The URL can be used to link to this page

4372 Rahn Rd? CASH RECEIPT .. , ,. - . „ CITY OF EAGAtd' . 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122 DATE r+Ecerveo cFOOM AMOUNT & DOLLARS loo ? CASH ? CHECK ?. 11 ??. I iiaiiK iuu ? ev ? C 4140 Whrt--Pay-s Copy vellow-Posling Copy Pink--File Copy . ?? ? CASH RECEIPT 1 CITY OF EAGAN 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122 . J DATE 19 .? ; rIEcerveo ! ... ? cROM 4 AMOUNT S ??r ? i % `?_? 8 DOLLARS ,oo O CASH kCHECK r 1, ti FOR LJ C 5758 Whft--Pay- CWy Yelky? C'm R,k-?" C*" Thank You BY -?; ? ? _ r' ?'?;?` CASH RECEIPT . '?," , ? _ •. . , ?? CITY OF EAGAN 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122 DATE r?cerveo 1 Fr+a+ 1 r a t`t 1; AMOUNT 8 DOLLARS ,oo ? CASH ? CHECK i ron ? ..:. , ?- /? 7.Q {, i., /-K.;, BY - C 3 76_' White-Payers Copy Yellow-Posbrig Copr Pink--FNe Copy Thank You SEWER & WATER PERMIT CITY OF EAC?AN 3830 Pilot Knob Rd. P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, MN 55121 a. OFFICE USE ONLY PERMIT DATE WATER PERMIT # ? SEWER PERMIT # METER # B.P. RECEIPT #?' READER # B.P. RECEIPT DATE METER SIZE ISSUE DATE - PRV - BOOSTER PUMP SITE AD,7RESS LOT ? BLOCK SEC/SUB APPLICANT: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE ZIP PHONE: PLUMBER: PERMIT REQUESTED ? ? SEWER *WAT?R?. ? P S ?,e.? d- - COMM/IND ? A RESIDENTIAL ? NEW - EXISTING ADDRESS: I AGFtF-E TO COMPLY WITH,CITY OF CITY, STATE ZIP EAGAN ORDINANCESr PHONE ?, `. . .. , OWNER: _ ADDRESS:_ CITY, STATE PHONE: - SIGNATURE WHEN METER ISSUED ZIP PLEASE ALLOW TWO WORKING DAYS FOR PROCESSING. FOR STORM SEWER PERMITS, CONTACT ENGINEERING DEPT. SEWER & WATER PERMIT CITY OF EAGAN 3830 Pilot Knob Rd. P.O. Efox 21199 Eagan, MN 55121 OFFICE USE ONLY PERMIT DATE 117190 WATER PERMIT # ' SEWER PERMIT # METER # 3 0 B.P. RECEIPT # Q 4140 ^ READER#0 /55 7 g,p,RECEIPTDATE ?n/h/Rq METER SIZE a OC ISSUE DATE " y-,IV - PRV - BOOSTER PUMP SITE ADDRESS D LOT;,-BLOCK -L--SEC/SUB S0 ?i -S APPLICANT:;V`' i ? ? ?! nY.-, ' ADDRESS: ???*id 1` o;cs? CITY, STATE ' ' Lf t ZIP PHONE: t C e ? 36- PLUMBER`. ,f ur 4^(Gyi.y ^ ADDRESS: CITY, STATE ZIP .: PHONE: ` "2' PERMIT REQUESTED ? SEWER ? WATER ? TAPS _ COMM/IND -, RESIDENTIAL' NEW - EXISTING I AG ?EE TO COMPLY WITH CITY OF GAN ORDINANCE -? i OWNER:_Tn;:r- il,_., i..... ADDRESS: SIGNA Rf- N M UED CITY, STATE ZIP PHONE: PLEASE ALLOW TWO WORKING DAYS FOR PROCESSING. FOR STORM SEWER PERMITS, CONTACT ENGINEERING DEPT. PERM{T # -? kU PLUMBING PERMIT ' CITY OF EAGAN RECEIPT # 3830 PIIOT KNOB ROAD, EAGAN, MN 55122 DATE: CONTRACT PRICE: PHONE: 454-8100 Site Address ' ' Lot Block 1 Sec/Sub ? Name @ Address c CitY Phone ? ? ame - c Address 3 p Ciry Phone FEES COMM/IND FEE - 1% OF CONTRACT FEE APT. BLDGS - COMM RATE APPLIES TOWNHOUSE & 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 BLDG. TYPE WORK DESCRIPTION Res. ?.' New \ Mult. Add-on Comm. Repair Other RES. PLBG. ONLY - COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: NO. FIXTURES TOTAL t Water Closet - $3.00 $ Bath Tubs - $3.00 Lavatory - $3.00 Shower - $3.00 _,Z-Kitchen Sink - $3.00 Urinal/Bidet - $3.00 --,/_laundry Tray - $3.00 _/--Floor Drains - $1.50 Z Water Heater - $1.50 Whirlpool - $3.00 t*Gas Piping Outlets - $1.50 (MINIMUM - 1 PER PERMIT) Softener - $5.00 Well - $10.00 Private Disp. - $10.00 Rough Openings - $1.50 FEE: STATE S/C: GRAND TOTAL: FOR: CITY OF EAGAN CONTRACT Site Address Lot MECHANICAL PERMIT CITY OF EAGAN 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, EAGAN, MN 55122 PHONE: 454-8100 Block Sec/Sub ? Name -ia Address c City Phone Name _ Address City _ TYPE OF WORK Forced Air Boiler Unit Heater Air Cond. Vent. Gas Piping Outlets # Other M BTU M BTU M BTU M BTU CFM FEE: S! C: TOTAL: PERMIT # RECEIPT# DATE: For Office Use Oniy: BLDG. TYPE WORK DESCRIPTION Res. New Mult. Add-on Comm. Repair Other FEES HVAC 0-100 M BTU RES -$24 00 . ADDITIONAL 50 M BTU . - 6.00 (RES. HVAC INCLUDES A/C ON NEW CONSTRUCTION) GAS OUTLETS (MINIMUM - 1 PER PERMIn - 1 50 EA t, .?" l•' -? COMM/IND FEE - 1% OF CONTRACT FEE APT. BLDGS. - COMM. RATE APPUES . . TOWNHOUSE & CONDOS - RES. RATE APPLIES MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL FEE - ALL ADD-ON 8 REMODELS - 12.00 MINIMUM COMMERCIAL FEE - 20.00 STATE SURCHARGE PER PERMIT 50 S/C IF PERMIT PRICE GOES (ADD $ - .50 ? • = . BEYONQ $1,000) - ? SIGNATURE OF PERMITTEE " ? ? FOR: CITY OF EAGAN k - i Wertiticate of cccuvanc4' cfit? of Cfagan Zcoarimcnt of 13afIbittg 3n60cctioN This Certificate issued pursuant to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code certifying that at the time of issuance this structure was in compliance with the various ordinances of the City regulating building construction or use. For tite foUowing: Use Classification: SF DWOR Bldg. Permit Na , 714c) Occupancy Type Zoning District T?RD Coos N, L F?'?T LAKE Owner of Building Address 21830 FO?S? , bi, Bui ng Address Locality "' _ 11/30/92 , uate: euiiaing o??ial POST IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE ._,? _. . .r.?....- - .«. rx? , _ . ' ----- -_- -?,y?-- ? -_ _., . . . .. . .. ."..:9M.,....,.r. . * .. CITY OF EAGAN > 3830 Pilot Knob Road, P.O. Box 21-199, Eagan, MN 55121 ? P HON E: 454-8100 BU!LDING PERMIT To be used for $F DiiK's/CAR Est. value j86yIX Site Address 4372 RAItN ftD Lot 2 Block i Sec/Sub. SONS Parcel No. W Name NATHAN R HENOY 3 Address 21$30 YO&EST RD N So? -SO $'/ ° POitE3T L?AKE City Phone Address City - Phone I hereby acknowlege that I have read this application and state that the information is correct and agree to comply with ail applicable State of Minnesota Statutes and City o( Eagan Ordinances. Signature ot Permitee - ?F `?- • "-',.? ?--;?, A Building Permit is issued to: NATHM aBMY on the express condition that all work shall be done in accordance with all applicable State of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances. Building Official 42 17149 Receipt # 'Date dCT 6 , ? g_$Q_ OFFICE USE ONLY Occupancy FfFS ? Zoning (Actual) Const Bldg. Permit 57$,00 (Allowable) -?? 00 ? 63 Surcharge . # o( Stories 62@ Plan Review ? 288•00 + Length . Depth 5of SAC, City 100,90 3 S.F. Total - SAC, MCWCC 5751,00 ? S.F. Footprints - ' g?ouu " On Site Sewage _ Water Conn On Site Well ? Water Meter ?•? ' MWCC System Ciry Water xx Acct. Deposit PRV Required _ S/W Permit 20.00 ; Booster Pump - S/W Surcharge isoo Treatment PI 228.00 APPROVALS Road Unit 340*00 Planner - Park Qed. Council _ ? • BIdg.Off. _ Copies 2 871.50 Variance - TOTAL ' , fd 36? R? O'l? 4 m!d ?,.s Permit No. Permit Holder Date Telephone # WATER , -2?SO J SEWER PIUMBING 3?G? ?v 141 H.V.A.C. 9 ELECTRIC 3 U/ ?C i-?? •//,.?/15/?'9' ?? Inspection Date Insp. Comments Footings 1 "'-cj2 .?+ lJai ^ de` ;? d Foundation Framing z / Roofing Rough Plbg. Rough Htg. Isui. 1050 Fireptace Final Htg. ? ?Q Z Final Plbg. Const. Meter Plbg. Inspector- Notify Piumber EngrJPlan Bldg. Final '? d 9Z ? G C?f-Z,/> - a ' vw.r Deck Ftg. Deck Final Well Pr. Disp. CITY OF EAGAN N2 17149 3830 Pilot Knob Road, P.O. Box 21-199, Eagan, MN 55121 PHONE:454- 8100 n BUILDING PERMIT Receipt# l., To be used for SF DWG/GAR Est. Value $86, 000 Date OCT 6 Site Address 4372 RAHN RD LOt 2 BIOCk 1 Sec/Sub. SONS OFFICE USE ONLY Parcel No. occuPancy R-3 M-1 FE FS 1 Zoning PD-R- W Name NATHAN R BENOY (,4ctual) Const ?N Bidg Permit 576.00 Address 21830 FOREST RD N (Allowable) . 43 o Surcharge .00 City FOREST LAKE Phone 888-6636 # ot scories - 62 ' Plan Review 288. 00 Length F Name SAME Oepth 5 ' SAC Cit 100 00 Z ou ° Address S.F. Total - y , 1 575 ? sac, nncwcc .00 ? C11y Phone S.F. Footprints - t C w 580 00 On Site Sewage - er a onn . Uw W Name On Site Well 90 00 w P - Water Meter . ?; Address MWCC System ? W XX Acct. Deposit 30.00 a Clty Ph011e City Water 20 00 PRV Required _ S/W Permit . I hereby acknowlege that I have read this application and state that the Booster Pump - SiW Surcharge 1. 00 information is correct and a e?to'CO ly with all a li f Minnesota Statutes and C aga rd e Treatment PI 228 • 00 Signature of Permitee APPROVALS Road Unit 340.00 A euilding Permit is issued to: NATHAN R BENOY Planner - Park Ded. on the express condition that ail work shall be done in accordance with all Council 50 applicable State of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances. Bldg. Off. Copies . Building Official nih v Variance TOTAL 2,871.50 ?? J 7 6 Request Date f Fire No. / Rough-in Inspection Required? XReady Now E) Will Notity Inspector Wh R d ? -?? - I G Yes No en y ea licensed contractor p owner hereby request inspection of above electrical work at: Job Address (Street. Box or Route No.) 3 7 Z 4/^ ??. City '?50- °w-' Section ;o. Township Name or No. Range No. County A4Q Occupant(PRINT Phone No. ZL ??z Power Supplier b4kc-10' ?/m Address Electrical Contractor (Company Name) Contractor's License No. LC 015 Mailing Address (Contractor or Owner, Making Installation) los-?- o A? Z??1,? ??, ?I ??o?? , ??' Authorized Signatur IContractod ner Makin nslall - n) Phone umber Z ? 7 W"' MIffNE??TAT,I?AARD OF ELECTRICITY THIS INSPECTION REQUEST WILL NOT Griggs-Midway Bldg. - Room S•173 BE ACCEPTED BY THE STATE BOARD 7821 University Ave., St. Paul, MN 55704 UNLESS PROPER INSPECTION FEE IS Phone (612) 642-0800 ENCLOSED. REQUEST FORELECTRICAI INSPECTION ^ ??;,.{. d5 ..': , // ir ?? N? `X° Below Work Covered by This Request '? • ew Add Rep. TypeofBuilding AppliancesWired EquipmentWired Home Range Temporary Service Duplex Water Heater Electric Heating Apt. Building Dryer Other (Specify) Comm./Industrial Furnace Farm Air Conditioner Other (specity) , Contractor's Remarks: rq Co mpute Inspection Fee Below: # Other Fee # Service Entrance Size Fee # Circuits/Feeders Fee Swimming Pool 0 to 200 Amps 0 to 100 Amps Transformers Above 200 Amps Above 100 Amps Signs Inspector's Use Only: ? Uv TOTAL ' Irrigation Booms Special Inspection Alarm/Communication THIS INSTALLATION MAY BE ORDERED DISCONNECTED IF NOT Other Fee COMPLETED WITHIN 18 MONTHS. I, the Electrical Inspector, hereby if h Rough-in Date cert y t at the above inspection has been made. Final Date OFFICE USE ONLY ? This request void 18 months from / ? 0 8 9 4 ? ? k s&9 00 __ iZ e . ? Fire No. Rough-in inspection Required? o ? Ready Nw ?ill Notity Inspector ? Wh R d / (es ? No en ea y. IX"licensed contractor ? owner hereby request inspection of above electrical work at: Job Address (Street, Box or Route No.) ? ? City 7? OL V1. Section No. Township Name or No. Range No. County Occupant (PRINT) Phone No. Power S lier F4 e?j6L_ dress Y36?0 aae? -H, 5?- W, FAVm Electrical Contractor (Company Name) Contr ac tor's License No. ` ' Mailing ddress (Contractor or Owner Making Instailation) o V ? !c??S ? V O?T Authori d Signature (Contractor/Own Making stall 'on Phone Number hAe& s' MINNESOTA STATE BOARD OF ELEC7RICITY THIS INSPECTION REQUEST WILL NOT Griggs-Midway Bldg. - Room 5-173 BE ACCEPTED BYTHE STATE BOARD 1827 University Ave., St. Paut, MN 55104 UNLESS PROPER INSPECTION FEE IS Phone (612) 642-0800 ENCLOSED. REQUEST FOR ELECTRICAL INSPECTION v- '• ee-00001 -07 ? See insinictinns fnr cmmnlwtinn thic fnrm nn har.k nf vwllnw r:onv ' . _ . _.- ... .? ? ?.., ? y. 9 4 "X" Below Work Covered by This Request fV?w dd- Fep. TypeofBuilding AppliancesWired EquipmentWired Home Range Temporary Service Duplex Water Heater Electric Heating - Apt. Building Dryer Other (Specify) Comm./Industrial Furnace Farm Air Conditioner Other (specify) Contractor's Remarks: Compute Inspection Fee Below: ?19 # Other Fee # Service Entrance Size Fee # Circuits/Feeders Fee Swimming Pool 0 to 200 Amps to 100 Amps Transformers Above 200 Amps Above 100 Amps SignS Inspector's Use Only: TOTAL 2`J^(J Irrigation Booms q - L Special Inspection - Alarm/Communication ? yi ? Other Fee I, the Electrical Inspector, hereby Rough-in Date /' / f certif that the above ins ection has y p been made. Final • 002 Date OFFICE USE ONLY This request void 18 months from ? Address:4372 RAHN gpAD Lot 2 Blk 1 Sec/Sub SONg These items were/were not complete at the time of the final inspection. Date: II/30/92 Yes No Final grade (6" from siding) V-1*1' Permanent steps - garage t,I-11, Permanent steps - main entry ? Permanent driveway Permanent gas Sod/seeded grass Trail/curb damage Porch Basement finish Deck Please verify with the builder the removal of roof test caps from the plwnbing system and the shut-off of water supply to the outside lawn faucet before freeze potential exists. ? IIfC/tlEO M1EI1 White - City copy Yellow - Resident copy Pink.- Contractor copy r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - 1 FoC,C)f€ice ? Permit #: ? Permit Fee: ? ? Date Received: I ? L? I ? Staff: I I ? ----------------- 2008 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Date: o/ /? Site Address: ZI,?72 1101/V dvd'19 Tenant: Suite #: RESIDENT / OWNER Name: ?a&&12'f b(f/?If4k Phone: ysy? a 94 o Address / City / Zip: L Applicant is: ? Owner (fiL Contractor TYPE OF WORK Description of work: lav[l DF G!i Construction Cost: Multi-Family Building: (Yes / No ? CONTRACTOR Name: oe,41/V IjOW License #: Z U/ 1i0) Sy Address: J F1 9.S/ 2?1U ?? ?? City: /vd~C(J State: /1'IN Zip: S7r07/ Phone: lo /2 ' 8UL 'S'XGD Contact Person: /( 1G/<- !/.? COMPLETE THIS AREA ONLY IF CONSTRUCTING A NEW BUILDING _ Minnesota Rules 7670 Cateqory 1 Minnesota Rules 7672 Energy Code . Residential Ventilation Category 1 Worksheet • New Energy Code Worksheet Category Submitted Submitted (4 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 If yes, date and address of master plan: Licensed Plumber: Mechanical Contractor: Sewer & Water Contractor: Phone: Phone: 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 approval of plans. X /1/Ge X ? ApplicanYs Printed Name Applicant's Signature Page 1 of 3 I 1989 BUILDIAG PERMIT iPPLICdTION CITY OF EAGAN '? I+• ? SINGLE FAMMILY DiIELLINGS MLTIPLE DWELLINGS CO?MERCIAL 2 SETS OF PLINS-? 2 3ETS OF PLANS 2 SETS OF 1RCHI?ECTURAL 3 HEGISTERE SITE SIIR l REGISTBRED SITE 30RVE?S - 8 STBOCTQRIL, PLANS 1 3ET OF ERERGZ CALCS. (CHECH WITH BLDG DIq.) 1 SET OF SPECIFIC>TIONS 1 3ET OF ENERGT CiLCS. 1 SET OF EAERG? CALCS. MJLTIPLE DWELLINGS RENTAL ONITS FOR 3gI.E DNITS • OF OBITS 1i0TEt tDDRESSE.S FOa OORNER LOTS - CORTR,CTOR/80MEOWNER !lQST DF:,SIGNATE iIHICH iDDRESS IS DFSIRED. 80 CHANGFS iiILL BE ALL.OiiED ONCE BOILDING PERMIT 13 ISSIIED.. SEWER & ii9TER PERMIT FEES lND ACCOONT DEPOSIT FEES itILL BE ItiCLODED WITB THE BUILDZNQ PERMIT FEE. PROCESSING TIME FOR SEWEA lAD W1TER PEiMITS IS TiTO DAYS ONCE !1 PERMIT HAS BEEN CQMPLETED INDICATING A LICENSED PLU!'IDER. PENALTY APPLIES WHEN: PERMIT IS NOT PAID FOR IN SAME MONTH IT IS REQiJESTED. LOT CHANGE IS REQUESTED ONCE PERMIT IS ISSUED. To Be Used ForS Site Address Zk??r? Lot 9- Bloek _Z Pareel/Sub Otmer &?&X.?- 6&? .1?? ;i Address a / i3a City/Zip Code Ahh phone L/G Contraetor Scr ss, P Address City/Zip Code Phone Arch./Engr. _ Address City/Zip Code Phone f Valuation: '°--' Date: Occupancy Zoning Aetual Const Allowable # of stories Length Depth S.F. Total Footprint S.F. iPP_ R09ALS Planner Couneil Bldg. Off. Variance Bldg. Permit +S JD Sureharge Plan Review SAC, City SAC, MWCC Water Conn ilater Meter Aect. Deposit S/W Permit S/W Surcharge Treatment P1. _ Road Unit Fark Ded. Copies _ StTBTOTAL Penalty TOTAL On site sewage On aite Well MWCC System City water PRV required Booster pump 4 l pc RAI t SINGLE FAMT€.F DWELLIAGS SETS OF PY.ANS REGIS3`ERED SITt SUMTS . I 3ET OF E14ERG1 CgI.tS. 1989 BUILDIAG PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF EAGAN LTIPLE DiTELLINGS 2 3ETS OF PLdNS REGISTfiRED 3ITE 30ROE?S - (CHECg NITH BLDG DIV.) 1 Szr OF ICBERGZ G1lLCS. MTLTIPLE DNELLIpGS EMAL ONITS FOR Bfku UMITS f 0F mNITS _ V=t IDDRESSES FOa CORNER LOTS - COATRACTOR/80lEOWNEA MST DESIGPATE iiflICH LDDRFSS IS DFSIRED. NO CHgNGES NILL BE kLLOiiED ONCE HUII.DING PERMIT IS ISSOED.. SENER & NATER P'ERMIT FEES 1PD ACCOUPT Dv06IT nES iIII.L BE INCLt1DED iIITS THE BUILDZNQ pERMIT FEE. PROCESSING TIIME FOR SEWER AAD WATER PERMTtS IS TWO D?YS ONCE i PERMIT H1LS BEEH OQMPLETED INDICATING A LICENSED PLUMBER. PENALTY iPPLIFS WHENs PERMIT IS NOT PAID FOR IN SgME MONTH IT IS REQUESTED. LOT CHANGE IS REQUESTED ONCE PERMIT IS ISSUED. facT 0 ; f989, To Be Used For: _?j' /, r,„?? Valuation: -,I-,Date: /9-t5-- ,?9 Site Address t/_3 7;? & H /P?.? Lot R Bloek / Pareel:Sub OFmer &2&zan a ,13&,,4 Address g1913t) /=orpC? & iU,' City/Zip Code ?r?rQ<? ??-?/re 3??2i- Phone ?/2 y/. 6? - g% TO Address „d* /S?,?o City/Zip Code F.r.,oKf:(g.ko. __ S"a'??.?.•? Phone Al^Ch. /ErigT` . /f/i.rMras9 ?j /.i' /i/ i/ Address City/Zip Code FoYe tf 5:=' s 8/-ADoo? 10 vrsav?+ w? Occupancy P-3 M° ( Zon ing P D R-1 Actual Const V-N Allowable v - N # of stories Length Depth .5P_ S.F. Total Footprint S.F. On site sewage {hr Site welZ MiCC System ? City water ? PBV reqaIred Hooster Pump 1PP_ Planner • Couneil Bldg. Off. Variance COMMERCIAL 2 SE?S OF lACH1TECTURAL & S?FOCTQRII. PI.ANS 1 SET OF SPECIFIC9TIONS 1 3£T OF EMERGZ CALCS. F'EFS Bldg. Fermit 57(o,00 Sureharge q ,00 Plan Review 2.98,oo SAC, City 100,00 snc, Mwcc 5"?5,00 Nater Conn 5 e0<0o ilater Meter 90. 00 Acet. Deposit 30. pd S/N Permit 20.00 S/H Sureharge ,ot? Treatffient P1. 22 , 0*0 8aad Unit .3440,00 Park Ded. Copies .? StTBTOTII. _ Penalty SOTII. ? I. f1 Phone # }? 3d ur 9$e-Ij - 3(? ,, - i VALtAAT1Dle) cP 4 X30 =' r72c? LI P-3 = '6$:4 X 15= I oZ. (vo ?2e ='752?4 . ? OWNER: SITE ADI CONTRACTOR: ? e jDATE: /U w •S,+P( PHONE: Determine xorking square footage of each: 1. Total exposed wall area ... /'62 9 Z{ sq. ft. x.11 = / Z?, /^( 2. Total roof/ceiling area ... z/ Z/- sq. ft. x.026 = 36S?[ Total exposed Wall area above floor - &9 0 a. Total wall window area ............................ f'fc, b. Total door area ................................... ;2 y c. Total sliding glass area .......................... d. Total fireplace wall area ......................... ? : e. Total wall framing area (average 10%) ............. f. Total net wall area above floor ................... g. Total rim joist area .............................. Total exposed foundation area = _ ?2(r h. Total foundation window area ....................... /,? _.?...._._._ i. Total net foundation area above grade .............. 3311 Determine 'U' value of each Wall segment: a. X ' ug ? 5" <1'? = d ?/ b. x it y fU' , (?,? ? = G. a c. _ ? x ' U' 6. : A 5 = i U1.Q d. ? x ' U' 0 _ - e. x 'U' (3,,6y9z _ //, ?z f • ?.5? X ' U' t 9;Q415 = 3 i?r 3 9. X ' u' Q, a'/ .1y h. x 'U' OazS = ?G.2 i . 33 / x ' U' 92+ {1 3 . ................................................... Total - 15 y.`-/ If item #3 is the same as or less than item #1, you have met the intent of SBC 6006(e)2. Total exposed roof/ceiling area - // 7/ j. Total skylight area ............................... ._ (? _._..____ k. Total roof/ceiling framing area (average 10%) ..... Ll 2 1. Total net insulated roof/ceiling area .............. /? ZP- OVER CITY OF EAGAN EXTERIOR ENI/ELOPE AVERAGE 'U' COMPUTATION Determine 'U' value for each roof/ceiling segment: J- i,?2 X 'Ul n k. i/fi' XIuI 3,2 1. IQ,S°? X, v, 0, a'? .3 Y = ?S`,9 4 . ...................................................... Total = '9,2f?_ If total of #4 is the same as or less than #2, you have met the intent of SBC 6006(c)1. Alternate Building Envelope Design To utilize the total envelope system method, the values established by the sum of Items #3 and #4 shall not be greater than the sum of Items #1 and #2. + 2. ZO "69,,e,/ 3. + 4. 3os? 2 Re h d e r-W e n z e I, Inc¦ CONSULTING fNG/NfERS, LAND SURVfYORS ? ? by ? daie / -3'?/ subjecf ?.L.a_%?- sheef no._,?_oi chkd br dale job no ?'???,?,La..en. 3`y l 4ve.?? ??-?? °?' I??r?`. ,/ G/ ?• ? S ???L G??L/l? ? ? ? ? ? P,;z 6/A /010-3 C? 7 A7 7 0,/7 G; Y / C9, 0 41,5- 22, SS Gl = 0. 0 L/. e/. ? _ ' ? ? ?4z.???? ? -??-?-?, oz 1,- ' eu. ?..? C?• i? '. ? R e h d e r-W e n z e 1, ln?r ¦ CONSUL TING ENG/NEERS LAND SURVfYORS y by / dafe/,9-,?_,Y7 subject G?. U..?•??.,???. sheef no -?C oi chkd by dale job no r r V ? / C, y 3 o, U -33 s'G ?- ? /? .??=???ti (?:C •,? / ?, ??? a? y y ? BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY FOR NATHAN BENOY Q Q 0 ' ccI I Z y Q ? 7 ? f. ; 146.00 N89°I9?18W 8 ' 898,00 Garage floor elevation 89gs T? 9i? _ _ _ .00 ... ' .^. $' 902.00 First floor elevation ? ,_ -?- ? 893.33 Walk out elevation _ '•?6 ? sP'? 0 Denotes iron monument W I? U') W 889.10 Denotes exist, elev. N N - ' N ($89.1) Denotes prop. elev. 0 8 ? ?? q, ? Denotes drainage O ?.. .....-_O . 22 ?r ? ? ?' z ? . .. == .. . ?? ` ( Z ' ?' ? • LEGAL DESCRIPTION t O 30 - t I 30 ?-18s s"f U) N ? Lot 2, Block I, SONS ADDITION, A a MCIJ Dakota Caunty, Minnesota A y c-" 0 10 Q io ?LQ? • I o° o ? • .. ?"? u ? ?. ? ? ??-? ,?ti ?.w. ?i ? • \`?? y'? o ? g ? ? 6 ? 4;? ? ??' ? [ ? ? 28 er'? a) o a ; •??° ? ? cn o Date :?AGAN E?3GIRiE??IN- DE?' l \p? ?- - - - - - - - - - -4- - /; ?- - -`- -?,?? . -.. - - - - -? 9? ? I hereby certify that t is survey was prepared by me or g9 -? ` ?n 0(011. 0 IO 20 40 60 '4&? ?1 ?N?fQlI $CALE IN FEET Alvin R. Rehder, Land Surveyor Minnesota Re istration No, 13295 JOB N0. o Rehder-Wenzsl, Inc. BOOK CONSULTIHGENGINfERS,lANOSWPVfYORS 10100 Maqan Awnue South 0 8laominpcon, Minnasaa 55431 •(612) 88!•8836 ? 8e93? • 148.00 N89°I9 18 W ...., under my direct supervision ? TC v and that I am a duly Registered N Land Surveyor under the laws "?, I of the State of Minnesota. • Dated this 26th day of Sept. ? 70 ' 1989. B , June 18, 1991 City Council City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Rd. Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Sirs: JUN 1 s issl This letter is to notify the City of Eagan that I object to the spec-ial_____ ssessment? being levied against my property (Identification ?? 1!0 70-7=-75-020-; ?' 1') at 4372 Rahn Road for the amount of $ 2,617.15. ,-_- Special assessments are intended to reflect the influence of a specific improvement upon property value. By Minnesota Statute Chapter 429, the real measure of benefit is the increase in the market value of the land as a result of the improvement. Not only do I feel the market value of my property did not increase by $ 2,617.15, but that it was decreased by $ 5,000 - $ 20,000. My property is located south of Diffley on the east side of the road. In this area the road was not in need of replacement. An overlay-was all that was required to keep the road in good condition for many years to come. The bituminous curb was still in good shape and serving its function. Storm runoff was being handled by the existing storm sewer and did not need upgrading in this area:. The bituminous path was already in place south of Diffley so it does not enter into the scope of this project as far as my property is concerned. Also, all three houses on the east side of Rahn Road were hooked into the existing D.I.P. watermain and did not need new water services. Thus there was no work that needed to be done that concerned my property. As to work that was done, a wider road built to a heavier section to handle more and heavier traffic loads gives no benefit to adjoining residen'tial property, and is a marked detriment. Traffic volume and speeds (even with Eagan police putting in a good effort to keep speeds-down) have greatly increased on Rahn Rd. south of Diffley since the reconstruction (although the City claimed they would not).. Rahn Road has become the most convenient way for people to reach shopping from the north.. The greater traffic flow may be great for Cub and Target, but it does not help owners of single family residential property. The increased traffic volume and speeds produce more and louder road noise. It also makes access in and out of my driveway much more difficult. Both of these factors lower its market value. The wider road took eight feet of green space from in front of my property and pushed the overhead utilities eight to twelve feet closer to my front door. Both of these factors also lowered the market value of the property. ? Page 2 - continued The wider road being 8 feet closer to the existing bituminous trail and at the same or lower elevation (I do not have a set of plans for Rahn Rd.) as the old road causes a steeper grade at the end of my driveway than would have been needed before the construction. My family has been in the business of designing and building custom single family homes for over 40 years. My house was designed to sell on the given lot and Rahn Road,,as it was, for between $120 and $130 thousand. With the new Rahn freeway in front of the house, $100 to $110 thousand is the most one can expect to get out of the property when finished (possibly alot less). Before purchasing the property in August-September of 1989, I checked with the City of Eagan about plans for Rahn Rd. I was told the only thing planned was to overlay Rahn Rd. south of Diffley in a few years. Three months later I received a letter about the new proposed freeway. Had I known about the City's plans for Rahn Rd. before I bought the property, I would not have done so. As I feel there was no benefit to my property from the reconstruction, but a substantial loss, I will contest the assessment to Dakota County Court if need be. I only hope the Council can see the rationale for my objection to the special assessment agaiFlSt my property and drops irt, thus saving myself and the City any legal costs. I have had this assessment reviewed by a number of civil engineers, building contractorsy developers and lawyers. None can find any justification in the assessment as none see any way Rahn Road reconstruction did anything but lower the fair market value on my property. Sincerely, Nathan R. Benoy ? ? I'T ? fNSTAHT TESTIN6 COMPANY .? 4000 BEAU D' RUE DRIVE ? C O EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122 Phone 454-3544 FOR: JECHE EXCAVATING Jeche Excavating 2410 Sunset Lane Burnsville, MN 55337 70 OQo 0 1 INPLACE DENS ITY ?ECE,VED JAN 2 5 TEST REPORT PItOJECT: RoadWay; 4372 Rahn Road DATE TESTED: 16 January 1990 REPORTED: 23 January 1990 AUTHORIZED BY: customer INPLACE DENSITY RESULTS TEST NUMBER: 1 2 3 LOCATION: center east center Rahn 3' west of side of Rahn Road east curb Road Rahn Road DEPTH BELOW GRADE: 7' 4' 1' PROCTOR CURVE NUMBER: 90-01 90-01 90-01 VISUAL SOIL CLASS: Coarse Sand Coarse Sand Coarse Sand % MOISTUR.E: 3.0 2.7 2.9 OPTIMUM MOISTURE °G: 13.6 13.6 13.6 RELATIVE MOISTURE, %: 22 20 21 FIELD DENSITY, PCF: 114.2 114.4 113.2 STANDARD MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY, PCF: 113.0 113.0 113.0 R.ELATIVE DENSITY, %: 101 101 100 REQUIRED MINIMUM: 95 95 100 REMARKS: Tests meet density requirements. Relative density results based an Standard Proctor. Proctor sampled w/field test #1, see attached sheet for results. - Test Technician: Larry Petersen, ITCO ? / COPIES TO: Jeche Excavating City of Eagan CHARGE CODE 3 - #306 + -1.0- #601 12 - #612 mileage (3 trips) Signed ' G. J. Kopacek Professional Engineer - Registration No. 7254 IT INSTANT TESTONG COMPANY 4000 BEAU D' RUE DRtVE ? Co EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122 Phone 454-3544 TEST REPORT MOISTURE\DENSITY LAB NUMBER: 90-01 FOR: JECHE EXCAVATING PROJECT: Roadway; 4372 Rahn Road Eagan, Minnesota DATE SAMPLED: 16 January 1990 REPORTED: 23 January 1990 SUBMITTED BY: Larry, ITCO STANDARD PRfJCTOR CURVE NUMBER: 90-01 VISi1AL SOIL CLASS: Coarse Sand STANDARD MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY: 113.0 pef OPTIMUM MOISTURE: 13.6% SAMPLE REPRESENTATIVE OF: test #1; center east side of Aahn Road ItEMARKS • CHARGE CODE: 1 - #303, 1 - #302, ? v4W4v_; Signed G. J. Kopacek Professional Engineer - Registration No. 7254 L? eL ? CITY OF EAGAN PLUMBING PERMIT SUBD. (612) 681-4675 RESIDENTIAL PLEASE COMPLETE UPPER PORTION ONLY FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. ALSO, FOR TOWNHOMES AND CONDOS WHEN PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR EACH UNIT. ------------------------T -------------------------------------------------------- WORK DESCRIPTION I COMPLETE THE FOT,LOWING• NEW CONST x_ ADD ON REPAIR OWNER NAME; Nathan Benoy SITE ADDRESS: 4372 Rahn Road INSTALLER: STANDARD PLUMBING & APPLIANCE CO., INC. ADDRESS: 8015 Minnetonka Blvd. CITy;St. Louis Park ZIp; 55426=3092 PHONE #: 938-3589 CONTRACT PRICE: 1% OF CONTRACT FEE. . STATE SURCHARGE - $.50 FOR EACH $1,000 OF PERMIT FEE. SIGNATURE OF PERMITTEE TOTAL: $ 15.50 Check plumbing & get final inspection - Orginal permit #11380 - Taken out by others COMMERCIAL PLEASE COMPLETE THIS PQRTION FOR ALL COhIlMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS. ALSO FOR MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS WHEN SEPARATE PERMITS ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR EACH DWELLING UNIT. WORK DESCRIPTION: OWNER NAME: - SITE ADDRESS: TENANT NAME: SUITE #: INSTALLER: ADDRESS: CITY: PHONE FOR: , CITY OF EAGAN $25.00 MINIMUM FEE. CONTRACT PRICE x 1% $ STATE SURCHARGE $ TOTAL: N0. FIXTURES REPAIR/ADD ON _ SHOWER _ WATER CIASET _ BATH TUB _ LAVATORY _ KITCHEN SINK _ LAUNDRY TRAY _ HOT TUB/SPA _ WATER HEATER _ i• i.vvFc i?etiy.Tiv GAS PIPING OUT. _ (MINIMUM - 1) ROUGH OPENINGS X OTHER _ WATER SOFTENER _ PRIVATE DISP. _ U.G. SPRINKLER _ W. TtJRNAROUND EA. TOTAL 15.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 ? ?? VV r. 3.00 1.50 15.00 5.00 15.00 3.00 15.00 STATE SURCHARGE .50 $ (SIGNATURE) ? MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS _ FROM: CITY ADMIIVISTRAI'OR HEDGES -. _ . . _ _. . ..• ? z ::: :... ::: --. ?,_ DATE: MARCH 17, 1992 : . -. - SUBJECT: ADMIrTISTRATIVE AGENDA FOR iVIARCH 17, - 1992 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY ATTORNEY ' There are no items for an executive session at this time. Howaver, the Mayor, City Council and City Attorney have reserved the rigbt 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 oopy of the memo from the Ci Attorne}'s office ntitled 'Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs" enclosed on pages ?adthrough ACI'ION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS IT'EM: To approve or deny the issuance of a check to the appellants in the sum of $5,593 as ordered- by Judge Mansur. Item 2. Heller v. City of Eagan Assessment Appeal--The Cyty has received s 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 tbe assessed items as presented in the enclosed memo. Enclosed on pages= through2.U is a copy of a memo from Annette Margarit entitled "Heller v. City of Eagan Assessment Appeal," a resolution adopting the settlement agreement and a copy of the Stipuladon and Order. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS iTEM: To approve or deny 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 resoh?ing the Heller assessment appeal. Item 3. Northview-Building F"uv Restoration Contract/Default to Contractual Obligstions-- As the City Council recalls, the Northview Park Building sustained vonsiderable damage as a result of a lightening strike and fire during the summer of 1991. Beacon Builders Incorporated were awarded a bid in the amount of $8,883 to ooaect the damage and assured staff that the 60 day completion 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 eontractual obligations which are now impending the City's operational needs for the building. For additional information on why staff is requesting im MEMORANDIIM TO: Tom Hedges, City Administrator- FROM: Annette M. Margarit DATE: March 4, 1992 RE: Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs " ?07'25-- oao- o? Enclosed please find a copy of Judge Mansur's Order granting the Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for costs in the sum of $5,593.00. This Motion was heard by Judge Mansur on February 28, 1992. We opposed the granting any of Appellants' costs on the basis that the City Council had followed the Legislature's process in adopting the appraisal and the City should not be punished by having to pay expenses for the Appellants when they have already been afforded their remedy namely, vacation of the assessment. A problem with our position, however, is that Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 concerning special assessments specifically awards costs to a prevailing municipality but is silent to whether a prevailing property owner is entitled to costs. In a 1979 case involving Burnsville, however, the Minnesota Supreme 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 tY:e sum of $5,593.00 as ordered by Judge Mansur. If you have any questions or need any further information, please contact me. ANIIM/wkt cc: Tom Colbert - rwb. a f+4w. L-44Y, o«i.•?+a r a HOG1ARD GROVES A7TY AT LAW S7ATE OF MINNESOTA " 260 SRYLINE SQIIARE BLDG . 12940 HARRIET AVE S COUNTY OF Dakota , (BRNS MN 55337 . NOTICE OF: ?-- ? F1LING OF ORDER ANNETTE H MARGARIT %?1 E NTRY O F J U D G M E NT ATTY AT LAW . 600 MIDWAY NAT BANR BLDG X3 DOCKEfiNG OF JUDGMENT 7300 W 147TH ST • LAEPLE VALLEY MN 55124 Court Flle No.: C5-91-7756 _ 1N RE: IN RE: ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584 RNOWN AS RAHN ROAD RECONSTRIICTION ETC. ?Nbu ara herabY nobned that on 19 an Ordar was duly flled ln tha above anUtlad marier. Amended ? You are hereby notifted that on 14ARCII 2-1992 , 19a Judgmont wna duty entered (n the above onUt(ad mattor. 7M You arn heroby notiflad that on 14ARCH 2-1992 @?j -rY'\ , 18 a Judgment was duly dockotad In the above entlUad matter In the amount of a5593.00 AGAINST CITY OF EAGAN A true and corract copy of thls Notice hna been sarved by mall upon the partles named herefn at the last known address ot each, pursusnt lo Minnasota Rulas o( Clvil Procadure, Rute 77.04. Oated• MARCH 2ND 1992 ROGER W. SA?g:S ' Court Administrator by ???.L•.?x^ ?'C_L?.?-?? Deputy &&^CA 4,M Fli B ft,_e ddy 0f ? v 1 CL'LJ 19 2 -1,. ROGER W. SAMES, Cowt Adttunistrator [%PUTY i 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT In Re: Assessme.nts for Project File No. C5-91-7756 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction, adopted by the City of E agan on FINDINGS AND ORDER June 18, 1991 : - ? AMENDID NDGMENT 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 K eeney 4370 Rahn Road 10-70775-010-01 , Vernon/Janet Nelson 3996 Rahn Road 10-16704-100-03 Paul/Deb Notermann 4374 Rahn Road 10-48050-104-01 Brian/Carrie Olwein 4363 Rahn Road 10-16703-240-01 Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road 10-16703-200-01 Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn Road 10-16702-080-03 Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft 4345 Rahn Road 10-16703-210-01 Appellants, vs. City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, Respondent. Motion of Appellants for an award was heard by the undersigned as a February 28, 1992, at the Dakota Hastings, Minnesota. The Appellants were represented attorney. The Respondent City was Margarit, its attorney. of costs and disbursements telephone conference on County Judicial Center, by Howard Groves, their represented by Annette M. fie of 1 R06ER W. SAMES, Court AdnUnts;rxtw BY s ISSUE Appellants seek an award of costs and disbursements in the aggregate amount of $5,593. Based upon the trial, the arguments of counsel, the Memoranda submitted, the file and proceedings heretofore had, the Court FINDS 1. That there is no issue as to the award of $193.00 of costs per statute and service of process fees. 2. That the protracted hearings were necessary because the appeal was of twelve (12) individual properties consolidated for trial by Order of this Court dated October 28, 1992. 3. That the appraisal costs of .$350 per parcel is reasonable, as is the cost of $100 per parcel for attendance at trial by Appellants' expert. 4. That Appellants are entitled to reimbursement in the aggregate sum of $5,593. ~ ORDERS 1. That Appellants are entitled to Judgment against the Respondent City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, in the sum of $5,593.00. 2. That the following Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. 3. There being no justifiable reason for delay, the Court Administrator shall enter Judgment forthwith. 2 P --- DATED: 2-28-92 BY THE COURT: . AMIIdDID a .TQDGMENT 7A4 Z?,? I hereby certify that the above Order modifies the ARTIN J MAN R Judgment ente:ed Jan 24-1992 and along with that ' -Judge Dis rict Court Judgment consti:tutes the Amended Judgment of the Court.` Date: March 2nd 1992 MEMORANDUM Roger W. Sames, Crt Admr By ?<J I, .?-C`ief Deputy (Seal) Costs an is ursem -nts - At oral argument the issue was not the amount or the reasonableness since it is slightly more than $450 per parcel; rather, whether under.the relevant statute and case law the Appellants are entitled to reimbursement for expert appraisal services and testimonial costs. In Village of Burnsville Assessments, 287 N.W.2d 375 (Minn. ' 1979) the Minnesota Supreme Court stated "...we' can see no logical reason why a prevailing municipality should be entitled to costs but not a prevailing land owner..." In addition, Minn. Stat. 549.04 provides, in part, as follows: "In every action in District Court, the.prevailing . party...shall be allowed reasonable _disb.ursements paid or incurred, including fees and mileage for service of process by the sheriff or by a private person." The taxation.of costs is governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure and by Chapter 549 of Minnesota Statutes. The City cites Minn. Stat. 645.21, Subd. 1, as a basis for the preclusion of awarding of costs and disbursements. However, a full reading of Minn. Stat. 645., and more specifically,' 645.26, Subd. 1, leads this Court to conclude that when a general provision in a law is in conflict with a special provision in the same or another law the two shall be construed, if possible, so that 3 ? effect may be given to both. In addition, this Court concludes that where a conflict between two provisions is irreconcilable, the special provision shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision. Finally, in this particular case, the provisions of Minn. Stat. 549.04 and 429.081 are not irreconcilable and, pursuant to the specific pravisions 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. 9 4 . i MEMORANDUM T0: Deanna Kivi FROM: Annette M. Margarit DATE: March 9, 1992 RE: Rahn Road Assessments Enclosed please find the Waiver of Notice provided by attorney Howard Groves on behalf of the Rahn Road Appellants in which they waive any public hearing for the purpose of reassessing the parcels. With this document, you may proceed to direct Dakota County to reassess the parcels. I have also included a copy of the Court's Order and post-trial Order indicating that the parcels should be reassessed in the sum of $0. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to call. ANIlM/wkt cc: Tom Hedges Gene VanOverbeke STA'1^E 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. 10-70775-02.0-01 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 , Y The above-named Appellants, by and through their attorney, hereby waive notice of any meetings to be held by the Eagan City Council and waive any public hearing as required by Minnesota Statutes §429.071 for the purpose of adopting a resolution or taking any other necessary action pursuant to the Judgment and Decree entered in the above matter on January 24, 1992 vacating and setting aside the assessments against the above-described parcels and said Appellants further hereby specifically consent to the , adoption of any resolutions or the taking of any other action which may be necessary to vacate and set aside the assessments against the above-described parcels. DATED : ? - e-l1 1 ? t 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 tCF•100 (4-"l ?+oua. of M+o, cwy, ooa.&V rMR HOidARD J GROVES ATTY AT LAGI STE 260 SKYLINE SQ 12940 HARRIET AVE S LURPtSVILi.E MN 55337 STATE OF MINNE80TA COUNTY OF DAKOTA NOTICE OF: F I N C'i O F R D E R MS ANNETTE M MARGARIT , U ATTY AT LAW BZ ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 600 MIDNAY NAT BANK BLDG ? 7300 W 147TH ST 0 DOCKETlNG OF JUDGMENT APPLE VALLEY MN 55124 ' ? Court Flle No.: C5-91-7756 ' ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584, RNOWN AS RAHN RD RECONSTRIICTION.ETC. IN RE; NATMN R BENOY ETAL V CITY OF EAGAN ETC. 13X 1hw axe hereby notlfled that on JANIIARy 24TH 1992 ?19 an Order was duly (iled ln the above entitled metter. XE3 You are hereby notlfled that on' JANIIARY 24TH 1992 , 19 a Judgment wea duly enterod In the abova entlttad metler. . ? You aro heroby noilflad that on . 18 a Judgment waa duly docketed In lhe above entiUed matter In the amount of $ A trve and correct copy of thla Notlce has been sarved by mail upon the partles namad hereln al the laatRknown addrosa of each, purouant to Mlnnesoia Rufes of Clvil Procadure, Rule 77.04. Datad• JANIIARY 24TH 1992 ROGER W SAI4ES • Court Adm(nlstrator b„ J 3- • Deputy - ?- MwCA "9 ?Q u W °\ 4 day 0} _ M'?..J ROGEA W. AMES, Court Aemtnstrator By STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT In Re: Assessments for Project. 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction, adopted by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991: Name Nathan R. Benoy Gregory/Cindy Cox Trene Gillespie Dean/Karen Goche Darrell/Pat Haines Robert/Antoinette Keeney Vernon/Janet Nelson PauZ/Deb Notermann Brian/Carrie Olwein Mary Rock Ron/Lorri Trenary Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft Address 4372 Rahn Road 4369 Rahn Road 4351 Rahn Road 4065 Rahn Road 3990 Rahn Road 4370 Rahn Road 3996 Rahn Road 4374 Rahn Road 4363 Rahn Road 4339 Rahn Road 4137 Rahn Road 4345 Rahn Road Appellants, vs. City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, P.I.N. 10-70775-020-01 10-16703-250-01 10-16703-220-01 10-16702-170-07 10-16704-110-03 10-70775-010-01 10-16704-100-03 10-48050-104-01 10-16703-240-01 10-16703-200-01 10-16702-080-03 10-16703-210-01 Resgondent. The above-entitled motion for amended findings or in the alternative, a new trial came on for hearing on the Special Term calendar at 9:00 a.m. on January 21, 1992 at the Dakota County Judicial Center in Hastings, Minnesota before the undersigned judge of district court. Annette M. Margarit, Attorney-at-Law, appeared on behalf of the City. Howard Groves, Attorney-at-Law, appeared for Appellants. Based on the arguments, the memoranda, 1 File No. C5-91-7756 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JUDGMENT affidavits and the Fde thts day ot 19 _", Z-1, ROf ER . SAMES. Court Adnunlsvua ey y. J') ,- ._.. O n ile, the Court FINDS 1. That it is not necessary for the Court to adopt the ity's proposed amended findings. 2. That no new facts have been presented which could esult in a new trial. ORDERS 1. That the Respondent City's Motions be and the same are ereby denied in their entirety. 2. The following Memorandum is hereby incorporated by -ef erence . 3. That the Court Administrator shall forthwith enter ?udgment accordingly. )ATED. January 23, 1991 BY THE COIIRT: ?I ..?..--..: i S TIN J.QIA udge of is ict Court ... MF,NIORANDIIM Those proposed "technical" amended Findings which are not aermane to the determination of the trial's outcome have not been addressed herein. The Court recognizes that there are two sides to this issue, . and the City's case was fully, competently and fairly presented 2 to the Court. Appraisll or the properties was of the greatest import to the tactfindex. As articulated in this Msmorandum and in the Decembar 1II; 1991 Findinga, Qrder a»d Memorandum, in the Pactfinder's view, the Facts tend to support Appellants. The crux oP Appellants' olalm is that the City unfairly asse.sgsd them Por street improvements. The etandard for valid special assessments is: (1) the land must 'receive a apecial benafit from the impr'ov$ment being constructed; (2) the assQSSment must be unitorm upon the same alass of property, and (3) the aosessment may not exaeed the special benefit. C1r1`son__ Lanct R?g-i1`ty Co, v. CJt,y of Win 3dm, 307 Minn. 368, 363, 240 N.W.2d 5170 519 (Minn. 1976). Special bensfit is measured by the increase in the markst value of the land owing to the improvement. id. zn appraising the aubject property, an appraiser determi nes what 'a willing buyex would pay a willing se11er aCor the property before, and then after, the improvement has been constructed. ,?. While the government entity ia presumed to have set the assessment legally, an appellant may overaome the presumption by introdu4ing cpmpatent evidence that the assessment is greater.than the increase in market val.ue o£ the property due to the improvement. ZA. These are the criteria whivh the Court applied to the Pacts pxessnted at trial. It should be noted that in its Memoxandum supporting it's motion for a new.trial or amended findi,ngs, the City 'reliea on villagQ of F.3in-± v ilo§22h, 264 Minri. 84, 199 N.W.2d 809 (1962). zn that case, the residents whose property abutted the i.mproved 3 ccio 1UJlN30-l?nUo loI JlsI Q 0o d1G>1HQ 91:2T 'c6iLZi T 0 length of France Avenue objected to special assessments for widening and paving of the street. Minnesota's Supreme Court stated the law in Villaqe of Edina, without setting out a standard or formula, by saying that "[t]he basis and justification of a special assessment are benefits to the property affected... [b)enefits which may be demonstrated by a mathematical exactness are not always required in order to support an assessment." Villaqe of Edina v. Joseph, 119 N.W.2d at 818. -\ Minnesota has also adopted a specific test, as cited in Carlson-Lana 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 ? 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. DanielsIs 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 partyrs evidence over the other. Appellants' more specific 5 testimony was simply more convincing. ? The determination of Rahn Road as a"collector" street and the width of the improved road could be relevant as to whether the improvements directly caused increased traffic, if the Court had relied on that information alone, which is not the case. The Court found, based on testimony from residents and real estate experts, that Rahn Road changed after the improvement from a quiet street to one on which traffic increased. Determination of the date that it was designated a "collector" street and the exact width of the street are not significant to the Court's decision. Again, the criteria for the assessment must be whether the improvement benefitted the property, and the evidence indicated it did not. Finally, the method of assessment is not pertinent to the Court's conclusion that there is no benefit to the homeowners from the improvement. Any asssessment, regardless of its formula, is invalid. , 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT • COUNTY OF DAKOTA FTRST 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/Ciridy 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 Appellants, vs. City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, File No. C5-91-7756 FINDINGS OF FACT._ CONCLIISIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JLTDGMENT P.I.N. 10-70775-020-01 10-16703-250-01 10-16703-220-01. I0-16702-170-07 10-16704-110-03 10-70775-010-01 10-16704-100-03 10-48050-104-01 10 1:6703-240-01 10-16703-200-01 10-16702-080-03 10-16703-210-01 oa .? > >s.Yl. RL'(iEfi W. 5MdfS. caurt Jtdnuuxratur ay o;:?•?r?t 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 Appellaiits 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 followingz 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. h That Appellant Nathan R. Benoy is the owner of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as: Lot 2, Block 1, Sons Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellant has 85. feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,617.15, and the highest and best use of said parcel is residential. . 3. That Appellants Gregory and Cindy Cox are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described.as: Lot 25, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. . 2 • • .. , Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment'levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for.a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use, and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 4. , That Appellant Irene Gillespie is the owner of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally r described as follows: Lot 22, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellant has 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 Per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The , parcel is zoned for residential use and highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 5. That Appellants Dean and Karen Goche are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 17, plock 7, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota.. Said Appellants have 120 feet of Frontage on Rahn Road ancl the amount of the assessment levied' against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $4,178.20. The parcelis zoned for residential use 'and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 6. That Appellants Darrell and Pat Haines are the owners of 3 a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: • Lot 11, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. • • Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $3,694.80. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 7. That Appellants Robert and Antoinette Keeney are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Sons Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 125 feel of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $3,848.75. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 8. That Appellants Vernon and Janet Nelson'are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: - Lot 10, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 5, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 4 per front foot for a total of $3,694.80. The parcel is zoned for < residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel if for residential use. 9. That Appellants Paul and Deb Notermann are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 104, Block 1, Meadow Land, First Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 90.98 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,801.58. The pardel is zoned for residential use and the.highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. • 10. That Appellants Brian and Carrie Olwein are the owners of a parcel of land. abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: . Lot 24, B1ock 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against-said property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. • 11. That Appellant Mary Rock is'the owner of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: 5 Lot 20, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4,,Dakota County, , Minnesota. Said Appellant has 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 ` per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. • 12. 'That Appellants Ron and Lorri Trenary are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: ?• Lot 8, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 195.21 feet of frontageon Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against -such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $6,010.52. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. . 13. That Appellants Mark and Kathy Weidenhaft are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 21,'Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County Minnesota. Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage. on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a totaT of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best ilse of said parcel is 6 for residential use. _ 14. Upon the trial of the above enumerated appeals the City's value witnesses offered testimony as to the amount of the assessment that would be reasonable and did not specificaily address the before and after value as to each property that is the subject of this appeal. Enumerated herein is a summary of the City's value witnesses. i • City's Value witness's oninion Name Sq.ft. /house As to Amt of Benefit Benoy 1,176 $ 2,500.00 Cox 1,120 21309.25 Gi.llespie 912 2,309.25 Goche 990 2,500.00 Haines 864 2,500.00 - Keeney 2,184 2,500.00 Nelsori 1;066 . 2,500.00 Notermann 1,112 2,500.00 Olwein 1,008 21309.25 Rock' 1,236 21309.25 Trenary 912. 21500.00/3,000.00 Weidenhaft - 1,232 2,309.25 . 14. That the Appellant's value witnes follows: Name Benoy Cox % Gillespie Goche Haines Keeney Nelson Notermann Olwein Rock Trenary Weidenhaft Amt of Assmt. 2,617.15 2,309.25 2,309.25 4,178.20- 3,694.80 3,048.75 3,694.80 2,801.58 2,309.25 2,309.25 6,010.52 2,309.25 s testified Iiefore Value After Value $ 99,500.00 $ 99,500.00 89,000.00 89,000.00 72,500.00 . 72,500.00 80,000.00 .80,000.00 72,500.00 . 72,500.00 130,000.00 130,000.00 95,000.00 95,000.00 ' •110,000.00 110,000.00 84,000.00 84,000.00 85,000.00 . • 85,000.00 74,500.00 74,500.00 95,000.00 95,000.00 as 7 15. That the abutting properties enumerated herein have borne prior street resurfacing, curb-and gutter assessments. ; 16. That prior to the improvement, Rahn Road was a quiet, residential street. 17. That the improvement established Rahn Road as a heavy capacity roadway, invited and did, in fact, substantially increase truck and other vehicular traffic. 18. ?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 benef it 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. DATID: 12-18-91 BY THI: COIIRT: SIIR )IARTIN Judge o Di trict Court IiEMORANDOH The assessment of benefit to Appellants' properties as indicated in the assessment roll was sufficient,ly 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 cityI s value witness testified from his 10 _ . , , knowledge of the area, the builder whom he was acquainted with, and some comparables, and then he cQncluded that the properties benef itted in the amount that he testif ied without regard to the before and after value as to each. It should be noted that five of the parcels have 75 foot frontage and the square footage for each of the dwellings ranges from 912 square feet to*a high of 1;232 square feet. This approach appears to treat each parcel ? the same, regardless of size, whereas in addition to the' differences noted with the properties that have 75 foot frontage, one need only review Finding No. 14 to see the further disparity. Finally, the,Court has determined the assessments must be vacated for the reasons set forth herein. Therefore, it is not necessary to determine whether the method employed by the City in computing the assessment is statutorily proper. , ? ii . e- ? i /0.70775-•ozo •aI uv•roo?4-") Iof 1144 (*r, OeeL?r+O rHOWARD J GROVES ATTY AT LAW STE 260 SKYLINE SQ 12940 HARRIET AVE S (BURNSVILLE MN 55337 ` rANNETTE M MARGARIT ATTY AT LAW 600 MIDWAY NATL BANR BLDG 7300 W 147TH ST LAPPLF. VALLEY MN 55124 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLIISIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JIIDGMENT ? ltw nre heroby notltled lhat on nFrF10xFR t R•rx _ 19 91 an Order was duly ttlad ln the above entltied maNor. • ? Ybu nre horoby nolltlad thnt on 19 a Judpment w%a duly entered In ihe ;above enllUed matter. ? You nre heroby notlAed thel on 18 a Jvdpment we.a duly dxketed In the ebove enUlled metler In the amounl of $ .? .? _ A irve nnd correcl copy ot thle Notlos hae been served by mall upon the partlsa nsmed hsrsin at the last kncwn eddro33 of oach, pureunnt to Mlnneaota Rules ot Clvll Procedure, Ruls 77.04. Daled• DECIIMBER 18TH 1991 Ci? 611? ?8 ?? 07 roGER w. saMEs. oM aan*dWft ?? ? rLFily BTATE OF MINNESOTA COUMY OF _ DAKOTA NOTICE OF; ? FILINO OF OROER O ENTRY OF JUD(3MENT O DOCKETINa OF JUDGMEPfT Coutt Flt• No.: C5-91-7756 0 IN RE: NATHAN R. BENOY ET AL VS. CITY OF EAGAN ETC. ROGER W. SAHES Court Adminislrator by Deputy "A" 4M STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA . FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ------------------------------------------------- In Re: Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction, adopted by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991: Name Address Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road Gregory/Cindy Cox 4369 Rahn Road Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road Dean/Karen Goche 4065 Rahn Road Darrell/Pat Haines 3990 Rahn Road Robert/Antoinette Keeney 4370 Rahn Road Vernon/Janet Nelson 3996 Rahn Road Paul/Deb Notermann 4374 Rahn Road Brian/Carrie Olwein 4363 Rahn Road Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn Road Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft 4345 Rahn Road File No. C5-91-7756 FINDINGS OF FACT. CONCLIISIONS OF LAW. pRDER FOR JIIDGMENT P.Z•N• 10-70775-020-01` 10-16703-250-01' 10-16703-220-01'. 10-16702-170-07 10-16704-110-03' 10-70775-010-01 10-16704-100-03 10-48050-104-01 10-16703-240-01 10-16703-200-01 10-16702-080-03 10-16703-210-01, Appellants, C _ T?, ? vs . p? 19,91 KEER 1'V. SAtdES. Oourt Adrtdnis:rxta City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, Bs' LOU" Respondent. ---------------------------------------- ------- The above-entitled appeals from the assessments levied by the City of Eagan have been consolidated for the purposes of the trial and were heard by the undersigned on the Court calendar and without a jury on Friday, November 15, 1991, and Friday, November 22, 1991, at the Dakota County Judicial Center,Hastings, Minnesota. The Appellants appeared in person and were represented by Howard Groves, their attorney. The Respondent City was , 1 ? , represented by Annette M. Margari-`., its attorney. The Court having considered the evidence adduced at trial, having examined the evidence offered by the respective parties and all the records of the proceedings and being fully advised, makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the above-named property owners appealed from a Special Assessment levied by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991, for Project No. 584. The Project as proposed by the city council included the widening, grading, base and bituminous resurfacing, curb and gutter and utility improvements on Rahn Road between Beau 'D Rue Drive and Shale Lane. 2. That Appellant Nathan R. Benoy is the owner of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn 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 l, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. . 2 Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontagn on Rahn Road and the . amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use, and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 4. That Appellant Irene Gillespie is the owner of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 22, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellant has 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 5. That Appellants Dean and Karen Goche are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 17, Block 7, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, • Minnesota. ? Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $4,178.20. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 6. That Appellants Darrell and Pat Haines are the owners of 3 a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 11, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said_ Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $3,694.80. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 7. That Appellants Robert and Antoinette Keeney are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: • Lot 1, Block 1, Sons Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 125 feel of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $3,848.75. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 8. That Appellants Vernon and Janet Nelson are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: ,- Lot 10, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 5, Dakota County, ' Minnesota. Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 4 per front foot for a total of $3,694.80. The parcel is zoned far 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 Qf Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 104, Block 1, Meadow Land, First Add-ition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 90.98 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the i amount of the assessment levied against such progerty was $30.7,9 per front foot for a total of $2,801.58. The parcel is zone4 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 .p';? Rahn Road.and legally described as follows: ? Y ° t Lot 24, Block 1, Cedar.Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. t . ` ? Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against sai3 property was. $310:.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoPed_f±or _ 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#?egally described as follows: ?e.A:.= 5 ' Lot 20, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4,,Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellant has 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 ` per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 12. That Appellants Ron and Lorri Trenary are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 8, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 195.21 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such proper.ty was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $6,010.52. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 13. That Appellants Mark and Kathy Weidenhaft are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: ; Lot 21, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County Minnesota. Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25, The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best dse of said parcel is 6 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. the City's value witnesses. Name Benoy Cox Gillespie Goche Haines Keeney Nelson Notermann olwein Rock Trenary Weidenhaft 14. follows: Name Benoy Cox Gillespie Goche Haines Keeney Nelson Notermann Olwein Rock Trenary Weidenhaft Enumerated herein is a summary of City's Value FTitness's Ovinion Sq.ft.J house As to Amt of Benefit 1,176 $ 2,500.00 1,120 2,309.25 912 2,309.25 990 2,500.00 864 2,500.00 2,184 2,500.00 1,066 2,500.00 1,112 2,500.00 1,008 2,309.25 1,236 2,309.25 912 2,500.00/3,000.00 1,232 2,309.25 That -the Appellant's value witne Before Value $ 99,500.00 89,000.00 72,500.00 80,000.00 72,500.00 130,000.00 95,000.00 110,000.00 84,000.00 85,000.00 74,500.00 95,000.00 Amt of Assmt. $ 2,617.15 2,309.25 2,309.25 4,178.20 3,694.80 3,048.75 3,694.80 2,801..58 2,309.25 2,309.25 6,010.52 2,309.25 ss testified ter_Value $ 99,500.00 ; 89,000.00 72,500.00 80,000.00 72,500.00 130,000.00 95,000.00 110,000.00 84,000.00 - 85,000.00 74,500.00 95,000.00., as 7 • 15. That the abutting properties enumerated herein have borne prior street resurfacing, curb and gutter assessments. 16. That prior to the improvement, Rahn Road was a quiet, residential street. 17. That the improvement established Rahn Road as a heavy capacity roadway, invited and did, in fact, substantially . increase truck and other vehicular traffic. 18. That the increased traf f ic f low, change in the type of traffic and its attendant characteristics create hazards, noise and pollution, all of which are detrimental to abutting residential properties. 19. That the overall evidence shows that the fair market value of the Appellants' property did not change in the before and after value following in the installation of the improvement, that is, the improvements did not increase the value of the Appellants' property. 20. That by reason thereof, the City of Eagan Improvement Project No. 584 did not specifically benefit each of the Appellants' properties. CONCLIISIONS OF LAW ? 1. That the assessments levied against the Appellants' properties be and the same are hereby vacated and set aside. 2. The following Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. 3. Let judgment be entered accordingly after a stay of 30 8 days. DATED: 12-18-91 BY THE C'OIIRT: JA.?--+TIN ' SIIR Judge o Di trict Court I+MORANDUM The assessment of benefit to Appellants' properties as indicated in the assessment roll was sufficiently countered by Appellants to require the fact issue as to the reasonable value of the property assessed before and after the improvement, and to what extent the properties may have benefitted. In considering the evidence of the before and after value, greater weight was given to the testimony of the Appellants' witnesses. Mr. Daniels formed his conclusions as to the market value of the respective properties in the year the assessment roll was adopted. His opinion as to the properties was further supported by realtors active in the sale of residential homes in the area, one of whom testified that the improvements 3cf Rahn Road changed the character of the neighborhood, and this change impacted in a negative manner as to value of the Appellants' properties. In addition, one or more of these realtors cited actual sales listing experiences to further support their testimony. • Mr. Metzen's opinion as to value is based upon his knowledge 9 as to the builder of the homes in the area, and the type of-homes the builder constructs. He elected not to inspect the subject homes. Additionally, the city offered no testimony in the before and after value of the individual parcels. Its expert testimony was based on a sale or sales that were not too remote in time but were not within the affected time frame; that is, at or near the improvement, or subject to the improvement. Mr. Metzen took into consideration his knowledge, his experience, the type of homes that the builder whom he was acquainted with constructs, and then the sale or sales that he relied on as comparables to the subject properties in forming an opinion as to,whether the assessment, as adopted by the city, met the statutory requirements. One should note that his opinion is that the assessment as adopted by the city did not for the most part meet the statutory requirements. As his testimony indicated, for most of the parcels he formed an opinion that if there was a benefit, it was less than the assessment levied by the city. Both value witnesses considered the rate of inflation and the flat real estate market in arriving at their conclusions. It is this Court's view that the difference between the ; conclusions reached is that the city's value witness considered the availability of the use of the improvement rather than the • increase in value. Additionally, it should be noted that the Appellants' value witness submitted written appraisals for each parcel in support of his opinion as to value in the before and the after, whereas the city,'s value witness testified from his 10 knowledge of the area, the builder whom he was acquainted with, • and some comparables, and then he concluded that the properties benef itted in the amount that he testif ied without regard to the before and after value as to each. It should be noted that five of the parcels have 75 foot frontage and the square footage for each of the dwellings ranges from 912 square feet. to a high of 1,232 square feet. This approach appears to treat each parcel the same, regardless of size, whereas in addition to the* differences noted with the properties that have 75 foot frontage, one need only review Finding No. 14 to see the further disparity. Finally, the Court has determined the assessments must be vacated for the reasons set forth herein. Therefore, it is not necessary to determine whether the method employed by the City in computing the assessment is statutorily proper. ? ? 11 STATE OF MINNESOTA ?? • C? ? f"eCel:e.cl '7-c7-i I !/;os a. m. 6 a??ptL? ?GZ?i DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ? CASE TYPE: 10 OTHER CIVIL ? SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEA L> ______________________________ ,'b ------------------------ _ -A\ - In Re: ??\?Court File No. Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction adopted by the City of Eagan OTICE OF_APPEAL on June 18, 1991 TO: THE ABOVE-NAMED COURT AND THE CITY OF EAGAN: NOTICE is hereby given pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 429.081 that each of the property owners listed below hereby appeal the adoption of the above=referenced Assessment Roll as the same relates to property owned by each of the parties set forth below at the address and property identification number set forth next to their respective names, all of which property is located in the City of Eagan, County of Dakota, and State of Minnesota. Written objections to said Assessments were duly made to the City by each of the property owners listed below prior to or at the hearing at which said Assessments were adopted. Said Assessment Rolls were adopted by the City Council of the City of Eagan at its meeting held on June 18, 1991 as evidenced by a copy of the Minutes of said meeting which are attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof. The bases for this appeal with regard to each of the properties listed is as follows: 1. There is no special benefit to the property as a result of the "improvements". 2. The market valu e 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 owner s making this Appeal and the address and property identification number of their respective properties are set forth below: NAME ADDRESS P.I.N. Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road 10-70775-020-01 Gregory Cox and 4369 Rahn Road 10-16703-250-01 Cindy Cox Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road 10-16703-220-01 Dean Goche and 4065 Rahn Road 10-16702-170-07 Karen Goche Darrell Haines and 3990 Rahn Road 10-16704-110-03 Pat Haines Robert Keeney and 4370 Rahn Road 10-70775-010-01 Antoinette Keeney " Vernon Nelson and 3996 Rahn Road 10-16704-100-03 Janet Nelson Paul Notermann and 4374 Rahn Road 10-48050-104-01 Deb Notermann Brian Olwin and 4363 Rahn Road 10-16703-240-01 Carrie Olwin Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road 10-16703-200-01 Ron Trenary and 4137 Rahn Road 10-16702-080-03 Lorri Trenary _ Mark Weidenhaft and 4345 Rahn Road 10-16703-210-01 Kathy Weidenhaft 2 ? Dated this day of July, 1991. 1 ? Howar J. Grove Attorney for Pr4erty Owners on Rahn Road 260 Skyline Square Building 12940 Harriet Avenue South Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 (612) 890-2477 Atty. I.D. No.: 38313 3 _ EXHIB3.- A Page 6/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINlJ7'ES June 28, 1991 PROJE&384fFTNAL: AsS6'S?M.£NT HEARING RA,HN ?fOAD RECQtVS7'RUCTiON After inUoduction by Mayor F.g?ie and City Administrator Hedges, Director of Public Works Tom Colbert provided a briet overview of the assessments and the neighbor6ood meeting bcld on Juae 11, 1991. He 6aid scventy propertics with dirc.ct access onto Rahn Road reaeived notioes of assc«mcnt on this projcct. Mayor Egan t6en opened the public 6eariag to public comment. Mr. Charlcs MacDoaaJd, oi 4145 Rahn Road, said 6e had Ciled written objediod:E6.1he assessments agaiast his property. Mr. MacDoaald said the value of his home had actually droppcd because::ot the upgrade of Rahn Road and the resultaat 6esvy trafiic. He sa;d evidence of that is the Dakota County Assessor'a 6ffct {owzriag the value of his homc by a S percent due to Rahn Road. • • • . Mayor Egan asked Mr. Bill Petttwa? of ?hc:?Coiitiry:As$C'ssor'a office to ezplain the 5 percent deduceion Gom property taxes because a number ot homeowners had referenced it in eonnection wit6 the Rahn Road improvements. Mr. Petersoa said a misunderstandiag eaosts among the bomeowers as to tbe meaning of the S percent moditier. Ne said the modilier has been used since 1983 and was used for property along Rahn Road. lt was done, however, for 1990 valuations and, theretore, preceeded teconstruction of Rahn Road. T6e Dakota County Assessor's oftice u.ses mass appraisal and deals with avtrages and norms. He said tbey use a atandard aite value and then look at each property and add or s?tbtr*ci:fr?itin this standard value considering a number of [aaots, including being located on a major.str?eE:??: ?e: sa3d ihe County As.sessor's oftiee uses modificrs quite trequentl?? and is not implying that the iinaprcJVCmefitsoaJ?ahn Road bad any impact oa their valuations. Mr. Marti Weideahah, of 4345 Raha.?9?6ad, said..p??idening and improving Rahn Road had compounded the negative cftect of the road on their property. Ht:'t?ed xfiat..tbe State Attorney General has ruted that to be assessed for improvements, the City has to prove benefit to::tbe property. He said his property could not be worth more with more trafric. Mr. Darrel) Haines, of 3990 Rahn Road, complained about the policy used for assessments, the loss of 6ome value and said additioaal properties on Bluestone, Carneliaa, Jade, Flint, etc. ahould ahare in the costs. Ms. Laurie Luconic, of 4137 Rabn:RO*dshe'6W.:t?e an informal survey of otber ri?es and tound that many do not assess by [ront [ootage:;.:$ie `also ?eompla'ined?Iiecsuse the lscJc of double sUiping on the road bas {cd motorists 1o believe that pacsing ?:permissihl: Mr. Gerard Bents, representiog:Mount G?vjry I.nt6eran C6urch, objected to the as.us.tmeat sgainst the entire cburcb properiy at the puhGc:tsciilties?.:ia#t:; ;Ht;:p?ted out that this rate was the same as that oi commercial propcrty. He aaid they haveihaae?tbi*ieliirrcliavsitalile to organizations for moetings free ot cbarge and have, as a result, generated edditional tragic. He pointed out, Lowever, that approumately 190 [eet of the [rontage on Rahn Road belon&s to the patsonage aad felt it shoWd be assessed at a single-iamily sste. 1Nr. Bents wished to note that the 544,000 assessment cAnstitutea LS perant of the cburcb's anneW budget. Director of Public Worlcs Coibert said the entire pafett has.qw.legAl. description and it was asses.scd at one nte based on the zoning. Mr. Colbert said tbat the Covp.c?l?;?ad asteasments on a different ease at the last City Couaeil mecting and had detcrmiaed that ah * wsi6ents sboiil$:btbased on zoai,ag. Mr. Bents asted tbat the City Counci) make an exoeptiaxa. ..... ,., Councilmember Pawlenty tben Oitvsud the situation:titferred to by Mr. CoTbert. In that instance, if the Ciry Gouncil had assessed at a higher:i?.pk?pt.tfjro'i?C?:CO=ild bave had'assessment -bacYed e?ed.ations' !or a higber and better use of the propc'cty;::??e t?is?iastaritt{'?tte is a higher Zoning and the property owner es acking for assessments based on a lower nst. Direaor of Public Works Colbert naed that J the proporty Page 7/FAGAN CI7Y COUNCIL MINU7FS June 28, 1991 _ is assessed at a lower rate aad 'u ullimaltry'put to a higher use, the City would not have the opportuaity, once the asscssmenLs ate levied, to teassesS Mr. Terry Stover, o[ 3906 RaLw:Road, objec:ted to the asss«*++ents kvied agaiast Outlot A of the Woodhaven Addition. He said that oudoc:does not have assess onto Rahn Road and, furtber, the development plan for the property indicates that aecess?must be o6 Beau de Rue Drive. Mr. Stover said any pos.vbility of sccess onto Rahn Road was a virtual imposv'biiity due to the new ttevadon of the road. He refened to the Iact that several properties along Rahn Road were not assessed because t6ey had no driveway assess onto Rahn Road and said 6e believed OuUot A was the only one without access being assesud. He said his property bas already been assessed for improvements to Beau:de Rue. •` Mr. Stover tben pointed out b4:p3ra1's los3W value because ot a permanent storm aewet easement granted to the City. While he had receiv;od:38,000 fa"r;t6e easement, he said an appraiser had estimated the loss to his property at betweea S17,000 and 518,000. Ms. Lcttie Knutsoa, of 2014 Shaft??:?tnie;?said:sh C.hB;t .?:?gaiage with sccess oPt Rahn Road but her bome has its drivew•ay access on Shale Lane. Ji%i3:1Ei?utsoti pc?iotzd oiit that two years ago 6er 6ome was appraised at S98,000 and now the Couaty tax assessor 6ad indicated the value as $91,000. Sbe esked why her property values had gone dowa. Mr. Paul Notterman, of 4374 Rahn Road, said it only took commoa sense to realiu that values had gone dowv with the widening and repairing of Rahn Road. . Mayor Egan then asked City Attm:jiii;S#icldos to explain the process for objuxing to assessments. Mayor Egan said the City Couacil.6ad:tto.choice'tiut to make this road improvement as Rahn Road in its previous condition was no longer functioaA? e:?Wd it:.'tS.Qne o[ the fust teconstruction ptojetls in the City and the City Council has tried to adopt a cost formiila Aat'::0*%y.believe equitable to all those concerned. McCrea moved, Wac6ter soconded a motion to vose the public hearing, approve the final assessment roll for Project 584 (Rahn Road Reconstroction) and authoriu certitication to Dakota County. Councilmember Gustafson asked, ia regard to sssessments based on parxls rat6er than front footage, J Mount Calvary Lutheran Church oould 6a,ve:t6e..issue os,ingje family and public Iacilities [rontage rtsolved by the City or whether the court would 6ay?-:tii:ip:aice:that;:det#*#mation. D'uector of Public Works Colbert said an assessment heazing judge would not ;Cvaluate tbe:.tiitthod uud to arrive at the assessmants, 6owever, such method would be the prcrogadve of the CCoundl: ?t"'tatute does require that the City Ueat all like propertics in a similaz man.ncr and there cauld be a:* 'allenge fiora the Baptist Churcb J the Gty Couod asussea Mount C;alvary Lutheran Churc6 at a ksser ratt::::::.. Recognizing tb,at there was a motiooaad?a aec6nd'*6e6e the City Cauncil, Mayor Egan utced City Attorney Sheldon whetber the City Couorii could incorporate some discretionary policy in regard to the Mount Calvary Lutberan C6urc6 property. Mr. S6eldon said the City Counril ooWd oomplete the motion and aend it on in the process and then remove Mount Calvary Lutheraa C:burcb from the proce.ss et a ister date or they could request lhat staff make a review of tbat.pattiQuW':AItttalion and return wit6 t6eir 6ndings at the next City Counal meeting. , T6e motioa before the Couna'1 wgs?t6en revised to McCYea mave.d, Wac6ler seoonded e motion to c]ose the public bearing, approve the C? ?. ,;assossmeet roll forPbjed 584 (Raha Road Reconstruction) noliag all written objedions, suthoriu its certifii.fmn to Dakota.Co aitl? sPecial instrudioas to staff to review the u? ;': situation involving the Mount Calvary I;cE?tea;:?rc?:?ibp?tty wilb particular attention being paid to any precedent-setting action. .... ........... :.... 04-Jun-91 ASSESSMENT COST BREAKDOWN PROJ NAME RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJ NUM P584 SA NAME ST584 - F RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION SA NAME ST584 sa# 2183 YEARS 15 SF 30.790 /FF INT RATE .085 MF 75.160 /FF MOS 1ST YR INT 18 CI 75.160 /FF YEAR 1991 YC 15.400 /FF ASSESSMENT REC PROPERTY GROSS NET UNITS PRO-RATA RATE 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 10-01900-010-10C1 150 0 150 1 150 1 75.160 11274.00 5 10-84700-020-01SF 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61 S 10-84700-030-01SF 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61 . 10-84700•040-01SF 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61 8 10-84700-050-01SF 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61 9 10-84700-060-01Sf 61.4 0 61.4 1 61.4 1 30.790 1890.51 10 10-84700-070-01SF 112.76 0 112.76 1 112.76 1 30.790 3471.88 11 10-84700-010-OOMF 299.7 0 299.7 1 299.7 1 75.160 22525.45 12 10-16700-010-09SF 137.88 0 137.88 1 137.88 1 30.790 4245.33 13 10-16700-020-09SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15 14 10-16T00-030-09SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15 15 10-16700-040-09SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15 16 10-16700-050-09SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15 17 10-16700-060-09WC 0 0 0 1 0 1 15.400 0.00 18 10-16700-110-11SF 116.18 0 116.18 1 116.18 1 30.790 3577.18 19 10-11700-010-02MP 155 0 155 1_ 155 1 75.160 11649.80 20 10-22470-010-01MF 388.87 0 388.87 1 388.87 1 75.160 29227.47 21 10-32800-010-01MF 583.3 0 583.3 1 583.3 1 75.160 43840.83 22 10-48050-104-01Sf 90.99 0 90.99 1 90.99 1 30.790 2801.58 23 10-70775-010-01SF 125 0 125 1 125 1 30.T90 3848.75 24 10-70T75-020-01SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15 25 10-16701-300-01SF 115.7 0 115.7 1 115.7 4 30.740 3562.40 26 10-16701-310-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.T90 2309.25 27 10-16701-320-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.T90 2309.25 28 10-16701-330-01SF T5 0 75 1 75 1 30.T90 2309.25 29 10-16701-340-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 30 10-16701-350-01Sf 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 31 10-16701-360-01SF 75 , 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 1J04'er rr ct ii /Lee.n e y Benc?/ f 04-Jun-91 ASSESSMENT COST BREAKDONN PROJ NAME RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJ NUM P584 SA NAME ST584 F RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION SA NAME ST584 SA# 2183 . YEARS 15 SF 30.790 /ff INT RATE .085 MP 75.160 /ff ' MOS 1ST YR INT 18 CI 75.160 /FF TEAR 1991 WC 15.400 /FF ASSESSMENT REC PROPERTY GROSS NET UNITS PRO-RATA RATE AMWNT NMBR 1DENT# 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 ,8 10-16701-430-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 39 10-16701-440-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 40 10-16701-450-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 41 10-16701-460-01SF 95.73 0 95.73 1 95.73 1 30.790 2947.53 42 10-16701-470-01SP 90 0 90 1 90 1 30.790 2771.10 43 10-16703-180-Q1SP 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 • 44 10-16703-190-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 ? 45 10-16703-200-015F 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 R oe- WerAei"ha?•!- 46 10-16703-210-01SF 75 0 75 1 751 30.790 2309.25 47 10-16703-220-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 G ; Iksp' f- 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 n 50 10-16703-250-01SP 75 . 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 e.o X 51 10-16703-260-01SF 90 0 90 1 90 1 30.790 2771.10 52 10-16703-010-02WC 121.96 0 121.96 1 121.46 1 15.400 1878.18 53 10-16702-080-03SF 195.21 0 195.21 1 195.21 1 30.790 6010.52 '?y? n•:?r?/ ? 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 ac- h z 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 10-76704-100-03Sf 120 0 120 1 120 1 30.790 3694.80 Ne-lsay.. 60 10-16704-110-03SF 120 0 120 1 120 1 30.790 3694.80 AL ''?e'S 61 10-02000-011-52MF 262.01 0 262.01 1 262.01 1 75.760 19692.67 62 10-16704-090-04SP 95 0 95 1 95 1 30.790 2925.05 TO: FROM: DATE: RECEIVEM MEMORANDUM Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works Annette M. Margarit November 4, 1991 RE: Rahn Road Assessment Appeal ? SLQ V Enclosed please find Judge Mansur's Order and accompanying memorandum denying our motion to sever the twelve assessment appeals for Rahn Road that are combined into one action. The Judge seemed to basically buy the argument that because the parties are raising the same issue, namely, that increased traffic has diminished the value of their properties, the combination is appropriate. The trial is currently scheduled for November 15, 1991. I understand that you will be on vacation on that date. Rather than continuing this trial because there are so many appeals that have been set for December and into January, I would prefer to_have Mike Foertsch testify or get someone from Bonestroo to be available for this trial. I will contact Mike to see if he is available on that date. AMM/wkt ? f , ? ?:j POWARD J. GROVES . . ATTORNEY AT LAW SUITE 260-SKYLINE SQUARE 12940 HARRIET AVENUE SOUTH LBURNSVILLE MN 55337 ! BTATE OF MINNESOTA COUN'tY OF DAKOTA NOTICF. OFt . X-F1LiN0 OF ORDER [-ANNETTE M. MARGARIT ATTORNEY AT LAW C] ENTRY OF JUDQMEKT . 600 MIDWAY NAxIONAL BANK BLDG . 7300 WEST. 147TH ST Cl DOCKE7INt3 OF JUOC?MENT APPLE VALLEY MN 55124 L„ Court FlI• No.t C5 91 7756 ?N pF; ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584 KNOWN AS RAHN-ROAD RECONSTRUCTION ECT. ? 1bu nro heroby nolltlod ltinl on OCTOBER 29 18 91 an Order wna duly fl(ed ln lfio nbovo ontltlod mnllor. . ? 1bu aro horoby hotlfied lhnl on '19e Judflmenl we_a duly onterod In.the o.bove onllllod mnttor.* Cl You nro horoby noUnod lhat on . , . 10 s Judpment wu duly dockelod In t}te, ubove enUllad mallarIn lhe amount of S_- - . .r •!? , . Alruenndcorroclcopyo(t}iIs NolloehAebooneervodbymailuponihepanietnemedhatelnallhe le3l known oddro33 o( oach, purouant lo MlnncoolA Ruloo ot Clvll Ptxodure, Rule 77.04. OCTOBER 29, 1991 _ ROGER K. SAHES iielralor • • Detod? . • Co*Pty • bY . . da? Fde thls ' ? ot ts P ROGER W. ??1E , coun A? IMA4CA4,n BY • Rle thZC_Z6Ei d? c' . _ 9& 1 R06EI1 W. Sl:??,SES, Court Admmisuata STATE OF MINNESOTA ey pEp DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTftICT ----------------------------------------------------------------- In Re: Assessments for Project 584, File No. C5-91-7756 known as Rahn Road Reconstruction adopted by the City of Eagan on ORDER June 18, 1991 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ° The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the undersigned on the Special Term calendar of the Court on Monday, October 28, 1991, at the Dakota County Judicial Center, Hastings, Minnesota. Annette Margarit, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Howard J. Groves, Attorney at Law, appeared an behalf of the Petitioners. The issue is the assessment for the improvement of Rahn Road. The parties who are identified as the Petitioners represent 12 property owners on Rahn Road and have filed a joint appeal from the assessment promulgated by the Respondent City. The City moves for severance and for separate trials for .? each of the Petitioners. Based upon the file, the record made, the file and proceedings heretofore had, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. That the Respondent-City's motion be and the same is hereby denied. 2. That the following Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. DATED: 10-28-91 BY T E OURT: ` ARTIN . UR Judge f D strict Court 1 File this daq ol 19?', . ROGER W SAMES, Court Ndrtunistrator By DEPUTY MEMOftANDUM The property is unique and, as such, the issue of benefits versus costs of improvements must be determined for each property exclusive of the other. Here the Petitioners apparently are residents on Rahn Road in the city of Eagan and have joined together in appealing the assessments that have been certified by the City against their sub;ject properties for what the City alleges to be improvements by the widening of Rahn Road. The Petitioners contend that the impro"vements 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 .r appeal from the assessments, it is this Court's view that the severance would not serve the interest of all parties, including the City, but rather, would allow for an expeditious disposition of the Petitioners' appeals and if either party is aggrieved by the Court's decision, allow for the appellate process to go forward without further delay. To grant the City's motion cauld 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 -0ctober 28, 1991 I appeared before the Honorable Judge Martin Mansur to argue the City's motion to sever the twelve assessment appeals currently filed as one action. The appellants' attorney Howard Groves also appeared. Enclosed please find a copy of the papers Mr. Groves had filed for the purposes of this motion. Judge Mansurs' opening comments indicated his train of thought as he told Mr. Groves that all parcels were unique, and inquired as to why Mr. Groves believed the assessment appeals should be joined. Mr. Groves argued that the properties are very similar in location and basically are arguing the same issue that the project has not benefitted them at all but in fact has been a detriment to their property. Through some of his other questions, it seemed apparent the Judge was not totally supportive of Mr. Groves' position. The Court asked for the City's position and I reiterated the Judge's own comments namely that each parcel is unique and by the very nature of the special assessment, the City may not levy an assessment greater than the benefit to that particular parcel. I pointed out to the Court that the parcels were not all assessed the same amount indicating that they differed in some respect. I also argued that, in the event the Court did not agree that the properties had been benefitted to the amount of the assessment, the Court would need to be able to arrive at some equitable means of determining a reduction in the assessment. Without knowledge of the individual characteristics of the properties, the Court would have to resort to a blanket type of reduction which would be unfair to the City and likely also the landowners. The Court noted that appellants paid only one filing fee. The Judge stated that he would take the matter under advisement and issue an order. ANIIM/wkt PERMIT Permit Type: Plumbing City of Eagan Permit Number: EA105253 Date Issued: 07/05/2012 Permit Category: ePermit Site Address: 4372 Rahn Rd Lot: 2 Block: 1 Addition: Sons PID: 10-70775-01-020 Use: Description: Sub Type: e - Water Heater Work Type: New Description: Water Heater Meter Size Meter Type Manufacturer Serial Number Remote Number Line Size Kris Oien Comments: 3670 Dodd Rd Eagan, mn 55123 651-365-1340 PL - Permit Fee (WS &/or WH) $55.00 0801.4087 Fee Summary: Surcharge-Fixed $5.00 9001.2195 Total: $60.00 Contractor: Owner: - Applicant - Champion Plumbing Bonita J Dupay 3670 Dodd Rd., #100 4372 Rahn Rd Eagan MN 55123 Eagan MN 55122 (651) 365-1340 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. Applicant/Permitee: Signature Issued By: Signature Use BLUE or BLACK Ink I For Office Use I I Permit (0 City of Eap I - I Permit Fee: Cc ~h 3830 Pilot Knob Road I I Eagan MN 55122 Date Received: Phone: (651) 675-5675 Fax: (651) 675-5694 I Staff: I I 2013 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Date: Site Address: Unit Name: Phone: k_/-E5/ - ~Z. Resident/ 3 72 9# Owner Address /City /Zip: Applicant is: Owner Contractor Type of Work Description of work: ' lt2e Construction Cost~^'l x Multi-Family Building: (Yes / No ) Company: J51 N121)( Contact: Z/,I 1}~ZLt~ Address: 710 ~lJ'~ij~Y~P wy~ f City: Contractor State: 20_/z ` ZipS~®Zo Phone: 732- 2~Z -,33fJ License SC -,,1;27 L5_z~7 Lead Certificate C 7J2~ 3~ If the project is exempt from lead certification, please explain why: (see Page 3 for additional information) COMPLETE THIS AREA ONLY IF CONSTRUCTING A NEW BUILDING In the last 12 months, has the City of Eagan issued a permit for a similar plan based on a master plan? i _Yes _No If yes, date and address of master plan: Licensed Plumber: Phone: f Mechanical Contractor: Phone: Sewer & Water Contractor: Phone: I 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 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.org I hereby acknowledge that this information is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City of Eagan; that I understand this is not a permit, but only an application for a permit, and work is not to start without a permit; that the work will be in accordance with the approved plan in the case of work which requires a review and approval of plans. Exterior work authorized by a building permit issued in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code must be completed within 180 days of permit issuance. /1Z x x Ap i a s Pri e Name Applicant's Signature Page 1 of 3 !" #$%&'()'*+*, -./$%'"&0-1 -EO*,$E*2 -./$%'53/4-.167889M8 <*%-'!==3->17:?8:?@:7; -./$%'#*%-+(.&1--./$% A$%-'6>>.-==1''L89@''*O,'>'' 0#$%& ''!())**+ '':+8 /12 !346366"43!4303' 789 <-=E.$0%$(,1 :;<'=>?9 @98*)9+*-$ A.&'=>?9 @9?$-%9 298%.*?*+ Q;.+-%9 `;98*+8'.9G-.)*+G'9$9%.*%-$'?9.F*'.9O;*.9F9+8'8K;$)'<9')*.9%9)'':-9'X$9%.*%-$'1+8?9%.^',-.&'(+)9.8+'-'HU"0J' #(//-,%=1 55"40V53L M-.<+'F+N*)9')99%.8'-.9'.9O;*.9)'P*K*+'!3'D99'D'-$$'8$99?*+G'.F'?9+*+G8'*+'.98*)9+*-$'KF98'H,*++98-':-9' ,X'4'/9.F*'Q99'H@9?$-%9F9+8JT"UL33'3V3!L53VV F--'A3//*.&1 :;.%K-.G94Q*N9)T!L33'U33!L0!U" "(%*21GB:H::' #(,%.*E%(.1IJ,-.1 4''(??$*%-+''4 B-$9>'MFD.':>89F8#+*-'a'2;?-> !00'\[.)':'A5\[60'@-K+'@) B-8*+G8',E''""3\[\[X-G-+',E''""!00 HI"!J'5\[643\[\[VHI"!J'5"543U03 1'K9.9<>'-%&+P$9)G9'K-'1'K-W9'.9-)'K*8'-??$*%-*+'-+)'8-9'K-'K9'*+D.F-*+'*8'%..9%'-+)'-G.99''%F?$>'P*K'-$$'-??$*%-<$9':-9' D',*++98-':-;98'-+)'M*>'D'X-G-+'Y.)*+-+%98L (??$*%-+S/9.F*99 ':*G+-;.9188;9)'#> ':*G+-;.9