Loading...
4374 Rahn RdCITY OF EAGAN Remarks Addition Meatdowland lst Addition Lot 104 Bik 1 Parcel 10 48050 104 01 Owner Street-42WBdhnLRckdd State r-Qgnp MN 55122 4k -) 1L r- Improvement ' Date Amount Annual Years Payment Receipt Date STREET SURF. STREET RE3TOR. mp • $ . 158.99 GRADING SAN SEW TRUNK 2 1970 77.95 3.12 25 * SEWER LATERAL n 1981 ? Z_ > WATERMAIN * WATER LATERAL 1981 10 WATER AREA 62 1973 95.27 6.35 15 STORM SEW TRK 6L '] 282.92 14.15 20 * STORM SEW LAT 1981 IO CURB & GUTTER SIDEWALK STREET LIGHT WATER CONN. BUILDING PER. SAC PARK (:ASti FiECEfPT 1,_ _..: CITY OF EAGAN ? 3795 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122 DATE ? • i i RECEIVED 18 FROM !7 ?? ?" ,' i ,. , )? _ ? A M O l l,4'V T_' . , ? & DOLLARS ' oo 0 CASH E] CHECK ? ?? ?? ,;• Fo` 11_ ,r':,, ? 6391+ White-Payers Copy Yellow-Posting Copy Pink-File Copy Thank You BLDG. PERMIT N0. ?. 01-3210 tBl,dg... Permit 01-3422 Plan Check 01-3445 Surch./Adm. 01-3446 SAC/Adm. 01-2155 Surcharge 17-3860 Road Unit 20-2275 SAC 20-3865 Water Conn. 20-3868 Water Trmt. 20-3716 Water Meter 20-2252 Acct. Dep. 20-3713 Water Permit 20-3743 Sewer Permit 79-3866 Sewer Conn. 11-3855 Park Ded. ? I ! i TOTAL ? I _ ._..__,,, ..... T ?.?.. . -..-._? -r ? . _.. tA .T. U,F?1`i-,AROUND i s RLTQU i RED CITY OF EAGAN ? ,_, 3830 Pilot Knob Road, P.O. Box 21-199, Eagan, MN 55121 PHONE: 454-8100 BUILDING PERMIT To be used for SF FJ $66,000 Receipt # Site Address 4374 RAtiiv i2D Erect 0( Occupancy R3 Lot-104lock 1 Sec/Sub. 1ti1EA1]i YV3`L.A11Tos 1 Sremodel ? Zoning R 1 Parcel No. Repair ? Type oi Const. 'VTr- a W 2 3 0 c OV U¢ ? Addition ? No. Stones Move ? Length 38 Name MRTIlV SCI3UTROP CONST Demolish ? Depth ?? Address 727-0 HUIVTERS RU IV Int. Impr. ? Sq. Ft. City EDEN FhAZ?LE 93 4-$933 Install ? Aoorovals Fees Name QtLUM Address F W ?me PHIt.i, t PS PLr`?0,?"d SERV 1CE ? z Address iW City A-V- Phone 4432-2044 I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state thatthe information is correct and agree to comply with all applicable State of Minnesota Statutes and Ciry of Eagan Ordinance,5. ? Signature of Permittee A Building Permit is issued to: 1"1P-qTI'J SCHU all work shall be done in accordance with all applicable Assessment Water 8 Sew. Police Fire Eng. Planner Council BIdg.Off. 6/1J/8? APC Var. Date 12150 ?{. '0 , iy $6 Permit S 331.00 Surcharge 33.010 Plan Review 165.5C SAC 575.0(J Water Conn. 500.OQ Water Meter 63.5C Road Unit 290• OC Tr. Pi. 156. UtJ Parks Copies Total $1 .114 . UQ ? CON5T on the express condition that of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances. Building Official I PermM No. PermM Holder Date Telephone M PlumWn9 IH.V.A.r^ Elect?ic ?-7 FL ?.' 4 Soltener Inspection Date Insp. Comments Foodngsl 1 117,1, Footinys 11 I Foundatbn Framing Rooifng Rough Plby Rouyh Hty. Insul. ? f Finplace Final Htg. ? Final Plbg. Bldg. Final ` Cer1. Occ. Deck Ftg. IDeck Frmg. Well Describe Locatlon: Pr. Dlsp. . .. . , , . . ... ?S ,? .-.. :.,,,. ._ . . .-. : _... __!i.-.... .i . ,q m. y- -•.q, . .- . . . .... .? . il ? . • • ' PERMIT # 7 `f MECHANICAL PERMIT RECEIPT # CITY OF EAGAN 3830 PIL MN 55121 DATE: OT KNOB ROAD EAGAN , , CONTRACT P CE: PHONE: 454-8100 Site Addre ?? ? ? 1??? BLDG. ?YPE WORK DESCRIPTION ?- z -u Lot lock Sec/Sub ?. r r ? ?R ? N ew es. ? Name Mult Add-on m Address Comm. Repair c City J Phone ? Other ? Name INAt ti = , ' FEES c Addre W a i," ; A RES. HVAC 0-100 M BTU -$24.00 p Ciry ?/"' ?r/? Phone ADDITIONAL 50 M BTU - 6.00 ADD-ON AIR COND. 0-24 BTU - 12.00 ADDITIONAL 6 M BTU - 6.00 TYPE OF WORK F~?i GAS OUTLETS - 1.50 EA. Forced Air M BTU COMM/IND FEE - 1% OF CONTRACT FEE Boiler M BTU MINIMUM - RESIDENTIAL FEE - 10.00 Unit Heater M BTU MINIMUM - COMM/IND FEE - 20.00 Air Cond. M BTU STATE SURCHARGE PER PERMIT - .50 (ADD $.50 S/C IF PERMIT PRICE GOES Vent CFM BEYOND $1,000.00) Gas Piping Outlets # ? Other 50 ? . .. ?,• FEE L ? S/C: SIGNATURE OF PERMITTEE TOTAL: ? FOR: CITY OF EAGAN . . ., 437V CONTRACT PRICE: Site Addrgss - Lot 1 0 '4 Block ._ .':.-_ ... . ... . .,: .. . ,._r_,.,._ . . ,.. . :.. _ _ .. . .. PERMIT # PLUMBINCi PERMIT RECEIPT # CITY OF EAGAN 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, EAGAN, MN 55121 DATE: PHONE: 454-8100 ? Name ? Address c Ciry Phone ? Name _ c Address O CitY - • 13 BLDG. TYPE WORK DESCRIPTION '4) • < , ? ?i..? .- i ?. , ,= _ Res. i New Mult Add-on Comm. Repair r ' Other ,i I . J Phone FEES COMM/IND FEE - 1% OF CONTRACT FEE MINIMUM - RESIDENTIAL FEE - $10.00 MINIMUM - COMM/IND FEE - 20.00 STATE SURCHARGE PER PERMIT - .50 (ADD $.50 S/C IF PERMIT PRICE GOES BEYOND $1,000.00) SIGNATURE OF FOR: CITY OF EAGAN v NO. FIXTURES OTAL T ? Water Closet - $3.00 i ? Bath Tubs - $3.00 -? ? Lavatory - $3.00 - 17 Shower - $3.00 = 4A Kitchen Sink - $3.00 Urinal/Bidet - $3.00 r Laundry Tray - $3.00 TFloor Drains - $1.50 ' Water Heater - $1.50 Whirlpool - $3.00 / Gas Piping Outlets - $1.50 Softener - $5.00 Well - $10.00 7. Private Disp. - $10.00 i $1 ° R h O 50 ? ngs - . 4 pen oug FEE ' STATE S/C: ?` GRAND TOTAL• % _ . . ., __. ??_. r . ,-?. . . . . PERMIT 1# PLUMBING PERMIT CITY OF EAGAN RECEIPT # 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, EAGAN, MN 55122 DATE: CONTRACT PRICE: PHONE: 454-8100 Site Address /" `?- ? ?`?-- BLDG. TYPE WORK DESCRIPTION Lot!/? ? Block? ? Sec/Sub Res. New ? Mult. Add-on ? Name ?t,vlyt? ,.-?1 -.? •- Comm. Repair ?o Address PUL Other c ?C?!,a a-.,? s-? .?• j"°'?. Pl tbne - ? RES. PLBG. ONLY - COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: ? I NO. FIXTURES TOTAL Water Closet - $3.00 $ Name 1 Bath Tubs - $3.00 3 Addre? Lavatory - $3.00 p City i? ? •t -•? Phone?_Zf'j ' C. -? Shower - $3.00 % Kitchen Sink - $3.00 FEES Urinal/Bidet - $3.00 COMM/IND FEE - 1% OF CONTRACT FEE Laundry Tray -$3.00 APT. BLDGS - COMM RATE APPLIES Floor Drains -$1.50 TOWNHOUSE & CONDO - RES. RATE APPLIES Water Heater -$1.50 MINIMUM - RESIDENTIAL FEE - $12.00 Whirlpool - $3.00 MINIMUM - COMM/IND FEE -$20.00 Gas Piping Outlets -$1.50 STATE SURCHARGE PER PERMIT - .50 (MINIMUM - 1 PER PERMIT) _ l (ADD $.50 S/C IF PERMIT PRICE GOES ? Sokener -$5.00 ` r BEYOND $1,000.00) ,. Well - $10.00 Private Disp. - $10.00 Rough Openings - $1.50 SIGNATURE OF POMITTEE FEE: STATE S/C: FOR: CITY OF EAGAN GRAND TOTAL: CITY OF EAGAN 3830 Pilor Knob RoW SEWER SERVlCE PERMIT P. O. Box 21199 PERMIT NO.: 915' Eagan, MN 55121 zonir,p: RS DATE: 10- I 0-86 Ownar: Schutt'? -B?ssett No. of Untta: 3. -------------- Address: Site AddressRoad LIQ4 31 +.• Plumber. St@1t?kI73u8 f?lumbin ..-adowAand Is[ - h--2?.?-FF -57'njq o?py, w1N, ? sYns to e C?r of Eegen 1(l(;.OQPd Adtuesen, Connection Chorpe: G 7 Account Deppsit: Pe?mit Fae: 7 st {?p By Surdwrpe; `-?-- CFn.a Dcte of Inap.: Misc. ChonDm Insp.: T'otol: i Qote Pald: ? ' I . . . . . .. `_'3 CITY OF EAGAN 383,0 Pilat Knob Road WATER SERVICE PnMrr P. O. Box 21199 Eegan, MN 55121 PERMIT NO.: Ioning: _ D^TE: ; ?• _ . j n _ c ;': avner: 1 _ .. No. of Units: ' Addross: Slte /1ddrass Plum ? ber. ? _ ' t •i, ? p':. 1c7;,; i_3t1? .Y Meter- No.: Stze: Connection Charpe; -S rl`a ?0 -- Reoder No.: ^cwunt DePosiY: ? `. ns)n 1 aeew fo ean?, wIH? H, Permit Fee: ?. '. ?}ri d tj A?/lwea?, ?' of Esyee Surchorge; • c0 Mtsc. Chorpes: ?.7 G. (}{; = TF BY Total: ? i r . Dote of ''"?' Insp.. Date Paid: Insp.: ry ?; . . .. '" _ . . ; . . eJ . -. . _ R '? ? . . ? ??. .. ' . . . " -. . - .. ? . . . .. . ` ..* . ?A- ?r .. . . - ?• :\ _ .. . ".. ??t . .. , ' ' . .. , . ?h ' . . -F`Vr,r ' ' - '.iF . • . . •,? ' .. " ?.yy;4. ?, ... . . ? . ? ? -.d f . ? h z t . z ?' ?? ?? . , ? • ?? ' . 44 ? 71 : t .....,'?Fi . . • ... ._ .. ._. , , ..t . ._,. . . _,. This request void ? 'I'M 6 Request Date ? Fire No. Requhedn,Inspection []Ready Neaw ?rylAiifl kVotGfy Inspec- ? For INF R Yes ? No ren eady ?Licensed Electrical Coniractor I hereby request inspection ot a6uve ? Owner 14 '3 L electrical work installed at Streei A r s, Box or Ro e No. ?D . • City ??` ?sy ectwn o. Township Name or No. Range No. ? County Occupant (PRINT) ??-.- ? ? Phone No. I f? ?,. ? ' 4 : A Power Supplier Address ? Etec[ ' 1 Con ractor (Company Name) ntrac r?s license No. C?? ? ? C.?? 7 Mailing Address (Coniractor or Owner Making lnstailation) ? , ? Auih - igaature ( ntractor/Owner Making Installationl Phone Nambec MiNfdESOTq?qTE BOARD OF ELECTRICITY TNlS INSPECTION REQUEST WILL NOT Griggs-Midway Bldg. - Room N-191 BE ACCEPTED BY THE STATE BQARD 1827 University Ave_, St. Paul, MN 55704 UNLESS PROPER IRISPECTtON FEE IS Phone 16121 297-2117 ENCLOSED. REQUEST FOR ELECTRICAL INSPECTION Eg-JJJ?QO°Ot? ? See instructions for completing this form on back of yeftaw copy. B 32846 - - 4?Z?/?? ""X"" Be/ow Work Covered by This Request Y/? ? p Fee ServiceEntrenceSize # Fee Feeders/Subfeeders # Fee Gircuits 0 to 200 Am s 0 to 30 Am s Q to 30 Am Above 200 pmps 31 to 100 Amps 31 to 100 Amps Swinuning Pooi Above 100_Amps Above 100_AmPs Transformers Irrigation Boorrts '-G Part ial.`Other Signs iSpeclal Inspection .. " ..• ? - y 1, the Elec-trl'1 lnspector, hereby certify that tiee above Final . 47 17,,1 Date inspection has been r A. ! =3? ?dg. , fltW request void CITY OF EAGAN 3830 Pile*. Knob Road P. 0. Box 21199 Eagan, MN 55121 Zoning: _ Rl pW„er• Schutran-Bassett WATER PERMIT DATE: _ No. of Units: 1 ndd?ess: y8 7, / Stte Address: 43fs6 Rahn Road L104 Bl Meadowland lst Plumbee Steinkraus Plumbin Meter No.: .-? 76 53 Connedion Charge: 500•00p d Stze: ?:/z tr Ii'ocK Account DePosit: 15 . 00 d Reoder No.: 0 9 f ?lS? ?I Permit Fee• 10.00p d 1 agm lo eanolp wkb the Citr of Eagon Surchorge: . 50p d Ordinapces. Mtsc. CFwryes: 156.00p d TP Totol: L 6. .50n d meter ? BY ez'w Date Paid: Water Tap 50. 00}?_ Date of Insp.: Insp.: SERVICE PERMIT NO.: 8005 10-10-86 I al - /7- ?? A TURN-AROUNU IS REQUIRED CITY OF EAGAN -" ? 3830 Pilot Knob Road, P.O. Box 21-199, Eagan, MN 551 , N° 12150 PHONE: 454-8100 ? BUILDING PERMIT Receipt# To be used for SF DWG/GAR Est. value $ 6 6, 0 0 0 Date JUNE 2 0 19 8 6 SiteAddress 4374 RAHN RD Erect C? Occupancy R3 Lot 10qBlock 1 ' Sec/Sub. MEADOWI,ANDS 1STRemodel ? Zoning Rl Parcel No. Repair ? Type of Const. ? Addition ? No. Stories ¢ Name MARTIN SCHUTROP CONST Move ? Length 38 W 7 2 7 0 HUNTERS RUN Demolish ? Depth 42 o Address Int. Impr. ? Sq. Ft. CityEDEN PRJI?UJE 934-8933 Install ? o' Name SAME Approvals Fees ?°,a Address Assessment Permit $ 331.00 ? City Phone Water & Sew. Surcharge 33 . 00 FW PHILLIPS PLAN SERVICE W Police Plan Review 165.50 575 00 W Name z Fire SAC . ? Address Eng. Water Conn. 500.00 'aW City A•V- Pr,one 432-2044 Planner WaterMeter 63.50 Council Road Unit 290.00 I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and statethatthe gldg. Off. 6/13 /8 6 Tr. PI. 156.00 information is correct and agree to comply with all applicable State of Minnesota Statutes and City of Ea O dinanc . APC Parks Var. Date Copies Signature of Permittee , Total $ 2, 114 . 00 MARTI1V SCHUTR CONST A Building Permit is issued to: on the express condition that all work shall be done in accordance with all applicable Sta of Minnes ta Stat??f Eagan Ordinances. Building Official vA , ?. , i ? 1986 BIIZLDING PERMIIT APPLICATIOH - CITY OF EAG9N t NOTE: ALL CONTRACTORS M[TST BE LICENSED WITH TBE CITY OF EAGAN SINGLE FAMIILY DWELLINGS INCLUDE 2 SETS OF PLANS, 3 CERTIFICATES OF SURVEY, 1 SET OF ENERGY CALCULATIONS M[JLTIPLE DWELLINGS - RESIDENTIAL RENTAL IINITS FOR SALE QNITS INCLUDE 2 SETS OF PLANS, CERTIFICATE OF SIIRVEY - CHECg WITH BLDG. DEPT., 1 SET OF ENERGY CALCULATIONS CONIlNERCIAi: INCLUDE 2 SETS OF ARCHITECTURAL & STRUCTURAL PLANS, 1 SET OF SPECIFICATIONS AND 1 SET OF ENERGY CALCULATIONS, $2,000 LANDSCAPE BOND ? ?? To Be Used For: Valuation: Date: 37 Site Address OFFICE USE ONLY Lot laLt Block I` Parcel/Sub ?-e&6.Jut"A/tQ ??-? MOwner ( c? P ?>n4csp -"-- Address w- LV-" 2D-' City/Zip Code ??r,c?•. ?•._?i-?ar ? VNK Phone !I `{-V Q 3 A T- Contraetor dtb?? 5c-?j4pop Address a 6?4,/?,J 5 2•?v? . City/Zip Code Phone Arch./Engr. ? ?e? Address AAele pro-( City/Zip Code Erect ? Occupancy )63_ Remodel Zoning JE/ Repair Type of Const ':VW Addition # of Stories Move Length y Demolish Depth ? ? ? Int.Impr. _ Sq Ft _ Install APPROVALS FEES Assessments Permit 5?7 / Water/Sewer - Surcharge Police ? Plan Review .?? ..? Fire ? SAC . ?7 Engr Water Conn Planner Water Meter ?j Couneil Road Unit _Z?96 Bldg Off 61 Treatment P1- /,5'z APC Parks Varianee Copies TOTAL o ?? ? . 1 /orT / /? r- Phone 4? `? ,( ' ? l OJ RA) tJ N ? 1 S NOTE: ADDRESSES FOR CORNER LOTS - CONTRACTOR/HOMEOWNER MIIST DESIGNATE idHICH iDDRESS IS DESIRED. NO CHANGFS WILL BE ALLOWED ONCE BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSIIED. Z7 v LI,X lo x J-6 ---" 26xo X?? ????? 41V6 x /4? ?= ? 7-0-61 z/3 XZ /v= ? /VVX ??? ?T 77 0' i` x x F--- U ? ? ?i ? ?i ' I M ? ? Ij i? rMEW NARRr S. IOHNSON COMPANIES, INC. No?? ? BIOOMINGTON. MINNESOTA- . ? PHONE 16121 884•5341 - ` CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR , _ ,... : C: u - ic ? a (89'! 2 ) 84a.o (9ot,o) "o o y 89° I?t ig"? 148.00 __ 'lo, ov _-•, o.o ?n - ? ? Lo tNACsiE Q- . , -:jwo LiPtAT{ I o? t:A? M??J1" U / ? ( , • ' _', ; lu ? ? ? . .. ?nT I CJ4- ? ? 3e,33 I O ` ?.: r. f BBS,9 +? _ _ ?• ?? `^ ? ? * 84h.9 910 44' 3T7w , ,-• --• ? --? •1' ? .?`. ' ?' ; ,^' •,-: r-=------? ? V-Al? i . ? !??v Noi?? . IMAVNGrs sN0w't?! AM P.WSVp o? Ae-SoMra pATt-)M fv)46P1- M?-? - 040ei2r Sm?. M4. ? sµa4P iMS' V o? ?OtJ W)Ap V1,C-1/, 8So.3q (giN? Mo, 15) f'?oPo? GvAA P:4. V-X-/, 8qi,5 PlzoPmAD 7'vP oF f3L?r vtw, s42'0 W-OFv5W BSIrJ'. i SPor vLv\/ ?Sd9,o ?,tZoPvs?D 5Pv7 ???v, Lx?°,o, r ) 7'oP ?F GL? 2+3 T L; I Rot1 Fol??Jt? e IAJ-µ sr-rW ?---> I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of: Lot 104, Block 1, MEADOWLAND FIRST ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, t'J?TA County, Minnesota. As surveyed by me or under my direct supervision this 30th day of May, 1986. ? arry ,y o on, an urveyor Minnesota eg. No. 5065 ? , . . EXTERIOR EtJVELOPE AVEP.AGE "U" C0?9PUTf?TION . ?? 01•111ER. • ?' SITE ADDRESS CONTRACTOR DATE ?- 2-6Co PHOYE 93435933 - _ Determine working square foDtage of each. 1. Total exposed wal ] area "....... 1(69 e) sq. ft. x .11 = • 2. Total rDof/cei7ing area ..... (02? sq. ft, xM.o4= . . . . , .• Total exposed wa11 area above fl oor = /59U a. Total Y:a11 window area.................... ....... 57 b. Tota7 door area............................. ....... . c. "TotQ1 sliding glass door area ............ .... ._ 4 Z d. Total fiireplace wall ar-ea..........---___. .____.. e. Total wa71 framing area (average 1Dp)....... ....... 'i . . f. Total net. w31 a area above f7 oor ........... ....... g: Total rim joist area ...................... ....... ? Total eznosed foundation area f= . ' 9E? -. ? . h. Tota3- ; ; ? _found3ti on--Wi ndow area ...................... pf -i_ JDal net foundat}on= zrea abcve grade_ .:.. _ ._ _.... 99> . Deternine °U" 'va7ve cf .each wa7l seg:nent_ ; ._ X "U", . _ ? b. X nUn . = 2•-lQ: - l - - C. 'X ??(,n _ _ 46 ' _ .1/ . ? - . • - ? I - • ' t D d. x ._outi _ - ' ? . e. _ I X "un 107 - = I I ? 13.? ? - _ • , _ : X "U" • 104, ?-- - 9. 123 X t,u„ h. • x p,u,t ;. ?X .,u„ ? r 3. . .....: ..........................Total . f i s -the same as. Ol' less than itrm 11_ vott havP mpt thr intPnt ?? , 1 j? - . Total exposed roofJcei 1 i no area j. -7otal'skylight area._ - --•--•-••- " " " • area (zverage 10?).._ - ?p'Y k, Tota7 roofJ-ceiling•franing. - 1,- Total net insulated roof/ceilin9 area----------- ?'iZ7i •- . Determine "U" va7ue for each roof/ceiling segment. . X "U?? J - • k. (DZ- X @lull ?• 921/ x „u,$ . , o-, .. . ? 4.................................. 7o?a1 = Ir Lotal o f„ q i s 'Lhe same as, or 1 ess t-han f72, you hzve r:?=-t the i n 'Lent of S5C 6-U35(c)1. Alternate Suilding Envelop2 Design io uti;ize 'LLhe tota7 enve7ope system. r..'thod, thz valu°s estzhlished by the o su:9 oi :i tsms _-J3 and PM sha31 not- bz great2r.. #.han the s.im nf .i 'ems -11 and :FZ_ ? "+ 4?4 3: - 129.5? + 4: 2O-qt - - .: -? . , WAIS, CONSTRDGTZON e '?II" 1 • ? . - ? - - _ •-- ' - Construction Fig. #1' ? - - - -- - " . ? _ , - . . .R-VrLlve • ? " - 1. ?j11'f- -AIR- Fl?tY1 ? - _. • .?, - ? . ? ? : - • 2. ?1?• ?,ur?-r ?cx •? ? • ? ' . ? 3. st +' S??wa?p _ 1 - ?, ? ? 12 ? _ ? ?. .. - .?--- . _ '? . . d- . . ?• . • ? . \ . . ? . IIl(=?''' - 1111 .- Q. zS?Z FJfLT-fZITE ? Z-?(?. _ _ Fi q. e'xT- AtR Fit-M ? . l?. TOTAL "R" . n Ulr ? Construction. Fig. ? Z 2. !fZ 3. (?'? FC> il\S'JL . . 1q .OD 4. z?=.z e???T-Q?-r? . Z-o? • . ' S. •si?,?;, ' ? ^ .t?7 6. EI.-r. AIR F+c?'1 Fi . 2 TOTAL "R" . Z3 -b 3 .c4nIIn Construction Fig. 1. 1NT. A1Q F1Lfti'l -bB - F& lu 1-• - ?-?--- . : 3. soF-rw_,>n 4.: zs/37. Bu,L-r-QCM: . . - - , 7- .. . . .6 6. cxT. xitz FtL-M TOTAL "R" Z4-46 - ? -. : n Url :pq - ?? Ur . - ` Construction Fig. ?AF - 3 ? Fi g. 4 1. luT AIR Ftufi ? 2. ? iz• Pi.ac.k ? 3. ?t ?. ?D ?t??uc.- ? 1 I_ _ . 4. E a &%R Ft t.M • ? ? ._.. . ? s. - s. TOTAL "R° • . itUn ..?_nD1l i KoO= /CEILZNG CONSTRUCTIO N ' 3 4 F6 ti , ?r fl?Tl ? 1 . . R . . _:-Construction Fig. • R=Valve " 1. ?T AtRFl?-M _ - .b$ 2. B?.ow?1 ???s??-• a ? ? . 3. 21=-'-rR01r?C ' S 4. tt,rr • A ?R FtUti1 • ?_' . 5. . 6. - TOTAL "R" ? tt Ull _OZ '' Uti . . '> • Construction Fig. # ?O 1. ExT• A?tZ F11.O -LJS 2. -yz S,Frc.aa,n g '? 3. 61,00-0 ??s??• . 3b .i I - 4. 5/? _? ? . S. - It?,L T A1Q FILt? ?? ? 6. - _ TOTAL "Rn • q Z - ti Un oZ n IIn Construction Fig. 1. - 2. - 3. 4. - " 5. . 6. _ TOTAL "R" i nUn _ 1 = i?ITn - Construction Fig. ? . 1. • 2. - 3. - . 4. - 5. - 6. -- . TOTAL rrRn • IiUu _ CITY USE O1VLY LOT ? BL xECEIPT #: ?"33 / 7 SUB . ?? Ik RECEIPT DATE: S17AP 7 1997 MECHANICAL PERMIT (RESIDENTIAL> CITY OF EAGAN 3830 PILOT KNOB RD EAGAN MN 55122 (612) 681-4675 Date• Complete this section only if you are installine HVAC in single family. townhome, or condos that are under construction and are not owner /occupied. • HVAC: 0-100 M B T U $ 24.00 ADDITIQNA.L 54 M B TiJ ? 6.00 • Gas outlets ( minimum of one required @$3.00 ea.) • State Surchazge: .50 • TOTAL: Complete this section onlv if vou are remodeling, adding to, or repairing egisting single familv dwellings, townhomes, or condos. Add-on furnace Add on air conditioning Add-on air exchanger, i.e. Vanee system, etc. Other Minimum fee applie5 to 311 remodel c* add-Qns of exis'ang resiaences $ 20.00 State Surcharge .50 Total: $ 2Q.50 ? / ? SITE ADDRESS: ?5 7 U / ?Q !1 " k/, OWNERNAME: // v'M /4 6/J SA`? PHONE #: INSTALLER NAME: . PHONE #: RESIDENTIAL HEATING 8c AIR, IK STREET ,ADDRESS: CIT'Y: MiCIi????? ?? 5MI-34a ST ZIP: SIG ATURE OF PERMITTEE n„ 11,s -4?7 A,1Y CITY USE ONLY L BL RECEIPT#: SUBD. • RECEIPT DATE: : ? . 1997 MECHANICAL-PERMIT (COMMERCIAL) CITY OF EAGAN . , . ,. . - - 3830-PILOT KNOB RO EAGAN, MN 55122 , (612) 681-4675 Please complete for. • all commerciaUndustrial buiidings. ? multi-famity buiidings when separate permits are W required for each dwelling unit. DATE: CONTRACT PRICE: WORK TYPE: NEW CONSTRUCTION INTERIOR IMPROVEMENT DESCRIPTION OF WORK: FEES: ?$25.00 minimum fee gr 1% of contract price, whichever is greater. ? Processed piping - $25.00 ? State surcharge of $.50 per $1,000 of cermit fee due on all permits. CONTRACT PRICE x 1% rPROCESSED PIPING STATE SURCHARGE TOTAL SlTF ADDRESS: OWNER NAME: TELEPHONE #: TENANT NAME: (iMPROVenne?vrs oNLY) INSTALLER: ADDRESS: 181Jr ?'41?` "".?. +a nr?7! M?. CITY: Sh@t STATE: ZIP: PHONE #: SIGNATURE: SIGNATURE OF PERMITTEE CITY INSPECTOR CITY OF EAGAN APPLICATION FOR PERMIT SEWER AND/OR WATER CONNECTION c? P ease Pr nt 1) PROPERTY ADDRESS : r ? j 4\„ . LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ****#****#*#*****#********#****###*# ? . ^IOTP,: PAYMF'1r' OF F'FE AT TIME OF * ? APPLIcAzzoN DoFS Norr corszzTUTE * ,*t APPROVAL OF PF.FtNBT. . * * INSPF7GTION OF SEWII2 ADID/OR MTIIt ,*f INSTr r.ATIONS WILL N02 BE SCEED- * * ? UIM IJNTIL PgtNIIT HAS BEEN * * ? APPRWID. ? * * **********************?************* _(Lot/Block Subdivision or Tax Parcel ID ) . IF EXISTING STRL'C.'Ii]RE, DATE OF ORIGINAL BLTILDING PERMIT ISSL'ANCE: -- PRESEI?Tr ZONING/pROPOSID L'SE: (?n r . Q CAMMEZCIAL/RErAIL/OFFICE M--R-1 SINGLE FAMILY . C2 INIDL'STRIAL [:3 R-2 DL'PLEX (Two Onits) n INSTIZi'TIONAL/GOVERIZEM ? R-3 rMWMOL?SE (Three + Units )( Onits ) . ? R-4 APARTNM/CONIDOMIIVIL'M ( Units ) 2, M ... . . NAM: (-,j Y L n'l'? ? ? (j, . ? • ADDRE.ss: 42 Iz ? _ . CITY, STATE, ZIP: PHONE: L,.k - 3) u i: ?• - NAN1E: ADDRESS : c'I -) 0 CITY, STATE, ZIP: M - PHONE: 01 '3 C\ s- s ')u-0 MASTER LICENSE# 4) •*« • • NArE: ? ror uity Use P1umUers License: Active . Expired Not recorded St Initial _ ADDRESS: . • CITY, S'rATE, ZIP: PHONE: ' t :? v? ? a: • ?• : ae • ?• 0,8 CONNEC.'TION 70 CITY SEWII2 NNECI'ION TO CITY WATER O'I'fM v' • t v. 6) ? • r ; • i ? Pi.F.ASE HOLD APPROVID PERMIT F'OR PICK-LiP BY ONE OF AB(7VE -- MPLEA.SE MAIL APPROVID PERMIT M 1, 2, 3?p?4, ABOVE : (Circle one) . 7) r. r. u• - :.?C `1: .?IY' .I: ?au.i ¦. • `?•?1 . '. • I i.+t a 011 •; D^I:a• ?? P Y9i• JI• tk! ? - - ? I :r.'t .1 ? ! _ :r r _ ?. . ..? ti ZTt ??? .A^ ? • ? ? .+? ?1 11 Y ? •?? .FOR CITY USE ONLY PERMIT # ISSL'ED S- Pd w/Bldg. Permit $ $ $ $ _ $ $ $ S s 5 7S -oo $ $ $ $ / 5? • c;c? $ C S /2-- RECEIPT FEES: $ S 6 SEWER $ WATER $ ' WATE? $ 0 W.TER $ SEWER f. ? PERMIT (INCLLDE SL'RCHARGE) . j, . PERMIT (INCLLDE SL'RCHARGE) . METER/COPPERHORN/OL'TSIDE READER TAP (INCLL'DE CORPORATION STOP) TAP $ ACCOLNT DEPOSIT - SEWER $ ACCOL'NT DEPOSIT - WATER $ WAC $ SAC $ $ $ . $ $ $ $ = t???3 RECEIPT TRLNK WATER ASSESSMENT - TRUNK SEWER ASSESSMENT LATERAL BENEFIT/TRL'NK SEWER - LATERAL BENEFIT/TRLNK WATER WATER TREATMENT PLANT SLRCHARGE OTHER: TOTAL DOES LTILITY CONNECTION REQLIRE EXCAVATION IN P(JBLIC RIGHT OF WAY? ? YES IF YES, THEN A"PERMIT FOR WORK LdITHIN PLBLIC ROADWAY" MLST BE ISSLED BY THE ENGINEERING F7 NO DIVISION. LIST AS A CONDITION. SLBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: APPROVED BY: , TITLE: DATE : ??o" ?ay a f Paul & Deborah Notermann 4374 Rahn Rd Eagan, NN 55122 (612)456-0542 Eagan City Council Eagan City Hall Dear Mayor and Council members: ? 10? June 18, 1991 In researching the value of our home with two Realtors and one state licensed appraiser we have learned our market value has decreased because of the increased width of Rahn Rd. Obvious detriments have occurred to our home value because of this unnecessary increase and repair of Rahn Rd South of Diffley. Furthermore, it is important to point out we protested this project from the start. Rahn Rd south of Diffley was not in need of repair. This is to serve as notice of our objection to theassessment of $2801.58 from project 584. The residents of: Meadowland-=lst-Addition f Lo_t-- 104-- BLK 1?-- - - -? w Lmaxail-o Paul Notermann & Deborah L. Notermann ? ? MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS . FROM: CIT'Y ADMIIVISTRATOR HEDGF.S DATE: MARCH 17, 1992 SUBJEClI': ADMIrTISTRATIVE AGENDA FOR iVIARCH 17, - 1992 ItEGULAR CI1Y COUNCIL MEETING CITY ATTORNEY ' . ? There are no items for an executive sassion at this time. Hawever, the Mayor, City Council and City Attorney have reserved tbe right to call an executive session to address any matters of pending litigation if desired. CITY ADMIrTISTRATOR 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 entitled 'Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs" enclosed on pages ?adthrough 2.25- ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the issuance of a check to the appellants in the sum of $5,593 as ordered. by Judge Mansur. Item 2. Heller v. City of Eagan Assessment Appeal The City has received a Stipulation and Order resolving the Heller v. City of Eagan assessment appeai which in summary causes the Heller parcel to be reassessed from its levied assessment of $49,277.80 to $40,000 and to be proportionately divided up among all of the assessed items as presented in the enclosed memo. Enclosed on pages= through2U is a capy 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 Sdpulation and Order. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deiry a resolution that the Heller parcel be reassessed from its leyied assessment of $49,277.80 to $40,000 which in essence approves a Stipuladon for Settlement resohring the Heller assessment appeal. Item 3. Northview-Building F'ire Restoration Coatract/Defautt to Contractual Obligations-- As the City Counril recalls, the Northview Park Buildi.ng sustained eonsiderable damage as a result of a lightening strike and fire during tbe summei of 1991. Beaoon Builders ' Incorporated were awarded a bid in the amount of $8,883 to oorrect the damage snd assured staff that the 60 day vompletion timeframe was adequate to finish the - project. Unfortunately, the 60 day construction period expired and staff is of the opinion that the contractor did not meet its oontractual obligations which are now impendi.ng the Gity's operational needs for the building. For addidonal information on why staff is requesting ?/ ? R STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT. COUNTY OF DAKOTA -------------- FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT - ------ In Re: Assessments ---- for ---------------- Project -------- ---------------- File No. C5-91-7756 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction, adopted by the City of E agan on FINDINGS AND ORDER June 18, 1991 : ? AkiENDID JIIDGMEN'r Name Address P.I.N. Nathan R.'Benoy 4372 Rahn Road 10-707775-020-01 Gregory/Cindy Cox 4369 ftahn Road 10-16703-250-01 Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road 10-16703-220-01 Dean/Karen Goche 4065 Rahn Road 10-16702-170-07 Darrell/Pat Haines 3990 Rahn Road 10-16704-110-03 Robert/Antoinette Keeney 4370 Rahn Road 10-70775-010-01 Vernon/Janet Nelson 3996 Rahn Road 10-16704-100-03 Paul/Deb Notermann 4374 Rahn Road 10-48050-104-01 Brian/Carrie Olwein 4363 Rahn Road 10-16703-240-01 Mary ftock 4339 Rahn Road 10-16703-200-01 Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn ftoad 10-16702-080-03 Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft 4345 Rahn Road 10-16703-210-01 Appellants, vs. City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, Respondent. Motion of Appellants for an award 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. ? ?'Yl c?,.? ?g c ,?- 1 ROGER W, SAMES, CouR Adnun:strztor -- ,:? rr - 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.y 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. ORDEBS 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 ' -- DATED: 2-28-92 BY THE COURT: . AMEDTDID JIIDGMENT ` I hereby certify that the above Order modifies the ABTIN J MAN R Judgment ente:eci Jan 24-1992 and along with that '" X judge Dis rict Court Judgment constitutes the Amended Judgment of the Court.` Date: March 2nd 1992 MEMORANDUM . Roger W. Sames, Crt Admr By hief Deputy (Seal) Costs an is urse nts - At oral argument the issue was not the amount or the reasonableness since i.t 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 Distric.t Court, the prevailing party...shall be allowed reasonable disbursements paid or incurred, including fees and mileage for service oY 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 t effect may be given to both. In addition, this Court concludes that where a conflict between two provisions is irreconcilabZe, the special provision shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision. Finally, in this particular case, the provisions of Minn. Stat. 549.04 and 429.081 are not irreconcilable and, pursuant to the specific provisions of Minn. Stat. 645.26, this Court construes each so that effect may be given to both of the aforementioned statutes. While the City's argument is one of inerit, under the facts of the case the Court is persuaded that the Appellant land owners are entitled to reimbursement and it is so ordered. 9 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Deanna Kivi FROM: Annette M. Margarit DATE: March 9, 1992 RE: Rahn Road Assessments Enclosed please find the Waiver of Notice provided by attorney Howard Groves on behalf of the Rahn Road Appellants in which.they waive any public hearing for the purpose of reassessing the parcels. With this document, you may proceed to direct Dakota County to reassess the parcels. I have also included a copy of the Court's Order and post-trial Order indicating that the parcels should be reassessed in the sum of $0. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to call. ANIlMJ wkt cc: Tom Hedges Gene VanOverbeke ` STA'iE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: 10 OTHER CIVIL (SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEAL) In Re: Court File No. C5-91-7756 Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction WAIVER OF NOTICE adopted by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991: Name Address Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road Gregory/Cindy Cox 4369 Rahn Road Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road Dean/Karen Goche 4065 Rahn Road Darrell/Pat Haines 3990 Rahn Road Robert/Antoinette Keeney 4370 Rahn Road Vernon/Janet Nelson 3996 Rahn Road Paul/Deb Notermann 4374 Rahn Road Brian/Carrie Olwein 4363 Rahn Road Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn Road Mark/Kathy Weidenhaft 4345 Rahn Road Appellants, vs. City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, Respondent. P.I.N. 10-70775-020-01 10-16703-250-01 10-16703-220-01 10-16702-170-07 10-16704-110-03 10-70775-010-01 10-16704-100-03 10-48050-104-01 10-16703-240-01 10-16703-200-01 10-16702-080-03 10-16703-210-01 ? ? The above-named Appellants, by and through their attorney, hereby waive notice of any meetings to be held by the Eagan City Council and waive any public hearing as required by Minnesota Statutes §429.071 for the purpose of adopting a resolution or taking any other necessary action pursuant to the Judgment and Decree entered in the above matter on January 24, 1992 vacating and setting aside the assessments against the above-described parcels kv and said Appellants further hereby specifically consent to the adoption of any resolutions or the taking of any other action which may be necessary to vacate and set aside the assessments against the above-described parcels. DATED: ? - 41 ? -?- I ?. Howard J. Grov Attorney for Appellants 260 Skyline Square Building 12940 Harriet Avenue South Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 (612) 890-2477 Atty. I.D. No.: 38313 2 ucs•100 ?4-"l • Nosrm d Fi4+a. RrWr. Coc?+Ynq rMR HOWARD J GROVES ATTY AT LAW STE 260 SRYLINE SQ , 12940 HARR.IET AVE S LURNSVILLE MN 55337 • STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAROTA NOTICE OF; (-MS ANNETTE M MARGARIT , U FI LI N Q O F O R D E R ATTY AT I.AW %Z ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 600 MIDFTAY NAT BANR BLDG : 7300 W 147TH ST 0 DOCKETING OF JUDGMENT L PI.E VALLEY MN 55124 ` Court Flle No.; C5-91-7756 ' ASSESSMENTS FOR PROSECT 584, RNOWN AS RAHN RD RECONSTRIICTION ETC. iN RE' NATHM R BENOY ETAL V CITY OF EAGAN ETC. C? lrbu are herebY notlflad thet on JANUARY 24TH 1992 1 g an Order was duly flied ln the above entitled mattsr. XE3 You ere hereby notlfled that on' JANUARy 24TH 1992 , 19 a Judgment wea duly anterod In the above eniltfed matter. _ ? You are hereby notlflad that on , 18 a Judgment was duly docketed In the above enqtled matter !n the amount ot $ A true and correct copy of thfa Notlca has been sarvad by mall upon the partles named herein at the iast known addresa of each, purauant to Mlnnasota Rules of Clvll Procedure, Rule 77.04. Oated• JANUARY 24TH 1992 ROGER W SAMES Court Administrator ? Deputy wu a,.• FAe ttds ? ? day oi G R; ,D l ROGER A ER Court A[min;;trator - ? . 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT In Re: Assessments for Project, 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction, adopted by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991: Name Nathan R. Benoy Gregory/Cindy Cox Irene Gillespie Dean/Karen Goche Darrell/Pat Haines Robert/P,ntoinette Keeney Vernon/Janet Nelson Paul/Deb Notermann Brian/Carrie Olwein Mary Rock Ron/Lorri Trenary Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft Address 4372 Rahn Road 4369 Rahn Road 4351 Rahn Road 4065 Rahn Road 3990 Rahn Road 4370 Rahn Road 3996 Rahn Road 4374 Rahn Road 4363 Rahn Road 4339 Rahn Road 4137 Rahn Road 4345 Rahn Road Appellants, , vs. City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, P.I.N. 10-70775-020-01 10-16703-250-01 10-16703-220-01 10-I6702-170-07 10-16704-110-03 10-70775-010-01 10-16704-100-03 10-48050-104-01 10-16703-240-01 10-16703-200-01 10-16702-080-03 10-16703-210-01 Respondent. The above-entitled motion for amended findings or in the appeared on behalf of the City. alternative, a new trial came on for hearing an 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 for Appellants. Howard Groves, Attorney-at-Law, Based on the arguments, the memoranda, 1 File No. C5-91-7756 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JIIDGMENT affidavits and the Fle this day 01 19 -fl, D, ROGER W. SAMES, court adminlstntot BY 1"95 . 1?' - .... 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 l. That the Respondent City's Motions be and the same are ,ereby denied in their entirety. 2. The following Memorandum is hereby incorporated by -eference. 3. That the Court Administrator shall forthwith enter ludgment accordingly. )ATED: January 23, 1991 BY THE COURT: TIN J. S udge of is ict Court -- rEMORANDIIM Those proposed "technical" amended Findings which are not 4ermane to the determination of the trial's outcome have not been 3ddressed herein. The Court recognizes that there are two sides to this issue, and the City's case was fully, competently and fairly presented , w 2 to the Cdurt. Appraisll of the properties wag of the greatest import to the faCtfindex. As artiaulated in this Msmorandum and in the December 18, 1991 Findintgs, Qrder and Memdrandum, in the factfinclor 's view, the facts; tetld to suppoxt Appellants. The crux of Appellants' olaim is that the city ungairly assezged them for stxeet improvements. The atandard Por valid speCial assessmants is: (1) the ].and musit receive a apecial benefit from the improvement being aonstxucted; (2) the ass4ssment must be uniform upon the same alass of praperty, and (3) the assessinent may not exceed the speaial benePit. clrlsorL= Lana R?a ty Co. v. city of Windom, 307 Minn. 358, 369, 240 N.W.2d 517, 519 (Minn. 1976). Special benefit is measured by the inc;rease in the market value of the land owing td the improvement. id. Yn appraising the aubject property, an appraiser determines what 'a willing buyex' would pay a willing saller tor ths propsrty before, and then after, the improvement has been conatructed. ?. While the government entity is presumed to have set the assessment legally, an appellant may overcoiiie tha presumption by intrQduaing cpmpetent evidence that the assessment is greater thari the inorease i.n market val.ue o£ the prdperty due to the impxovem$nt. Id. These are the criteria whivh the Court applied to the facta presentad at trial. It shouia be noted that in its Memaxandum supporting its motion for a new tria1 or amendecl.findings, the Gity 're1ies on Villaq,; f .1irta v. Joggph, 264 MiriYl. 84, 199 N.W.2d 809 (1962). zn that casa, tha residsnts whose property abutted the improvad 3 zcio IHUN3D-1JI 1m loI J1S I Q 0o u10>iHa 9i :RS ZSiLEi TO length of France Avenue objected to special assessments for • widening and paving of the street. Minnesota's Supreme Court stated the 1aw in Villaqe of Edina, without setting out a standard or formula, by saying that "[tJhe 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. ; i Both parties attempted to establish evidence of the ? ? properties' market value. Appellants' expert, Mr. Daniels, I 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 partieipate in this action, which was bought in 1988 (before improvements) and sold in 1991 (after improvements) failed to achieve that 11.5% increase. The City used this home in its effort to show that some increased value occurred. But the home's appreciation plus the cost of the improvements was significantly less than the price needed to justify the 11.5% average sale price plus the assessment cost. Mr. Daniels's credentials, his testimony and his exhibits were persuasive. That evidence indicated that the Rahn Road improvements had not only not benefitted the Appellants' properties but that the real market value of the properties had been adversely effected. Where no benefit is conferred by the , improvement, no special assessment is permitted. The City, on the other hand, offered evidence which was less persuasive. The City's well-qualified- expert, Mr. Metzen, testified based upon more general presumptions. about the individual properties. He did not inspect or appraise the specific homes which were assessed but rather relied on square . footage and frontage statistics to determine.comparable prices. He further generalized from his comparables, using smaller homes, based on square footage, to generalize fair market value for larger homes. In its position as the finder of fact, the Court must choose one party's evidence over the other. Appellants' more specific 5 testimony was simply more convincing. The determination of Rahn Road as a"collector" street and the width of the improved road could be relevant as to whether the improvements directly caused increased traffic, if the Court had relied on that information alone, which is not the case. The Court found, based on testimony from residents and real estate experts, that Rahn Road changed after the improvement from a quiet street to one on which traffic increased. Determination of the date that it was designated' a"collector" street and the exact width of the street are not significant to the Court's decision. Again, the criteria for the assessment must be whether the improvement benefitted the property, and the evidence indicated it did not. Finally, the method of assessment is not pertinent to the Court's conclusion that there is no benefit to the homeowners from the improvement. Any asssessment, regardless of its formula, is invalid. , 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DI5TRICT ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Appellants, vs. City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, Respondent. ---------------------------------------- File No. C5-91-7756 FINDINGS OF FACT. CONCLIISIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JIIDGMENT P.I.N. 10-70775-020-01 10-16703-250-01 10-16703-220-01. 10-16702-170-07 10-16704-110-03 10-70775-010-01 10-16704-100-03 10-48050-104-01 10 16703-240-01 10-16703-200-01 10-16702-080-03 10-16703-210-01 r --• ? rassm _d7y 07 `l. ftL'uEFi 11. uAtriES. Cotut AdnAtiisaatur OY_.GZS.--I.-L.?aa= Gu•J'? Y -------------------- 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 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 Projec.t as proposed by the city council included the widening, grading, base and bituminous resurfacing, curb and gutter and utility improvements on Rafin' Road between Beau 'D Rue Drive and Shale Lane. 2. That Appellant Nathan R. Benoy is the owner of a parcel of land abutting 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 Y 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 1 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 og Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 17, plock 7, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota.. Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied` against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $4,178.20. The 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 tha owners of 3 ? ? a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and t 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 followss 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 2oned 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 i . 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 3egally described as follows: Lot 24, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against-said property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcei 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, t Minnesota. ? Said Appellant has 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the • amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 ` per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. . " . ? . 12. That Appellants Ron and Lorri Trenary are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 8, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 195.21 feet of frontage'on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against -such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $6,010.52. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 13. That Appellants Mark and Kathy Weidenhaft are the owners of a parcel bf 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 _1 for residential use. 14. Upon the trial of the above enumerated appeals the City's value witnesses offered testimony as to the amount of the assessment that would be reasonable and did not specifically address the before and after value as to each property that is the subject of this appeal. Enumerated herein is a summary of the City's value witnesses. ? City's Value Witness's O„pinion Name Sq.ft. jhouse As to Amt of Benefit Benoy 1,176 $ 2,500.00 Cox 1,120 2,309.25 Gillespie 912 2,309.25 Goche 990 2,500.00 ' Haines 864 2,500.00 ? Keeney 2,184 2,500.00 Nelson 1,066 . 2,500.00 Notermann 1,112 2,500.00 Olwein 1,008 2,309.25 Rock' 1,236 2,309.25 Trenary 912. 21500.00/3,000.00 Weidenhaft 1,232 2,309.25 14. That the Appellant's value witnes follows: Name I3efore Value Benoy $ 99,500.00 Cox 89,000.00 Gillespie 72,500.00 Goche 80,000.00 Haines 72,500.00 Keeney. . 130,000.00 Nelson 95,000.00 Notermann ' -110,000.00 Olwein 84,000.00 Rock 85,000.00 Trenary . 74,500.00 Weidenhaft 95,000.00 Amt of Assmt. 2,617.15 2,309.25 2,309.25 4,178.20 3,694.80 3,048.75 3,694.80 2,801.58 2,309.25 2,309.25 6,010.52 2,309.25 s testif ied After Value $ 99,500.00 89,000.00 . 72,500.00 80,000.00 72,500.00 130,000.00 95,000.00 110,000.00 84,000.00 85,000.00 74,500.00 95,000.00 as 7 15. That the abutting properties enumerated herein have i 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 iacrease truck and other vehicular traffic. 18. ?That the increased traffic flow, change in the type of traffic and its attendant characteristics create hazards, noise and pollution, all of which are detrimental to abutting residential properties. 19. That the overall evidence shows that the fair market value of the Appellants' property did not change in the before and after value following in the installation of the improvement, that is, the improvements did not increase the value of the Appellants' property. • 20. That by reason thereof, the City of- Eagan Improvement Project No. 584 did not specifically benefit each of the Appellants' properties. CONCLIISIONS OF LAW 1. That the assessments levied against the Appellants' properties be and the same are hereby vacated and set.•aside. 2. The following Memorandum is incorporated herein by ref erence . 3. Let judgment be entered accordingly after - a stay of 30 8 days. , DATED: 12-18-91 BY THI: CODRT: TIN IIJudge J/U1=R ict Court rlEMORANDIIH The assessment of benefit to Appel.lants' properties as indicated in the assessment roll was sufficien9ly countered by ' Appellants to require the fact issue as to the reasonable value of the property assessed before and after the improvement, and to what extent the properties may have benefitted. In considering the evidence of the before and after value, greater weight was given to the testimony of the Appellants' witnesses. Mr. Daniels formed his conclusions as to the market value of the respective properties in the year the assessment roll was adopted. His opinion as to the properties was further supported by realtors active in the sale of residential homes in the area, one of whom testified that the improvements of Rahn Road changed the character of the neighborhood, and this change impacted in- a- negative manner as to value of the Appellants' properties. In addition, one or more of these realtors cited actual sales listing experiences to further support their testimony. , . Mr. Metzen's opinion as to value is based upon his knowledge 9 . as to the builder of the homes in the area, and the type of homes , the builder constructs. He elected not to inspect the subject homes. Additionally, the city offered no testimony in the before and after value of the individual parcels. Its expert testimony was based on a sale or sales that were not too remote in time but were not within the affected time frame; that is, at or near the improvement, or subject to the improvement. Mr. Metzen took into , consideration his knowledge, his experience, the type of homes that the builder whom he was acquainted with constructs, and then the sale or sales. that he relied on as comparables,to the subject properties in forming an opinion as to whether the assessment, as adopted by the city, met the statutory requirements. One should note that his opinion is that the assessment as adopted by the city did not for the most part meet the statutory requirements. As his testimony indicated, for most of the parcels he formed an . opinion that if there was a benefit, it was less than the assessment levied by the city. Both value witnesses considered the rate of inflation and the flat real estate market in arriving • at their conclusions. ' It is this Court's view that the difference between the conclusions reached is that the city's value witness considered the availability of the use of the improvement rather than the increase in value. Additionally, it should be noted. that the Appellants' value"witness submitted written appraisals for each parcel in support of his opinion as to value in the before and the after, whereas the city's value witness testified from his 10 ` , ' .. . • y ' ? • r knowledge of the area, the builder whom he was acquainted with, .? and some comparables, and then he concluded that the properties benefitted in the amount that he testified without regard to the before and after value as to each. It should be noted that five of the parcels have 75 foot frontage and the square footage for each of tYie 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 ,. ? uv- ioo1i+iI . ?' ? ??71 ? ? M?Q, (,I+Ary? ?Ot11ha : rHOwAxn 1 cxOVEs ATTY AT LAW STE 260 SKYLINE SQ 12940 HARRIET AVE S LBIIRNSVILLE MN 55337 ?o - YPDSo - io y- O? BTATE OF MiNNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA NOTICE OF; 9 FILINO OF ORDER O ENTRY OF JUDGMENT O DOCKETING OF JUDCiMENT , J '"? /r - - • ? ,1 - rANNETTE M MARGARIT ATTY AT LAW 600 MIDWAY NATL BANK BLDG 7300 W 147TH ST ( APPLF. VALLEY MN 55124 0 Couti FlI• No.: C5-91-7756 i N R E: NATHAN R. BENOY ET AL V S. CITY OF EAGAN ETC. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLIISIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JIIDGMENT Ybu am heroby nodtlad ihat on nFCFNMFR 18'?'R - 19 91 an Order 'e wss duly fllad tn the above enlitled matior. ? Ybu ere horoby notlMed lhnt on s Judflmenl wna duly enleroci In the_e.bove entlUad maHer. ? You nro heroby notlMed lhet on -- 19 a Judpment wa.e duly dxketed In the above entlUed matler in the amount ol $ .01 . l A lrve nnd correcl copy of Ihie Noltoe hae been served by mall upon the parilee nsmed hersin at ths. lasl known eddri"s of oach, purevanl to Mlnneaola Rulea ol Clvll Ptocedure, Ruis 77.04. Deled, DECIIMBER 18TH 1991 Frs?ts /8 t? ? Oy iQ.r ) _ ts-U> ccGER w. s+uMEs, oM ,&*dgrdX BY ? ?''-4 ^ I cF,TtY ROGER W. SAHI:S Court Administrator by ??? .. Deputy w" aM °,? - 4 6 \ - (%I lto%v - '3 ?, 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 ZINDINGS OF FAGT. CONCLIISIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JUDGIKENT P.I.N. 10-70775-020-01` 10-16703-250-01' 10-16703-220-01'. 10-16702-170-07 10-16704-110-03' 10-70775-010-01 10-16704-100-03 10-48050-104-01 10-16703-240-01 10-16703-200-01 10-16702-080-03 10-16703-210-01, Appellants, rneft Ze- ty vs. ? 19.2/. ROuER W. SAGAES. ooutt AdmtnMUaca City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, By GLI Urr 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. Margarilk-., its attorney. The Court having considered the evidence adduced at trial, having examined the evidence offered by the respective parties and all the records of the proceedings, and being fully advised, makes the following: -- FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the above-named property owners appealed from a Special Assessment levied by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991, for Project No. 584. The Project as proposed by the city council included the widening, grading, base and bituminous resurfacing, curb and gutter and utility improvements on Rahn Road between Beau 'D Rue Drive and Shale Lane. 2. That Appellant Nathan R. Benoy is the owner of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as: Lot 2, Block 1, Sons Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellant has 85 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,617.15, and the highest and best use of said parcel is residential. 3. That Appellants Gregory and Cindy Cox are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as: Lot 25, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. 2 Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontaga on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use, and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 4. That Appellant Irene Gillespie is the owner of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 22, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellant has 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 5. That Appellants Dean and Karen Goche are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 17, Block 7, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. ; Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontaqe 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 for , residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel if for residential use. 9. That Appellants Paul and Deb Notermann are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 104, Block 1, Meadow Land, First Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 90.98 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,801.58. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 10. That Appellants Brian and Carrie Olwein are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: . Lot 24, Block 1, Cedar_Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. . Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property, was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 11. That Appellant Mary Rock is the owner of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: 5 % Lot 20, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4,,Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellant has 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 ` per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is 2oned 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 ownezs of- a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 8, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 195.21 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $6,010.52. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 13. That Appellants Mark and Kathy Weidenhaft are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road • and legally described as follows: ; Lot 21, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County Minnesota. Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best tise of said parcel is 6 for residential use. 14. Upon the trial of the above enumerated appeals the City's value witnesses offered testimony as to the amount of the assessment that would be reasonable and did not specifically address the before and after value as to each property that is the subject of this appeal. Enumerated herein is a summary of the City's value witnesses. Citv's Value Witness's Ovinion Amt of Name Sq.ft. /house As to Amt of Benefit ssmt. Benoy 1,176 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,617.15 Cox 1,120 2,309.25 2,309.25 Gillespie 912 2,309.25 2,309.25 Goche 990 2,500.00 4,178.20 Haines 864 2,500.00 3,694.80 Keeney 2,184 2,500.00 3,048.75 Nelson 1,066 2,500.00 3,694.80 Notermann 1,112 2,500.00 2,801.58 Olwein 1,008 2,309.25 2,309.25 Rock 1,236 2,309.25 2,309.25 Trenary 912 2,500.00/3,000.00 6,010.52 Weidenhaft 1,232 2,309.25 2,309.25 14. That -the Appellant's value witness testified follows: Name Before Value Benoy $ 99,500.00 Cox 89,000.00 Gillespie 72,500.00 Goche 80,000.00 Haines 72,500.00 Keeney 130,000.00 Nelson 95,000.00 Notermann 110,000.00 Olwein 84,000.00 Rock 85,000.00 Trenary 74,500.00 Weidenhaft 95,000.00 After_Value $ 99,500.00 ; 89,000.00 72,500.00 80,000.00 72,500.00 130,000.00 95,000.00 110,000.00 84,000.00 85,000.00 74,500.00 95,000.00. as , 7 ? 15. That the abutting properties enumerated herein have borne prior street resurfacing, curb and gutter assessments. 16. That prior to the improvement, Rahn Road was a quiet, residential street. 17. That the improvement established Rahn Road as a heavy capacity roadway, invited and did, in fact, substantially increase truck and other vehicular traffic. 18. That the increased 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. 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 TfiE COURT: JA,. /t'l SIIR INA IKARTIN ' Judge o Di trict Court !?lSORANDUli 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 of Rahn Road changed the character of the neighborhood, and this change impacted in a negative manner as to value of the Apgellants' properties. In addition, one or more of these realtors cited actual sales listing experiences to further support their testimony. Mr. Metzen's opiniori as to value is based upon his knowledge 9 ? 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. Zts 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 knowlecige of the area, the builder whom he was acquainted_with, and some comparables, and then he concluded that the properties benefitted in the amount that he testified without regard to the before and after value as to each. It should be noted that five of the parcels have 75 foot frontage and the square footage for each of the dwellings ranges from 912 square feet. to a high of 1,232 square feet. This approach appears to treat each parcel the same, regardless of size, whereas in addition to the* differences noted with the properties that have 75 foot frontage, one need only review Finding No. 14 to see the further disparity. Finally, the Court has determined the assessments must be vacated for the reasons set forth herein. Therefore, it" is not necessary to determine whether the method employed by the City in computing the assessment is statutorily proper. ? . 11 . STATE OF MINNESOTA OW? C•?? Olk - ? ? z-c 7-i ? DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA ? FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: 10 OTHER GIVIL ? ;*0*PECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEAL) *40\ -A* ------------------------------- %&_ 00\ ________________________ In Re: , 01/\**Court File No. Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction adopted by the City of Eagan Q OTICE OF APPEAL on June 18, 1991 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 Ex!iibit "A" and made a part hereof. - The bases for this appeal with regard to each of the properties listed is as follows: 1. There is no special benefit to the property as a result of the "improvements". 2. The market value of the property has not been increased in the amount of the assessments adopted., 3. The assessment was not regularly and properly adopted. The property owners making this Appeal and the address and property identification number of their respective properties are set forth below: NAME ADDRESS P.I.N. Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road 10-70775-020-01 Gregory Cox and 4369 Rahn Road 10-16703-250-01 Cindy Cox Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road 10-16703-220-01 Dean Goche and 4065 Rahn Road 10-16702-170-07 Karen Goche Darrell Haines and 3990 Rahn Road 10-16704-110-03 Pat Haines Robert Keeney and 4370 Rahn Road 10-70775-010-01 Antoinette Keeney Vernon Nelson and 3996 Rahn Road 10-16704-100-03 Janet Nelson Paul Notermann and 4374 Rahn Road 10-48050-104-01 Deb Notermann Brian Olwin and 4363 Rahn Road 10-16703-240-01 Carrie Olwin Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road 10-16703-200-01 Ron Trenary and 4137 Rahn Road 10-16702-080-03 Lorri Trenary _ Mark Weidenhaft and 4345 Rahri Road 10-16703-210-01 Kathy Weidenhaft . 2 Dated this daY of JulY, 1991. . Howar J. Grove Attorney for Prverty Owners on Rahn Road 260 Skyline Square Building 12940 Harriet Avenue South Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 (612) 890-2477 Atty. I.D. No.: 38313 3 - EXHIBI_'_ :: Page 6/EAGAN C17Y COUNCIL MI4U7'ES )une 28, 1991 PRO]ECL`?384fFi]VAL:ASSE'SSM.£NT HEARiNG ,?HN kOAD R?CONSTRUCi70N After inUOduciion hy Mayor F.gae and City Administrator Hedges, D'uwor of Public Works 7'om Colbert provided a brief overview ot the asse«<*+ents and the naighborhood moeting 6e1d on 7une 11,1991. He said scventy propertics witb direct access onto Rahn Road received notices ot asscssmcnt oa this projeci. Mayor Egan then opened the public 6earing to public comment. Mr. C6arles MacDonald, of 4145 Rahn Road, said 6e had Ciled written objeMiod:fo?:the a.ssessments against his property. Mr: MacDonald said the value of h,is 6ome had actually dropped because::ot the upgiade of Ra6n Road and the resultant heavy trafTc. He said evidence of t6at is the Dakota County Asscssor'a EstGte lowering the value oi his 6ome by a S percent due to Rahn Road. . • . • . . . Mayor Egan asked Mr. Bill Petttstin' p. tbc:?Coue?ry?A3?C'ssor'a o?ce to ezplain the S percent deduceion irom propert), taxes because a number of 6omeowners had referenced it in eonnection witb t6e Rahn Road improvements. Mr. Peterson said a misunderstandiag exisls among the bomeowers as to the meaning of the S percent modifier. He said the modifier bas been uud since 1983 and was used (or propcrty along Rahn Road. It was done, however, for 1990 valuations and, t6erefore, preceeded teconstrudion of Rahn Road. T6e Dakota County Assessor's of{ice uses mass appraisa) and deaLs witb avtrages and aorms. He said they tue a standard site value and thea look at each property and add or subtr* . a;from this standard value coasidering a aumber of factors, including being located on a major.sireet;:`?fc: se3d?the County Assessor's office uses moditiers quite [requently and is not implying t6at the imprcri+cmefits oa: itahn Road had any impact on their valuations. Mr. Mark Weidenhaft, of 4345 Ra6 ittiad, 5aid..widening and improving Rahn Road had compounded the negative effect of the road on t6e'u property. 44t d #fiat_.tbe State Attorney Genera! 6as ruled that to be assessed for improvements, the City has to prove benefit io:tbe property. He said his property coWd not be wort6 more witb more UafGc. Mr. Darrell Haines, of 3990 Rahn Road, complained abaut the policy uscd for assessments, the loss of 6ome value and said additional properties on Bluestone, Carneliaa, Jade, Flint, etc. a6ould ahare in the oosts. Ms. Laurie Luconic, oi 4137 Rahn.:ftiti,sbt:6 4.46he an inf'ormal survey of other dties and found that many do aw assess by [ront footage:;,;$?ie also?ooaopll'ined6ecause the lack of double sUipirsg on the road has ied motorisLs to belitve that passing i:permisssht?: Mr. Gerard Bents, representing:Mouat C,W*vity Lutheran (hurch, objecled to the assessment against the entire cbwcb property at the public:ts4itties.`.:ratt:; :?NiE;:pi?ted out that this rale was the same as that o[ commercial propcrty. He said they have'iaaae*tbe*r2iurc?i*evaiIalile to organizations fvr meetings free o[ charge and have, as a result, generated additivnal traSic. He pointed out, 6owever, that approxdmateFy 190 feet of the frontage on Rahn Road belongs to the parsonage and fett it sboWd be usessed at a single-tamily rate. Mr. Bents wlshed to note that the f44,000 assessment constitutes LS percent of the c6urcb's annual budget. Diredor of Public Worlcs Colbert aaid the entire parcal has pno. Jcga1. desaiption and it was assessed at one ntc based on the zoning. Mr. Colbert asid tbat the Coupcsl;6&;CV?;idttiGd assestments on a d.fferent case u the last City Counril mceting and had determined that a?s.'sments sfiA3:Eitbased on zoniag. Mr. Benta asted that the City Council make an exceptian. ..... ... Councilmembet Pawleaty tben ?us,sed the situationiierred to by Mr. Cotbert. ln that iastance, if the City Council had assessed at a higher:ilsr;ptpp?etfjrovvioM.ootild havc had •assessment-bacJced expedatioas" tor a hig6er and better tue o( the propecty;::.ln s?mstaneti:ihtte is a higher zoning and the property owner is asking for asse,ssments based oa a loaer use. Director ot Public Worlrs Colbert aoted tbat if the property Page 7/FAGAN CTTY COUNCIL MINU'TFS June 28, 1991 is assessed at a lower rate aad 'u ultimaftl}%'put to a higher use, the City would not have the opportunity, once the Ac •ccmCOLS StC lCVICd l0 iC85SCSS offA.:. 110;. Mr. Terry Stover, ot 3906 Ra4.:Road, objected to the a««**+enta kvied against Outlot A of the Woodhaven Addition. He said that ondol; :does not have assess onto Rahn Road snd, furl6er, the development plan tor the property indicates that access'must be o6 Beau de Rue Drive. Mr. Stover said any possibility of access onto Rahn Road was a virtual imposcibility due to the new elevation of the road. He referred to the iau tbat several properties along Rahn Road aere not assessed because tbey had no driveway assess onto Rahn Road and said he beGeved Ouelot A was the onty one wit6out access bein,g asse,tced. He said his property has already been assessed tor improvements to Beau:Ae Rue. •` Mr. Stover t6en pointed out his:parctl's loas:of value because ot a permaneat storm sewer easemeat granted to the City. While he had receiv.ed:38,000 (i.:the easement, he said an appraiser had estimated the loss to his property at between $17,000 and 518,000. Ms. L.euie Knutsoq of 2014 Shak-1.4 . ui e;?sasd s' t fias'?b:?gaiage wi1.h acxss oR Rahn Road but 6er home 6as its drivew•ay access on Shale Lane. M3: Kd'utson'pi?ted oiit ihat two years ago ber bome was appraised at $98,000 and now the Counry tan assessor had indicated the value as 591,000. She asked wby her property values had gone dov.a. Mr. Paul Nottermaa, of 4374 Rahn Road, said it only took common stnse to realize that values had gone dowa with the widening and repairing of Rahn Road. . Mayor Egan then asked City Att9rQ7.':Sheldos.to explain the process for objuxing to assessmenls. Mayor Egan said the City Council.haci:no.eboice"tiat to malce this road improvement as Rahn Road in its previous c.onditioa was no longer funclioa3?:'#3e:"d.it:.is,one of t6e fust reconstrudion projcds in the City and the City Council has tried to adopt a cost formiila?t?a4; :t6y.beUeve equitabic to all t6ose conarned. McCrea moved, Wachtet saconded a motion to close the public bearing, approve the final assessment roll for Project 584 (Rahn Road Reconstroction) and anthoriu certitication to Dakota County. Councilmember Gustatson asked, ia regard to assessments based on parceLs rather than front footage, if Mount Calvary Lutheran C6urch oould 64ve:ibe,issue of,sin,gle family and public facilities frontage tesolved by the City or whether the court would ha?t??to:matce:th?t: ,r]?ltfm?ation. Director of Public Works Colbcrt said an assessment heuing judge would not ?vatuate t6e'?ittbod used to arrive at the assessments, 6owever, such metbod would be the prerogative ot the City Councit:'t'tatute does require tbat the City Ueat all like propertics in a similar manner and there could be a:?aUange hom the Baptist Churcb if the Gty Council assessea Mount Calvary Lulheran C6urcb st a ICSSer fatt:?:?:?... :•.•: : ; ; : :•: : : : :: : Recognizing that there aas a motioeand'a second??before the City Coundl, Mayor F.g,an aslced City Attoroey Shddon whether the City Couacil cauld incorporate some disaetionary policy in regard to the Mount Calvary Lutberan C6urch property. Mr. S6eldon said the City Couacil ooWd complete the motion and send it 0o in the process and then remove Mount Calvary Lutberan Churcb from the process st a Ister date or tbey eould request that stafT make a review of tbat .p.t?tppufU41iW,ation and return witb tbeu findiags at the nex! City Council mceting. , T6e motion betort the Council wa.t?lhen revised to ra4 McCrea moved, Wachter seconded e motion to close the pvblic hearing, approve the f;naf asussment roU forPtnjed 584 (Rahn Road Reconswction) noling all written objections, authoriu its certiftma to Dakota.Cotteit*;.aith special instructioas to ataf'f to review the situation involving the Mvunt Calvary .ibpi*tty with particutar attentioa being gaid to any precedent-setting action. .... ............ :...... 04-Jun-91 ASSESSMENT COST BREAImOWN PROJ NAME RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJ NUM P584 SA NAME ST584 F RANN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION SA NAME ST584 SA# 2183 YEARS 15 SF 30.790 /FF INT RATE .085 MF 75.160 /FF MOS 1ST YR INT 18 CI 75.160 /FF YEAR 1991 WC 15.400 /FF ASSESSMENT REC PROPERTY GROSS NET UNITS PRO-RATA RATE . AMWNT NMBR IDENT# CL UN1TS CREDITS SUBTOTAL FA ASSIBLE SHARE 1 10-01900-050-09Mf 0 0 ` 0 1 0 1 75.160 0.00 2 10-01900-031-10MF 1245 0 1245 1 1245 1 75.160 93574.20 3 10-01900-020-10CI 220 0 220 1 220 1 75.160 16535.20 4 10-01900-010-10Ci 150 0 150 1 150 1 75.160 11274.00 5 10-84700-020-01SF 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61 ? 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 1126.67 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.T90 4245.33 13 10-16700-020-09SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15 14 10-16700-030-09SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15 15 10-16700-040-09SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15 16 10-16700-050-09SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15 17 10-16700-060-091dC 0 0 0 1 0 1 15.400 0.00 18 10-16700-110-11Sf 116.18 0 116.18 1 116.18 1 30.790 3577.18 19 10-11700-010-02MF 155 0 155 1_ 155 1 75.160 11649.80 20 10-22470-010-01MF 388.87 0 388.87 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 30.790 3848.75 24 10-70775-020-01SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.T90 2617.15 25 10-16701-300-O1SF 115.7 0 115.7 1 715.7 1 30.T90 3562.40 26 10-16701-310-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2304.25 27 10-16701-320-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 28 10-16701-330-015F 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 29 10-16701-340-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 30 10-16701-350-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.T90 2309.25 31 10-16701-360-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 /lJ p4e,r ,n a n /Leen ey Be,nc/ 04-Jun-91 ASSESSMENT COST BREAKDOWN PROJ NAME RAHH 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 C1 75.160 /fF YEAR 1991 WC 15.400 /FF ASSESSMENT REC PROPERTY GROSS NET UNITS PRO-RATA RATE AMOUNT NMBR IDENT# CL UNITS CREDITS SUBTOTAL FA ASSIBLE SHARE 32 10-16701-370-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 33 10-16701-380-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 34 10-16701-390-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 35 10-16701-400-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 36 10•16701-410-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 17 10-16701-420-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.T90 2309.25 j8 10-16701-430-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 39 10-16701-440-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 40 10-16701-450-01SP 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.T90 294T.53 42 10-16701-470-01SF 90 0 90 1 90 1 30.790 2771.10 43 10-16703-180-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 44 10-16703-190-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 u R o? 45 10-16703-200-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 ^ - W?r?Q"'ha?•?- 46 10-16703-210-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 47 10-16703-220-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 48 10-16703-230-015F 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 49 10-16703-240-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 50 10-16703-250-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 Co X 51 10-16703-260-01SF 90. 0 90 1 90 1 30.T90 2771.10 52 10-16703-010-02WC 121.96 0 121.46 1 121.96 1 15.400 1878.18 53 10-16702-080-03SF 195.21 0 195.21 1 195.21 1 30.790 6010.52 54 10-16702-110-04SF 115.7 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.790 3562.40 55 10-16702-120-04SF 115.7 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.T90 3562.40 56 10-16702-170-07SF 135.7 0 135.7 1 135.7 1 30.790 4178.20 G U ?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 10-16704-100-03SF 120 0 120 1 120 1 30.790 3694.80 Ne(sa?. 60 10-16704-110-03SF 120 0 120 1 120 1 30.790 3694.80 s 61 10-02000-011-52MF 262.01 0 262.01 1 262.01 1 75.160 19692.67 62 10-16704-090-04SF 95 0 95 1 95 1 30.T90 2925.05 ? , w • RECEiVL.D :..' MEMORANDIIM TO: Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works FROM: Annette M. Margarit DATE: November 4, 1991 - RE: Rahn Road Assessment Appeal Enclosed please find Judge Mansur's Order and accompanying memorandum denying our motion to sever the twelve assessment appeals for Rahn Road that are combined into one action. The Judge seemed,to basically buy the argument that because the parties are raising the same issue, namely, that increased traffic has diminished the value of their properties, the combination is appropriate. _ The trial is currently scheduled for November 15, 1991. I understand that you will be on vacation on that date. Rather than continuing - this trial because there are so many appeals that have been set for Deeember and into January, I would prefer to have Mike Foertsch testify or get someone from Bonestroo to be available for this trial. I will contact Mike to see if he is available on that date. ANIIM/wkt :f lK!•100 ????? .. ?+?a .r r ?ro. c.+?-r, cees? Ma ? POWARD J. GROVES . . . . ' . , . ATTORNEY AT LAW ' • . SUITE 260-SKYLINE SQUARE . BTAT? O? MINNESOTA • 12940 HARRIET AVENUE SOUTH C OU MY O F DAKOTA LBURNSVILLE MN 55337 . , ' . NOTICE OFt . . X'FILINa OF ORDER • _ rANNETTE M. MARGARIT - ATTORNEY AT LAW ? EN7RY OF JUDGMEKT . ' 600 MIDWAY NATIONAL BANK BLDG • . 7300 WEST. 147TH ST C] DOCKEI'INC3 OF JUDOMEt?fr APPLE VALLEY MN 55124 • ' Court Flle No.t CS 91 7756. IN pjF; ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584 KNOWN AS RAHN-ROAD RE?ONSTRUCTION ECT. ? 1bu nro haroby noll(iod t?inl on OCTOBER 29 _ 18gi.._... an Order wna duly tlled ln tJio abovo onllUod mnltor. . . ? . . ? ? 1'bu aro horoby nolltied lhal on n.ludpmont . wa.x duly onlerod In ?ho,above onllllod motlor; ? You ero horoby notlnod Ihnl on 9 s Judpment , - . .. wu duly dockelod 1n lhe. nbove enUqad maller In lhe amounl ot ?- .? . . . A irue nnd corroct copy of Itils Nolloe hae boon eetvod by mall upon Ihe pa rllst nemed heteln &1 the ` Ie31 known nddroaa ot oactl, purounnl lo Mlnnoaola puloo ol Clvll Procoduro, Ruto 77.04. OCTOBER 29. 1991 _ ROGER W. SAHES iiatrator • bY Dalod? . Co*Pty . , . ? thts ?--?.. da? .,r ? . . e Fl ' ot ts y' . Co ROGER W. ? E, uA Ad ? ator wca 4n . ? D t • Fle this day • ROGtH 11. 51:'?SESCourt AdrNNsvatot STATE OF MINNESOTA ey DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ----------------------------------------------------------------- In Re: Assessments for Project 584, File No. C5-91-7756 known as Rahn Road Reconstruction adopted by the City of Eagan on ORDER June 18, 1991 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the undersigned on the Special Term calendar of the Court on Monday, October 28, 1991, at the Dakota County Judicial Center, Hastings, Minnesota. Annette Margarit, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Howard J. Groves, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of the Petitioners. The issue is the assessment for the improvement of Rahn Road. The parties who are identified as the Petitioners represent 12 property owners on Rahn Road and have filed a joint appeal from the assessment promulgated by the Respondent City. The City moves for severance and for separate trials for .h each of the Petitioners. Based upon the file, the record made, the file and proceedings heretofore had, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. That the Resuondent-Citv's motion be and the same is hereby denied. 2. That the following Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. DATED: 10-28-91 ;ARTIN Y T E OURT: ? UR udge f D strict Court 1 z ? • File this ?ay ol ROGER W. SAMES, Court Adrtunistrator By _ DEPUiY % MEMORANDUM The property is unique and, as such, the issue of benefits versus costs of improvements must be determined for each property exclusive of the other. Here the Petitioners apparently are residents on Rahn Road in the city of Eagan and have joined together in appealing the assessments that have been certified by the City against their subject properties for what the City alleges to be improvements by the widening of Rahn Road. The Petitioners contend that the improvements were initiated by the City to serve the primary interests of the Target store and Cub Foods store and to provide for better access to these locations. Further, the Petitioners allege that their subject property has diminished in value by reason of the widening of the road, the increased traffic to the business entities referred to herein. There being a common theme that forms the basis of the .? appeal from the assessments, it is this Court's view that.the severance would not serve the interest of all parties, including the City, but rather, would allow for an expeditious disposition of the Petitioners' appeals and if either party is aggrieved by the Court's decision, allow for the appellate process to go forward without further delay. To grant the City's motion could involve different judges for different property owners and could possibly entail different results. This would cause confusion for all and would not serve the best interest of all parties, including the City. 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works FROM: Annette M. Margarit DATE: October 30,, 1991 RE: Motion to Sever Rahn Road Appeals On October 28, 1991 I appeared before the Honorable Judge Martin Mansur to argue the City's motion to sever the twelve assessment appeals currently filed as one action. The appellants' attorney Howard Groves also appeared. Enclosed please find a copy of the papers Mr. Groves had filed for the purposes of this motion. Judge Mansurs' opening comments indicated his train of thought as he told Mr. Groves that all parcels were unique, and inquired as to why Mr. Groves believed the assessment appeals should be joined. Mr. Groves argued that the properties are very similar in location and basically are arguing the same issue that the project has not benefitted them at all but in fact has been a detriment to their property. Through some of his other questions, it seemed apparent the Judge was not totally supportive of Mr. Groves' position. The Court asked for the City's position and I reiterated the Judge's own comments namely that each parcel is unique and by the very nature of the special assessment, the City may not levy an assessment greater than the benefit to that particular parcel. I pointed out to the Court that the parcels were not all assessed the same amount indicating that they differed in some respect. I also argued that, in the event the Court did not agree that the properties had been benefitted to the amount of the assessment, the Court would need to be able to arrive at 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 nated that appellants paid only one filing fee. The Judge stated that he would take the matter under advisement and issue an order. ANIIK/wkt PERMIT City of Eagan Permit Type:Building Permit Number:EA166662 Date Issued:01/26/2021 Permit Category:ePermit Site Address: 4374 Rahn Rd Lot:104 Block: 1 Addition: Meadowlands 1st PID:10-48050-01-104 Use: Description: Sub Type:Windows/Doors Work Type:Replace Description:Two or More Windows/Doors Census Code:434 - Residential Additions, Alterations Zoning: Square Feet:0 Occupancy: Construction Type: Comments:Improvements to the home require smoke detectors in all bedrooms. If altering window openings or installing Bay or Bow windows, call for framing inspection. Call for final inspection after installation. Carbon monoxide detectors are required within 10 feet of all sleeping room openings in residential homes (Minnesota State Valuation: 5,000.00 Fee Summary:BL - Base Fee $5K $118.00 0801.4085 Surcharge - Based on Valuation $5K $2.50 9001.2195 $120.50 Total: I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the information is correct and agree to comply with all applicable State of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances. Contractor:Owner:- Applicant - Ryan R Ferguson 4374 Rahn Rd Eagan MN 55122 Renewal Andersen 1920 County Road C West Roseville MN 55113 (651) 264-4777 Applicant/Permitee: Signature Issued By: Signature