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