frame; that is, at or near the improvement, or subject to the improvement. Mr. Metzen took into consideration his knowledge, his experience, the type of homes that the builder whom he was acquainted with constructs, and then the sa2e 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 parcei 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. ? I 11 STATE OF MINNESOTA ? • `?? ? ? DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA ? FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ? CASE TYPE: 10 OTHER CIVIL ? SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEAL ) ______________________________ .a AN In Re: ?r\?Court File No. Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction adopted by the City of Eagan Q OTICE OF APPEAL on June 18, 1991 ? T0: THE ABOVE-NAMED COURT AND THE CITY OF EAGAN: NOTICE is hereby given pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 429.081 that each of the property owners listed below hereby appeal the adoption of the above-referenced Assessment Roll as the same relates to property owned by each of the parties set forth below at the address and property identification number set forth next to their respective names, all of which property is located in the City of Eagan, County of Dakota, and State of Minnesota. Written objections to said Assessments were duly made to the City by each of the property owners listed below prior to or at the hearing at which said Assessments were adopted. Said Assessment Rolls were adopted by the City Council of the City of Eagan at its meeting held on June 1.8, 1991 as evidenced by a copy of the Minutes of said meeting which are attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof. The bases for this appeal with regard to each of the properties listed is as follows: 1. There is no special benefit to the property as a result of f 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 Olw'in 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 Pr?erty 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 C7TY COUNCLL I4I14tJTES June 28, 1991 PROJEC'rt,S94,_ff'TNAL?'AsSEg.SM.£NT HEARING RAHN kOAD RECON8TRUCt70N After inUoduclion by Mayor Egas and City Adminiurator Hedges, Director of Public Works 7'om Colbert provided a brief overview ot the asses«*+ents and the neighborhood moetiag 6eld on )une 11,1991. He aaid sevenry propertics with dirux access onto Rahn Road received notices of assessment on this project. Mayor Egan theo opened the pablic hearing to public comment. Mr. Chartes MacDonald, of 4145 Rahn Road, said 6e had filed written objediod:t61he a.sst,ssments against his property. Mr. MacDonald said the value ot his home had aciually dropped because::of the upgrade of Rahn Rosd aad the resultant 6cavy traftic. He sa;d evideace of that is the Dakota Couaty A,tscssor'a is,n',?te lowerimg the value of his bome by a S peroent due to Rahn Road. • . . . . . . Maror Egan asked Mr. Bill Petttsoa?.Rvthe?Cosi.tity.ASSC4sor'e oRet to explain the 5 percent deductioa bom property taxes because a number of 6omeowners had refereaced it in connection aitb the Rahn Road improvements. Mr. Pelerson said a misunderstandiag exists among the bomeowers as to the meaning of the S percent modifier. He said the modifier bas been used since 1983 and was used for property along Rahn Road. lt was done, however, for 1990 valuations and, therefore, preceeded recoaswdion of Rahn Road. T6e Dakota County Assessor's office uses mass appraisa) and deals witb awrages and norms. He said tbey use a standard 6ite value and then look at each property and add or subtr?ct:from this staadard value considering a number of (actors, induding being located on a major,streel:::?.lc;sthe County Asse.ssor'a of{ice uses modificrs quite [reqvenlly and is aot implying tbat the utiprcrvcmetitson?Rahn Road had any impact on their valuatioos. Mr. Mark Weidenhaft, of 4345 Rafi?`Ittiad; said..widening and improviog Rahn Road had compounded the negative cffeci ot the road on their property. Nt:fidied #b at.tbe State Attorney General has niled tbat to be assessed for improvements, the City has to prove beneGt to:t6t property. He said his property could not be worth more witb more Uaffic. Mr. Darrell Hai.oes, of 3990 Rahn Road, eomplained about the policy uscd for assessments, the loss of 6ome value and said additional properties on Bluestone, Carnelian, Jsdc. flint, etc. s6ould sharo in the costs. Ms. Laurie Luconic, oi 4137 Rahn,Rti4*?saud sht;bett46ie an iaformal survey of otber dties and found that many do not assess by [ront [ootagal.so.coingl =- ed6ecause the lac]c oi dovble atriping on the road has led motorists to believe that passing ie:permissghk: .... .. Mr. Gerard Bents, representu?g;#ylDUnt Calvity Lutheran C6urch, objecled to the ams.Smeat against the entire cburch property u the pubGc:ts61111tics`;ratit?;: Ht;:pi?ted out that this rate was the aame as that of eommercial property. He said they have:msae?tli?e'iCliurcb:evailalile to organirations for meetings fra of cbarge and have, as a result, generated additional trafiic. He pointed out, 6owever, that approxdmatety 190 [eet of the frontage on Rahn Road belongs to the parsoaage and felt it s6ould be ssscssed at a aingle•family rate. Mr. Bents wished to aote that the 544,000 assmment oDnstitutes 15 percent of the eburcb't aanusl budget. Diredor of Public Worlcs Colbert said the entire paral 6as.poe.lr,gatl..dewiption and it w?as assesud at one rate based on the zoning. Mr. Colbert said t6at the Covpcsl;?ai! :CC?sitiet.ed assessments on a different case at the List City Council meeting and had determiaed that xme'ssments shoiil3:btbased on zoning. Mr. Bents aslced that the City Councit make an euceptiae. ..... . . Couacilmcmber Pawlenty then ?iuv.sud the eituation:t?'erred to by Mr. Colbcrt. In that iastana, if the Ciry Council had assessed at a higher:i?e,?;pkti,petfYOw?:o:otild have had's««n+ent-haclced e.?edadons' (or a higber and better use of the propeitq;:::1e t!i'is'isstaneti?-[&te it • higber zoning and the property rnvner is asking tor assessments based oc a baer nse. D'uector of Public Works Calbert aoted thai if the property Page 7/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTFS 7une 28, 1991 is assessed at a lower rate and 'u ultima(Cly 'put to a higher use, the City would not have the opportunity, once the assessments are levied, to reas.ust at?a: Mr. Terry Stover, o[ 3906 Rahn,..Road, objected to the a««**+ents kvied against Outlot A of the Woodhaven Addition. He said that outJoc:tloes not have assess onto Raha Road and, furtber, the development plan tor the property indicates tbat access"must bt o6 Beau de Rue Drive. Mr. Stover said any Qossibitity of access onto Rahn Road was a virtuai impossi't,?ility due to the new elevation of tbe road. He referred to the [act that several properties along Rahn Road were aot assessed because tbey had no driveway as.sess onto Rahn Road and said he be6eved Outlot A was the only one wit6out access beiag asse,ssed. He said his property Las already been assessed tor improvemeats to Beawde Rue. •' Mr. Stover tben poiated out Lis:parcePs 6s.of value becattse of a permanent storm sewer easement granted to the City. While he had rectiv,ed:38,000 (ar:ihe easement, he said an appraiser had estimated the loss to his property at between $17,000 and 518,000. ' Ms. Lcttie Knutsoq of 2014 Shak T;;n?; said.s?t'has ?e:?gaiage aith access ofi Rahn Road but her home has its drivew•ay acc.ess on Shale Lane: Ms:tCi3utson ?pciinted ouE ihat two years ago 6er home was appraised at $98,000 and now the Counry taz assessor had iadicated the value as $91,000. Sbe asked wby ber property values 6ad gone dowv. Mr. Paul Notterman, of 4374 Rahn Road, said it only tooti commoa sense to realiu tbat values bad gone do%v wilh the widening and repairiag o! Rahn Road. . Mayor Egan then asked City Attorne?'Riio:S3ieldos;to explain the process for objccting to assessmeats. Mayor Egan said the City Council.had. drc>.choicA'ut to make this road improvement as Raha Road in its previous condilioa was ao longer fuactioaa?: Aie:"d:it:.iS.pne o[ the fust reconstrudion projects in the City and the City Counci! has lried to adopi a eost (ormu]a t3iai;:tbcy.believe equitable to all t6ose concerned. McCrea moved, Wachtet seconded a moGon to close the pubUc bearing, approve the final assessment roll (or Project 584 (Rahn Road Reconstruetion) and aulhoriu certitication to Dakota Couaty. Councilmember Gustatson ssked, in regazd to assessments based on paraels ralher than iront footage, if Mount Calvary Lutheran C6urch could have.;t6e.,issue of,4en,glt family and public facilities frontage resolved by the City or whether the courl would 6avelb:iia:?e:th$t*lt,tmiaatioa. DirtUor of Public Works Coibert said an assessment hearing judge woutd not ?valuate tbe?tttiliod used to arrive at the assessmcnts, 6owever, suc6 metbod would be the prerogative of the City Councit:S'tatute does require that the City treat all like proptrtics in a similar manner and there could be a'"enge frott the Baptist Churcb if the City Couacil assessea Mouat Calvary Lutheran Cburcb at a lesser rate:::::: .. .Re,cogniriag tbat there aas a motioa anda aecond?6efore the City Couadt, Mayor Egan asked City Attorney Sbeldon whether the City Council could incorporate some diuretionary policy ia regard to the Mount Ca)vary Lutberan C6urch property. Mr. Sheldon aaid the City Council eou3d oomplete the motion and seod it on in the process and then remove Mount C.alvary Lutberan Chnrch trom the process at a tater date or tbey could request that staff make a review of that .?artip?t;4it?,4ation aad return witb tbe'u 6ndiags ,t the next Ciry Council meeting. , T6e motion betore the Councii w"Aen revesed to r44 McCrea moved, Wachter secoaded a motion ta c]ose the public bearing, approve the C;aat assessment roll iorPtnjr.ct 584 (Rahn Road Rcconstruction) notiag all written ob'edio " ?' :"" ? ns, autboriu its artifC?fb?a to Dakota.Cownty;.aitb spacial instrndions to staff to review the aituation invoiving the Mount Calvary I.?i?iecaa'.?iirc??:?fty witb particular attendon being paid to any precr.dent-setiing action. .... .......... ....... . 04-Jun-91 ASSESSMENT COST BREAIm011N PROJ NAME RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJ NUM P584 SA NAME S7584 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 /fP YEAR 1991 YC 15.400 /FF ASSESSMENT REC PROPERTY GROSS NET UNITS PRO-RATA RATE AMOUNT NMBR IDENT# CL UNITS CREDITS SUBTOTAL FA ASS BLE SHARE 1 10-01900-050-09MF 0 0 0 1 0 1 75.160 0.00 2 10-01900-031-10MF 1245 0 1245 1 1245 1 75.160 93574.20 3 10-01900-020-10CI 220 0 220 1 220 1 75.160 16535.20 4 10-01900-010-10CI 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.T90 1126.61 S 10-84700-030-01$F 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61 . 10-84700-040-01SF 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61 8 10-84700-050-01SF 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61 9 10-84700-060-01SF 61.4 0 61.4 1 61.4 1 30.790 1890.51 10 10-84700-070-01SF 112.76 0 112.76 1 112.76 1 30.790 3471.88 11 10-84700-010-OOMF 299.7 0 299.7 1 299.7 1 75.760 22525.45 12 10-16700-010-09SF 137.88 0 137.88 1 137.88 1 30.790 4245.33 13 10-16700-020-09SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15 14 10-16700-030-09SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15 15 10-16700-040-09SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.T90 2617.15 16 10-16700-050-09SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15 17 10-16700-060-09NC 0 0 0 1 0 1 15.400 0.00 18 10-16700-110-11SF 116.18 0 116.18 1 116.18 1 30.790 3577.18 19 10-11700-010-02MF 155 0 155 1_ 155 1 T5.160 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 10-48050-104-01SP 90.99 0 90.99 1 90.99 1 30.790 2801.58 23 10-70775-010-O1SF 125 0 125 1 125 1 30.790 3848.75 24 10-70775-020-01Sf 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.T90 2617.15 25 10-16701-300-01SF 115.7 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.790 3562.40 26 10-16701-310-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.T90 2309.25. 27 10-16701-320-O1SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 28 70•16701-330-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 29 10-16701-340-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 30 10-16701-350-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.740 2309.25 31 10-16701-360-01SF 75 ' 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 slp+e-r man /Le.en e.? Benb/ 04-Jun-91 ASSESSMENT COST BREAKDOWN PROJ NAME RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJ NUM P584 SA NAME ST584 P RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION SA NAME ST584 SA# 2183 . YEARS 15 SF 30.790 /Ff 1NT RATE .085 MF 75.160 /FF ' MOS 1ST YR INT 18 CI 75.160 /FF YEAR 1991 WC 15.400 /FF - ASSESSMENT REC PROPERTY GROSS NET UNITS PRO-RATA RATE AMWNT 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 75 1 30.790 2309.25 36 10-16701-410-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 77 10-16701-420-01Sf 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 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 7 30.790 2304.25 41 10-16701-460-01SF 95.73 0 95.73 1 95.73 1 30.790 2947.53 42 10-16701-470-01SF 90 0 90 1 ? 90 1 30.790 2771.10 43 10-16703-180-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 44 10-16703-190-01Sf 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 R Dc1? 45 10-16703-200-07SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 „ W????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 30.740 2309.25 48 10-16703-230-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 49 10-16703-240-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 O Lw ? n 50 10-16703-250-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 Co X 51 10-16703-260-01SF 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 10-16702-080-03Sf 195.21 0 195.21 1 195.21 1 30.790 6010.52 54 10-16702-110-04SF 115.7 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.790 3562.40 55 10-16702-120-04SF 115.7 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.790 3562.40 56 10-16702-170-07SF 135.7 0 135.7 1 135.7 1 30.790 4178.20 G fl ?he- 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 10-16704-100-03SP 120 0 120 1 120 1 30.790 3694.80 Nelsa-,-- 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 7 75.160 19692.67 62 10-76704-040-04SP 95 0 95 1 95 1 30.790 2925.05 ? RECE? l' t°. ?,` , ?.=-r <«,!, .`: ? : r ?,`'' "• i •J MEMORANDIIM TO: FROM: DATE: Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works Annette M. Margarit November 4, 1991 RE: Rahn Road Assessment Appeal Enclosed please find Judge Mansur's Order and accompanying memorandum denying our motion to sever the twelve assessment appeals for Rahn Road that are combined into one action. The Judge seemed to basically buy the argument that because the parties are raising the same issue, namely, that increased traffic has diminished the value of their properties, the combination is appropriate. The trial is currently scheduled for November 15, 1991. I understand that you will be on vacation on that date. Rather than continuing this trial because there are so many appeals that have been set for December and into January, I would prefer to have Mike Foertsch testify or get someone from Bonestroo to be available for this trial. I will contact Mike to see if he is available on that date. ANIlM/wkt . .cz- . . a „ ' WIOO?Iit) » ?+? .r r ?o. c.?-t, caes., r?e ' POWARD J. GROVES . , ' , . . ATTORNEY AT LAW , . SUITE 260-SKYLINE squAltE , 87A?? O? MiNNESOTA • 12940 HARRIET AVENUE SOUTH COUN'iY OF DAKOTA LBURNSVILLE MN 55337 . . ' . N071CE OF1 . X-FILING OF ORDER . ` [ANNETTE M. MARGARIT ATTORNEY AT LAW 17 EKTRY OF JUDCiMENT . 600 MIDWAY NATIONAL BANK BLDG • . 7300 WEST. 147TH ST CI DOCKETtNC? OF JUOQMENT APPLE VALLEY MN 55124 ? Cout1 Fll• No.t C5 91 7756 .... • ?N p?; ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584 KNOWN AS RAHN-ROAD REcONSTRUCTION ECT. . _1?1_ 1bw e.re heroby noU(1od Uial on OCTOBER 29 _ _ 1fa 91 ..?., an Order waa duly filed ln Illo abovo onllllod mnllor, . , . ? ? 1'bu ero horoby nollflad lhal on ? 19_ f n Judamonl , we.a duly onlorod In.lha o.bove enllpod mottor; ? You nro horoby noUtlod`lhal on , • 10.___.? e? Judpmenl w&.e duly docketod In the. nbove enUqad mnlter tn lh• s.mount of S._ • ?. .,. . . . A i?ve nnd co??O?; o( oach, Nolloo lo Minncaol Rutoo ol Clvil Procoduro Rulo 77?04?? a11h? . (e?i known n ? Puro . OCTOBER 29 1991 ROGER W. SAHES Oeled? ' . • CourtAdminlatratar • .' b Y . D op tY . Q _ Fle thls day ? 01 aocEa E , CpuR Pdt9' ?? w Bll nF PAca •,.. ?J? • File this day e' 19 ,LL ' ROGtIi 11. SF:MES, Court Adrtunisvator STATE OF MINNESOTA By pEp DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ----------------------------------------------------------------- In Re. Assessments for Project 584, File No. C5-91-7756 known as Rahn Road Reconstruction adopted by the City of Eagan on RDE 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 proper;ty 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 . UR Judge f D strict Court 1 .? Fle this ' day ot 19 ,._. ? R06ER W. SAMES, Coun Adrtumstrator 8y DEPUTY MEMORANDUM The property is unique and, as such, the issue of benefits versus costs of improvements must be determined for each property exclusive of the other. Here the Pet.itioners apparently are residents on Rahn Road in the city of Eagan and have joined together in appealing the assessments that haye been certified by the City against their subject properties for what the City alleges to be improvements by the widening of Rahn Road. The Petitioners contend that the improvements were initiated by the City to serve the primary interests of the Target store and Cub Foods store and to provide for better access to these locations. Further, the Petitioners allege that their subject property has diminished in value by reason of the widening of the road, the increased traffic to the business entities referred to herein. There being a common theme that forms the basis of the .? . appeal from the assessments, it is this Court's view that the severance would not serve the interest of'all parties, including the City, but rather, would allow for an expeditious disposition of the Petitioners' appeals and if either party is aggrieved by the Court's decision, allow for the appellate process to go forward without fuxther delay. To grant the City's motion could involve different judges for different property owners and could possibly entail different results. This would cause confusion for all and would not serve the best interest of all parties, including the City. 2 . . MEMORANDIIM TO: Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works FROM: Annette M. Margarit DATE: October 30, 1991 RE: Motion to Sever Rahn Road Appeals On October 281 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 camments 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 wer,e not all assessed the same amount indicating that they differed in some respect. I also argued that, in the event the Court did not agree that the properties had been benefitted to the amount of the assessment, the Court would need to` be able to arrive at some equitable means of determining a reduction in the assessment. Without knowledge of the individual characteristics of the properties, the Court would have to resort to a blanket type of reduction which would be unfair to the City and likely also the landowners. The Court noted that appellants paid only one filing fee. The Judge stated that he would take the matter under advisement and issue an order. ANM/wkt ? T0: City Of Ea.gan SUBJECT: Project # 1OP584 Assessment DATE: 18 June 91 Resident and property owners of 4370--Rahn-Road,`Bob and Antoinette Keeney, do not feel that assessment # 2183 of project # 1OP584 is in accordance with Minnesota Statute Amendment 429.051. The aforementioned homeowners do hereby serve the city of Eagan with written notice of their objection to the proposed assessment. '. z'-' ' yLf < 18 June 1991 18 June 1991 ? - ----------- ? F?r j Permit #: L7 ?'`6 !J ? I I ? Permit Fee: % ???. -115- I ? Date Received: I ? I I Staff: I I I `-__-__-__'-____-J 2008 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Date: !v _`l _01? Site Address: 4?370 744!''aaOt howq Itfiv ` b Tenant: RESIDENT / OWNER Suite #: Phone: 65I rCaAO "dO71 Address / City / Zip: &g,rn Applicant is: Owner Contractor TYPE OF WORK Description of work: Construction Cost: Multi-Family Building: (Yes / No CONTRACTOR Name: z&' License #: d!??667Y . >X 7,1/ Address: ' C 0. 3 City: State: mK) Zip: ? Y_77,2 Phone: Contact Person: COMPLETE THIS AREA ONLY IF CONSTRUCTING A NEW BUILDING _ Minnesota Rules 7670 Categorv 1 Minnesota Rules 7672 Energy Code • Residential Ventilation Category 1 Worksheet • New Energy Code Worksheet Category Submitted Submitted submission type) • Energy Envelope Calculations Submitted In the last 12 months, has the City of Eagan issued a permit for a similar plan based on a master plan? _Yes _No It yes, date and address of master plan: Licensed Plumber: Phone: Mechanical Contractor: Phone: Sewer & Water Contractor: Phone: 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 approva of plans x 100? ? x B"Z ApplicanYs Printed Name Applicar? ignature ? Page 1 of 3 PERMIT City of Eagan Permit Type:Plumbing Permit Number:EA177902 Date Issued:07/25/2022 Permit Category:ePermit Site Address: 4370 Rahn Rd Lot:1 Block: 1 Addition: Sons PID:10-70775-01-010 Use: Description: Sub Type:Water Heater Work Type:Replace Description:Standard Water Heater Meter Size Meter Type Manufacturer Serial Number Remote Number Line Size Comments:Carbon monoxide detectors are required within 10 feet of all sleeping room openings in residential homes (Minnesota State Building Code). Please call Building Inspections at (651) 675-5675 to schedule a final inspection. Fee Summary:PL - Permit Fee (WS &/or WH)$59.00 0801.4087 Surcharge-Fixed $1.00 9001.2195 $60.00 Total: I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the information is correct and agree to comply with all applicable State of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances. Contractor:Owner:- Applicant - Robert & Antoinette Keeney 4370 Rahn Rd Saint Paul MN 55122--220 (651) 343-4406 Clearwater Plumbing & Heating 19260 Mushtown Rd Prior Lake MN 55372 (952) 440-3779 Applicant/Permitee: Signature Issued By: Signature