The URL can be used to link to this page

4345 Rahn RdCITY OF EAGAN 3830 Pilot Knob Road, P.O. Box 21-199, Eagan, MN 55121 PH O N E: 454-8100 BUILDING PERMIT To be used for • Est. Value Site Address Lot Block t Sec/Sub. Parcel No. s Name .. . ., ?., ;. W 3 Address ' ° City Phone `*': °Co . Name ? Q Address ??- City Phone ?Q ?W WW Name _z. Address e W City Phone ? 17 E , Receipt # Oate ,19 OFFICE USE ONLY On Site Sewage _ Occupancy MWCC System _ Zoning On Site Well _ Type of Const City Water _ (Actual) (Allowable) # of Stories Length Depth S.F. Total Footprint S.F. APPROVALS FEES Assessments _ Permit Water/Sewer _ Surcharge Police _ Plan Review Fire , SAC, City Engr. ____ SAC, MWCC Planner , Water Conn. Council _ Water Meter I hereby acknowledge that 1 have read this application and state Bldg. Off. _ Road Unit thattheinformationiscorrectandagreetocomplywithallapplicable ( APC _ TreatmentPl State of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances. Variance ^ Parks Copies Signature of Permittee rOTAL A Building Permit is issued to: ' on the express condition that all work shall be done in accordance with all applicable State of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances. Building Official Permit No. Permit Holder Date Telephone # Plumbin9 , ? H.v.ac. 9---1-)0& ?Y7 Electric Softener Inspection Date Insp. Comments Footings I ? / Footings II Foundation Framing Roofing Rough Plbg. OW Rough Htg. isui. %ao u> Fireplace Final Htg. Final Plbg. Bldg. Final 4/? Cert. Occ. Temp. LP Deck Ftg. Deck Frmg. WQl l Pr: Disp. I T CONTRACT Site Address MECHANICAL PERMIT CITY OF EAGAN 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, EAGAN, MN 55122 PHONE: 454-8100 Sec/Sub ? Name VtiRrY Q eL.. o Address L1-3L\ S c City ? a Phone a? c 3 O Name _ Address Cily _ TYPE OF WORK Forced Air Boiler Unit Heater Air Cond. Vent , Gas Piping Outlets # Other Phone M BTU M BTU M BTU M BTU CFM FEE: S/C: TOTAL: PERMIT # RECEIPT # ? DATE: ? BLDG. TYPE Res. Mult Comm. Other WORK DESCRIPTION New Add-on ? Repair FEES RES HVAC 0-100 M BTU -$24 00 . ADDITIONAL 50 M BTU . - 6.00 (RES. HVAC INCLUDES A/C ON NEW CONSTRUCTION) GAS OUTLETS (MINIMUM - 1 PER PERiIAIn - 1 50 EA COMM/IND FEE - 1% OF CONTRACT FEE APT. BLDGS. - COMM. RATE APPLIES . . TOWNHOUSE 8 CONDOS - RES. RATE APPLIES MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL FEE - ALL ADD-ON 8 REMODELS - 12.00 MINIMUM COMMERCIAL FEE - 20.00 STATE SURCHARGE PER PERMIT (ADD $ 50 S/C IF PERMIT PRICE GOES - .50 . BEYOND $1,000) , ; SIGNATURE OF PERMITTEE FOR: CITY OF EAGAN CITY OF EAGAN N2 3830 Pilot Knob Road, P.O. Box 21-199, Eagan, MN 55121 BIiILDING PERMIT PHONE: 454-8100 Receipt # ,.---r -7 -) To be used for ADDITION Est. Value $159000 Date SEPTEMBER 15 14171 1 g 87 Site Address 4345 RAHN ROAD OFFICE USE ONLY 21 1 CEDAR GROVE 4TH Lot BIoCk SeC/Sub. On Site Sewage _ Occupancy MWCC System _ Zoning ParCel NO. On Site Weli _ Type of Const City Water _ (Actual) s Name MARK WEINERHAFT (Allowable) w z Address SAME # of Stories Length ? City Phone 454-7664 Depth S.F. Total , p Name SAME Footprint S.F. ? Q Address APPROVALS FEES ? City Phone Assessments _ Permit $128.50 ? WatedSewer - Surcharge 7.50 W W Name Police _ Plan Review 64.25 _ ? Address Fire _ E SAC, City v ngr. _ SAC, MWCC Q W City Phone Planner _ Water Conn. Council _ Water Meter I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state Bldg. Off. _ Road Unit thatthe information is correct and agree to comply with all applicable APC _ TreatmentPl State of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinance Variance _ Parks / / ? Copies - ? Signature of Permittee'/ f • ?j/ TOTAL ? A Building Permit is issued to: MARK WEINERHAFT on the express c ondition that all work shall be done in accordance with all applica^ble SWte of Mi nnesot StaEutes and City of Eagan O ? rdinances. Building Official l XX ? .., s from D 3 9 3 81./. ?/ ,?? %So -f s Request Date ! Fire No. Rough-in Inspection Required? ?Ready Now ?ill Notify Inspec- 7 -?"9 ?Yes No tor When Ready e Licensed Electrical Contractor I hereby request inspection of above ? Owner I electrical work installed at: No. Street Address, Box City A21 l- r h lra, ? ection o. Township Name or No. Range No. Coulriy 1 Occupan RI T) Phone No. ` `t/ e ll Power Supplier Address Eiectrical Contractor (Company ame) C_ Contractor's License No. Mailing Address (Contractor or Owner Making tnstailation) ? C. ? . Authorized gnature zl-, or/O ner Making Installation) .u? /j _ Phone Number " 5 MINNESOTA TATE BOARD OF EI/ECTRICITY THIS INSPECTION REQUEST WILL NOT Griggs-Midway Bldg. - Room N.f91 BE ACCEPTED BY THE STATE BOARD 7821 Universitv Ave.. St. Paul, MN 55104 UNLESS PROPER INSPECTION FEE IS Phone (612) 642-0800 ENCLOSED. /???? REQUEST FOR ELECTRICAL INSPECTlON ?-. Ee-oooot-os 1 See instructions for completing this form on back oi yellow copy. " ;?7sv ,55 D 39381 _X" Below Work Covered by 7his Request WW4 Add j Rep. Type ofBuilding ApplinnCe`3'Wired Equipment Wired Home Range Temporary Service Dupiex Water Heater Lightin,y Fixtures Apt. Building Dryer Electrie Heatni Commercial Bidy. Fumace Silo Unloader Industrial Bldg. Air Conditioner Bulk Mitk Tank Farm otner Specify oiner Isnec+fvl t Pr $pECify OthCr Othe;r Compute Inspection Fee Below # Fee Service Entrance Size H Fee Feeders/Subfeedets SZ FP.p, Circuits 0 to 200 Amps 0 to 30 Am s 0 to 30 Am s Above 200 qm4J5, 31 to 100 Amps , po 31 to 100 Am s Swimming Pool Above 100_Amps Above 100_AmpS Transformers frrigation Booms Partial,'Other e Signs Special Inspection S ' " Remarks ??'S d TOTA ER n ? J , /J- 7 /2 F i Rough-in ate 1, the Elec ncal Inspector, hereby f Final Date certi y that the above spection hes been tn d e e. fhis request void 18 months from ? EAGAN TOWN S H I P N° 1338 BUILDING PEaZMIT Owne: •--••-- -- -• ------------------ -•-•-------•---------•-------•---------- ieEagan Township Address (present) -•-'?:?-?r.s-••---,1?._-•- - .................... Town Hall Builder ----------- ???'__ -•-•--------•••--•----•••••---•-•--•--•--••----•...-••-•--- -•• , Date _ ................. Address .............................................................. -............................... DESCRIPTION 5:ories To Be Used For Froni Depth Heighf Esi. Cost Permit Fee Remarks ?• ? ?--? ???`-D ?? ? ,?- ? ?? LOCATION Street, Road or other Descripiion of Location 1 Lot I Block I Addiiion or Traci This permit does not authorize the use of streets, roads, alleps or sidewalks nor does if give the owner or his agent the right to create any situation which is a nuisance or which presenls a hazard !o the healYh, safeYy, convenience and general welfare fo anyone in the community. THIS PERMIT MUST BE K?'.,PT O THE PREMISE WHILE THE WORK IS IN PROGAESS. This is to certify, that---••-??+--•---- -• -•-------- --•--•--°-••••----••--•---has permission to erect a---•-------•- -fi' •----•--°- • ..................... nPoa the above described premise subject fo t provisions of the Building Ordinance for Ea n Town p adopted April 11, 1955. .................................. -------°•----•• -•........... ?.°_??..?_.. Per ....._.._....... _Sc?'.._...(/..?'y'°`??....?.??_...----°•- Chairman of Tnwn Board Q,/ Building Inspector EAGAN TOV!/N SH 1 P BUILDING PERMIT Owner ............... ? -f??---•- ":?-.:. Address (presenf) ? __?_:.._. ----• •------•-•-----•--•--•--... • • •------- Builder ....... ?•--•---•------•••-•••--••-•••-••------°--------•---•--•---•-----•-•-----•--•----------• Address -••••.-••-•• ................•-••...-•-•••--••-•----••-••-----•--•------•-•-••-•-•--•--•----•-• DESCRIPTION N° 1237 Eagan Township Town Hall / Date .---//- /---.-??•--?-°--??---- 53osies To Be Used For FronY Depih Height Est. Cost ' PermiY Fee Remarks /5-? 0 !-o`? 9 ? ' " LOCATION ? Street;?Rnad-or_other Description of Location I Lo3 Block ? Addition or Tracf 4r? a.o I a-e 7 ?L This permit does not suihorize the use of streets, roads, alleys or sidewalks nor does ii give the owner or his agent the right to create any situation which is a nuisance or which presents a hazard to the healYh, safeiy, convenience and general welfare to anyone in the community. THIS PERMIT MUST BE EPT ?N.TIV PFtEMISE WHILE THE WORK IS IN PROGRESS. /yt (?•--,?.,o ?'?' .-• -•-•--•-.......__. .._ upon This is to certify, that...... ......................................................... has permission to erect a......... ?_----.._.... !he above descril?ed premise subject to the provisions of the Building Ord'anance for Eagan Towfiship adopt April 11, 1955. ............... ................. airman •-°••------••--......4j.-?"? Per ............... ---••- --•- .:u.__.....?1--- ..----•g ----- ------•-••-------------•--•---••- •--- - - Ch of T?wn $aard Q? Buildin Inspecior ?N4? 2006 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING rERMiT arrLicATioN City Of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan MN 55122 Telephone # 651-675-5675 FAX # 651-675-5694 New Construction Reauirements 3 registered site surveys showing sq. ft. of lot, sq. ft. of house; and all roofed areas (20% maximum lot coverage allowed) 2 copies of plan showing beam & window sizes; poured found design, etc. 1 set of Energy Calculations 3 copies of Tree Preservation Plan if lot platted after 7/1/93 Rim Joist Detail Options selection sheet (buildings with 3 or less units) Minnegasco mechanical ventilation form Remodel/Reqair Repuirements 2 copies of plan showing footings, beams, joists 1 set of Energy Calculations for heated additions 1 site survey for additions & decks Addition - indicate if on-site septic system t -104'PC Office Use Onlv CeR of Survey Recd _ Y_ N Tree Pres Plan Recd _ Y_ N. Tree Pres Required Y_ N On-site Septic System _ Y_ N Date Construction Cost Site Address ? 3`15 n I\ LI Unit/Ste # Description of Work Pem.ocIGLI @ T q`11 S i CG w a,G . Multi-Family Bldg _ Y X N Fireplace(s) ? 0 _ 1 _ 2 Property Owner 3-e v' c- [r?/ll Telephone #(G fz )?- 3? s 3 7 3 a Contractor uo_ v) e- kO Nxe oLoK_eK- Address City State Zip Telephone # ( ) COMPLETE THIS AREA ONLY IF CONSTRUCTING A NEW BUILDING - Minnesota Rules 7670 Cate?ory 1 Minnesota Rules 7672 Energy Code Category . Residential Ventilation Category 1 Worksheet • New Energy Code Worksheet (4 submission type) Submitted Submitted • Energy Envelope Calculations Submitted In the last 12 months, has the City of Eagan issued a permit for a similar plan based on a master plan? _ Y _ N If yes, date and address of master plan: Licensed Plumber Telephone # ( Ul FEB 16 ;;1, Mechanical Contractor Sewer/Water Contractor Telephone # ( Telephone # ( I hereby apply for a Residential Building Permit and acknowledge that the information is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City of Eagan and the State of MN Statutes; I understand this is not a permit, but only an application for a permit, and work is not to start without a permit; that the work will be in accordance with the approved plan in the case of work which requires a review and approval of plans. MeC44 Fit ik 6-2- Applicant's Print d Name Applicangnature .. . ` DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE Sub Tvpes ? 01 Foundation ? 02 SF Dwelling ? 03 01 of _ plex ? 04 02-plex ? 05 03-plex ? 06 04-plex Work Tvpes ? 31 New ? 32 Addition ? 33 Alteration ? 34 Replacement ? 07 05-plex ? 13 16-plex ? 20 Pool ? 08 06-plex ? 16 Fireplace 0 21 Porch (3-sea.) ? 09 07-plex ? 17 Garage ? 22 Porch/Addn. (4-sea.) ? 10 08-plex ? 18 Deck ? 23 Porch (screen/gazebo) ? 11 10-plex ? 19 Lower Level ? 24 Storm Damage ? 12 12-plex )W 25 Miscellaneous Tncilf'dt5-e of E'1?2:n9 T? 19 PD;"`?:? ? 35 Int Improvement ? 38 Demolish Interior ? 44 ? 36 Move Building ? 42 Demolish Foundation ? 45 ? 37 Demolish Building* ? 43 Reroof ? 46 "Demolition (Entire Bldg) - G ive PCA handout to applicant DeSCflptlOtl: Water Damage Yes Valuation ?o e) ~ &;-? > Plan Review 100% or Census Code ? SAC Units # of Units # of Bldgs Type of Const _ Footings (new bldg) _ Footings (deck) _ Footings (addition) Foundation Drain Tile ? Roof _ Ice & Water _ Framing _ Fireplace _ R.I. _ Air Test Insulation n , , Approved By: Base Fee Surcharge Plan Review MC/ES SAC City SAC Utility Connection Charge S&W Permit & Surcharge Treatment Plant License Search Copies Other Total Occupancy MCES System 25% Zoning City Water Stories Booster Pump Sq. Ft. PRV Length Fire Sprinklered Width REQUIRED INSPECTIONS _ Sheetrock FinaUC.O. ,?O FinaUNo C.O. HVAC Other Final _ Pool Ftgs Air/Gas Tests Final _ Siding _ Stucco Lath _ Stone Lath Brick _ Final _ Windows _ Retaining Wall ?uilding Inspector ? 30 AccessoryBldg ? 31 Ext. Alt - Multi ? 33 Ext. Alt - SF ? 36 Multi Misc. Siding Fire Repair Windows/Doors ' . . .. .: .: ._? ..._... .: _ . , , , <_??- y PERMIT # ? - - 'PLUMBING PERMIT RECEIPT tl CITY OF EAGAN 3830 PILOT KNOB RO AD, EAGAN, MN 55122 DATE: CONTRACT PRICE: PHONE: 454-8100 Site Adess , r G' ' BLDG. TYPE i WORK DESCRIPTION ? Lot Block ? Se Oub New f Res. t Mult. Add-on ? Name Comm. Repair ?o Address Other c Ciry Phone RES. PLBG. ONLY - COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: NO. FIXTURES TOTAL V k Water Closet - $3.00 $ 3 \ Name VC%V- Address l- V:i ki G Bath Tubs - $3.00 I p City ' 71 ri PhoneUS ?/' 766 U Lavatory -$3.00 Shower -$3.00 ? " Kitchen Sink - $3.00 FEES Urinal/Bidet - $3.00 ! ?'- COMM/IND FEE - 1% OF CONTRACT FEE Laundry Tray -$3.00 1.% APT. BLDGS - COMM RATE APPLIES Floor Drains -$1.50 TOWNHOUSE 8 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 PERMI'T) ;ADD $.50 S/C IF PERMIT PRICE GOES Softener -$5.00 BEYOND $1,000.00) Well - $10.00 - Private Disp. - $10.00 Rough Openings - $1.50 ,TURE OF PERMITTEE FEE: {-' "- STATE S/C: - CITY OF EAGAN GRAND TOTAL: CITY OF EAGAN 3795 Piloe Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Phone: 454-8100 PERMIT Date: ' •-1 ?. ?J 27, ?."7 7 Site Address: Lot r-? Block .?_ Sub/Sec. ? G• I Name . e ? ? ? : .. e 0 Address " 14' Rahn Fbt.d City Eagafl Phone: i,i:.dlaay ?iater C'ondi#::icnitig Name Address `' 215 Ceddr Ave. ? No. , , -,,,• ? Receipt No.: Single Residential Multi Res., Comm./Ind. New/Alter./Repair "??-???rat?or: Cost of Installation Permit Fee Surcharge 5.00 .50 V T.°.. ' S r1 I City Phone: I Total - This Permit is issued on the express condition that all work sholl be done in accordance with all applicable State of Minnesota Statutes ond City of Eogan Ordinances. Building Official CITY OF EAGAN Remarks * Cedar Grove Acquisition Addition -CEDAR GROVE #4 Lot 21 Blk 1 Parcel 10 16703 21tl Ol OwnermL?yk ? I riki1L UjeLvZE11 110?r Street 4345 Rdh11 Ftcaad State ESqan, MN 55122 ) Improvement Date Amount Annual Years Payment Receipt Date STREET SURF. 1970 412.50 41.25 82 STREET RESTOR. GRADING SAN SEW TRUNK * SEWERLATERAL 1972 1,304.00 52.16 25 WATERMAIN * WATER LATERAL 1972 WATER AREA STORM SEW TRK STORM SEW LAT CURB & GUTTER SIDEWALK STREET LIGHT WATER CONN. BUILDING PER. SAC PARK i. CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT: MARK M WEIDENHAP'T ? LOCATION: NE 1/4 OF SECTION 30 EXISTING ZONING: R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY) DATE OF FUBLIC AEARING: AUGUST 23, 1988 DATE OF REPORT: AUGUST 15, 1988 REPORTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DZVISION APPLICATION SUMMARY An application has been submitted requesting a conditional use permit for a beauty salon in an R-1 (single-family) district at 4345 Rahn Road. This home is located along the west side of Rahn Road just north of Shale Lane. Code permits beauty salons in this zoning district through the conditional use permit process subject to the following conditions: 1. Hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. only. 2. The only employee shall be an occupant of the household. 3. The parking shall be on-site and shall be limited to two customer automobiles. 4. There shall be no commercial signs advertising the business except for the type of sign that is allowed in R-1 districts. 5. There shall be no over-the-counter sales of inerchandise. If approved, this conditional use permit shall be subject to the above-listed conditions. ? rIAP b? ., R1"N ; 90 • Ia fp ?D W'" M I d ? I? ? ?N u 14 N 19 is J ? 12 21 ? .. ?°••: .. ? :: ? z 3LL ;n : `r = Q w•w ts y 10 i ? ' ? f 4 W4 .... .:. - -- L ? ...,..r. ? ? ? . ?ac t? 4 ? e r ? ?4 ? w w /-pe. lb70 3 0/0 ol To the City of Eagan: Whereas Mark M_,_ and__.Kathy M. Weidenhaft, residents and property owners of 4,345 Rahn_.Road;, do not feel assessment #2183 of Project #10P584 is in accordance with Minnesota Statute Amendment 429.051; they do hereby serve the City of Eagan formal written notice of_ their objection to the proposed assessment. Mark M. Weidenhaft Dat S? ? . jogE Ka hy M. Weidenhaft 4;?'/???/ - Date COMMENTS;As I have met on the Rahn Rd. site with Co.Appraisers,Realters,and St. Lic. Appraisers,all state that it is quite obvious that the wider and more traveled an artery the more it effects the value of the home to the negative.Since this is what the city has done here and state in thier reports as one of the reasons for the new construction they have compounded the negative benifit of Iiving on this artery.Thus are not entittled to assessments. ? P MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS . FROM: CI1'Y ADMIIITISTRA'POR HEDGES . ` "` :? °-.=?:. `: ? ? `•?.. : - __.: : . DATE: MARCH 17, 1992 = - - ? ? SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA FOR iViARCH 379 1992 itEGiTLAR C7TY COUNCIL MEETING . There are no items for an executive session at this time. However, the Mayor, City Council and City Attorney have reserved tbe right to call an executive sessian to addrass any matters of pending litigation if desired. CITY ADMINISTRATOR ltem 1. Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs--Judge Mansur has granted the Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs in the sum of $5,593. Please refer to a copy of the memo frorn the Ci Attorne}'s of6ce entided 'Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs" enclosed on pages ??dthrough a-a' 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-T6e City has received a Stipulation and Order resolving the Heller v. City of Eagan assessment appeal w}uch 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 aU of the assessed items as presented in the enclosed memo. Enclosed on pages= through2.U is a copy of a memo from Annette Margarit entitled "Heller v. City of Eagan Assessment Appeat," a resolution adopting the settlament agreement and a copy of the Stipuladon and Order. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS I1'EM: To approve or deiry a rGSOlution that the Heller parcel be reassessed from its leyied assessment of $49,277.84 to $40,000 which in essence appraves a Stipulation for Settlement resolving the Heller assessment appeal. Item 3. Northview-Building Fire Restorstion Contract/Defanlt to Contractnal Obligatioos-- As the City Council recalls, the Northview Park Building sustained eonsiderable damage as a result of a lightening strike and fire during the summer of 1991. Beacon Builders Incorporated were awarded a bid in the amount of $8,883 to correct the damage and assured staff that the 60 day completion timeframe was adequate to finish the * projecrt. Unfortunately, the 60 day construction period expired and staff is of the opinion that the contractor did not meet its contractual obligations which are now impending the City's operational needs for the building. For additional information on why staff is requesting - ? 16703 - a/o -o i , . MEMORANDIIM TO: Tom Hedges, City Administrator FROM: Annette M. Margarit DATE: March 4, 1992 RE: Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs Enclosed please find a copy of Judge Mansur's Order granting the Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for costs in the sum of $5,593.00. This Motion was heard by Judge Mansur on February 28, 1992. We opposed the granting any of Appellants' costs on the basis that the City Council had followed the Legislature's process in adopting the appraisal and the City should not be punished by having to pay expenses for the Appellants when they have already been afforded their remedy namely, vacation of the assessment. A problem with our position, however, is that Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 concerning special assessments specifically awards costs to a prevailing municipality but is silent to whether a prevailing property owner is entitled to costs. In a 1979 case involving Burnsville, however, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that it "could see no logical reason why a prevailing municipality should be entitled to costs but not a prevailing landowner." See VillaQe of Burnsville Assessments, 287 N.W.2d 375, 377 (Minn. 1979). The Court futher noted that awarding costs is up to the discreation of the trial judge. Id. In light of that case law, it is not surprising that the Judge awarded the Appellants their costs. I ask that this matter be placed on the March 17, 1992 City Council Agenda for approval of the issuance of a check to the Appellants in tr.e sum of $5,593.00 as ordered by Judge Mansur. If you have any questions or need any further information, please contact me. ANIIK/wkt cc: Tom Colbert ucF•,oo (4*91 r.xdm or f unG, EAWY. DoCd.. Cno rHOHARD GROVES A7TY AT LAW 260 SRYLINE SQIIARE BLDG 12940.HARRIET AVE S (BRNS MN 55337 ? 9NNETTE M MARGARIT ATTY AT LAid 600 MIDWAY NAT BANR BLDG 7300 W 147TH ST . LAPPLE VALLEY MN 55124 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF Dakota NOTICE OF: Cl FILINQ OF OROER XtSl Et?tTRY OF JUDGMENT X3 DOCKEflNG OF JUDGMENT Court Flle No.: C5-92-7756 !N R E: IN RE' ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584 RNOWN AS RAffiN ROAD RECONSTRIICTION ETC. 13 Nbu +re hervbY notinad that on 19 an Ordar was duly tlled ln tha above antllled marier. ? You are hereby notlfled that on MARCH 2-1992 Amended , 19 a Judgment waa duty ontored In ihe above onUtted mattor. 2M You are heroby notlfied that on ?? 2-1992 @ j,? , 18 a Judgmenl was duly docketed In the above entlUed matter in the amount of s 5593.00 AGAINST CITY OF EAGAN A true and correct copy o( thia Nottce has been served by mall upon the parUas named herefn at tha last known address of each, pursuant to Minnesota Rules of Clvtl Procedure, Rule 77.04. Dated• MARCH 2ND 1992 ROCER K. SAKES Court Adminlstrator by ' Deputy ?+.ca a.n Fl0 ft day of ROGER W. SAMES, Court Adnunistratot BY ) . I-?-?-'? ", R unr s STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT In Re: Assessments for Project File No. C5-91-7756 , 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction, adopted by the City of Eagan on FINDINGS AND ORDER June 18, 19 91 : - AND-QMENDID JIIDGMENT Name Address P.I.N. Nathan R.'Benoy 4372 ftahn Road 10-707775-020-01 Gregory/Cindy Cox 4369 Rahn Road 10-16703-250-01 Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road 10-16703-220-01 - Dean/Karen Goche 4065 Rahn Road 10-16702-170-07 Darrell/Pat Haines 3990 Rahn Road 10-16704-110-03 Robert/Antoinette Keeney 4370 Rahn Road 10-70775-010-01 Vernon/Janet Nelson 3996 Rahn Road 10-16704-100-03 Paul/Deb Notermann 4374 Rahn Road 10-48050-104-01 Brian/Carrie Olwein 4363 Rahn Road 10-16703-240-01 Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road 10-16703-200-01 Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn Road 10-16702-080-03 Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft 4345 Rahn Road 10-16703-210-01 Appellants, vs. City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, Respondent. Motion of Appellants for an award of costs and disbursements was heard by the undersigned as a telephone conference on February 28, 1992, at the Dakota County Judicial Center, Hastings, Minnesota, The Appellants were represented by Howard Groves,.their attorney. The Respondent City was represented by Annette M. Margarit, its attorney.. Retm dU of ry'- ) 19 '( ROGER W. SAMES, Court ACmU:s;rttot R Y •-- ? ISSUE Appellants seek an award of costs and disbursements in the aggregate amount of $5,593. Based upon the trial, the arguments of counsel, the Memoranda submitted, the file and proceedings heretofore had, the Court FINDS 1. That there is no issue as to the award of $193.00 of costs per statute and service of process fees. 2. That the protracted hearings were necessary because the appeal.was of twelve (12) individual properties consolidated for trial by Order of this Court dated October 28, 1992. 3. That the appraisal costs of $350 per parcel is reasonable, as is the cost of $100 per parcel for attendance at trial by Appellants' expert. 4. That Appellants are entitYed to reimbursement in the aggregate sum of $5,593. ~ ORDERS 1. That Appellants are entitled to Judgment against the Respondent City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, in the sum of $5,593.00. 2. That the following Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. 3. There being no justifiable reason for delay, the Court Administrator shall enter Judgment forthwith. 2 Y DATED: 2-28-92 BY THE COURT: • AMErTbID JIIDGMEN'P ` I hereby certify that the above Order modifies the ARTIN J MAN R Judgment ente:eci Jan.24-1992 and along with that ' Judge Dis rict Court Judgment consti•tutes the Amended Judgment of the Court.` Date: March 2nd 1992 MEMORANDUM Roger W. Sames, Crt Admr By .r??ief Deputy (Seal) Costs an Disburseiig nts - At oral argument the issue was not the amount or the rea.sonableness since it is slightly more than $450 per parcel; rather, whether under the relevant statute and case .Zaw 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 prevazling municipality should 6e entitled to costs but not a prevailing land owner..." In addition, Minn. Stat. 549.04 provides, in part, as follows: "In every action in District Court, the prevailing . party...shall be allowed reasonable disbursements paid or incurred, including fees and mileage for service of process by the•sheriff or by a private person." The taxation of costs is governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure and by Chapter 549 of Minnesota Statutes. The City cites Minn. Stat. 645.21, Subd. 1, as a basis for the preclusion of awarding of costs and disbursements. However, a full reading of Minn. Stat. 645., and more specifically, 645.26, Subd. 1, leads this Court to conclude that when a general provision in a law is in conflict with a. special provision in the same or another law the two shall be construed, if possible, so that 3 i , i effect may be given to both. In addition, this Court concludes that where a conflict between two provisions is irreconcilable, the special provision shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision. Finally, in this particular case, the provisions of Minn. Stat. 549.04 and 429.081 are not irreconcilable and, pursuant to the specific provisions of Minn. Stat. 645.26, this Court construes each so that effect may be given to both of the aforementioned statutes. While the City's argument is one of inerit, under the facts of the case the Court is persuaded that the Appellant land owners are entitled to reimbursement and it is so ordered. 4 f 1* MEMORANDUM TO: Deanna Kivi FROM: Annette M. Margarit DATE: March 9, 1992 RE: Rahn Road Assessments Enclosed please find the Waiver of Notice provided by attorney Howard Groves on behalf of the Rahn Road Appellants in which they waive any public hearing for the purpose of reassessing the parcels. With this document, you may proceed to direct Dakota County to reassess the parcels. I have also included a copy of the Court's Order and post-trial Order indicating that the parcels should be-reassessed in the sum of $0. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to call. ANIlM/ wkt cc: Tom Hedges Gene VanOverbeke STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: 10 OTHER CIVIL (SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEAL) In Re: Court File No. C5-91-7756 Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction WAIVER OF NOTICE adopted by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991: Name Address Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road Gregory/Cindy Cox 4369 Rahn Road Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road Dean/Karen Goche 4065 Rahn Road Darrell/Pat Haines 3990 Rahn Road Robert/Antoinette Keeney 4370 Rahn Road Vernon/Janet Nelson 3996 Rahn Road Paul/Deb Notermann 4374 Rahn Road Brian/Carrie Olwein 4363 Rahn Road Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn Road Mark/Kathy Weidenhaft 4345 Rahn Road Appellants, vs. City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, Respondent. P.I.N. 10-70775-020-01 10-16703-250-01 10-16703-220-01 10-16702-170-07 10-16704-110-03 10-70775-010-01 10-16704-100-03 10-48050-104-01 10-16703-240-01 10-16703-200-01 10-16702-080-03 10-16703-210-01 i The above-named Appellants; by and through their attorney, hereby waive notice of any meetings to be held by the Eagan City Council and waive any public hearing as required by Minnesota Statutes §429.071 for the purpose of adopting a resolution or taking any other necessary action pursuant to the Judgment and Decree entered in the above matter on January 24, 1992 vacating and setting aside the assessments against the above-described parcels and said Appellants further hereby specifically consent to the . -- " adoption of any resolutions or the taking of any other action which may be necessary to vacate and set aside the assessments against the above-described_parcels. DATED : 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 ucF•,oo c.-Ni ?."m a F&-,4, L++ry, c«k.w,q f MR HOWARD J GROVES ATTY AT LAW STATE OF MINNESOTA STE 260 SRYLINE SQ • 12940 HARRIET AVE S ' D,AKOTA COUNTY OF ( BIIRNSVILLE MN 55337 • NOTtCE OF: [-MS ANNETTE M MARGARIT F1 U N C3 O F O R D E R ATTY AT LAW BZ ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 600 MID[iAY NAT BANK BLDG : 7300 W 147TH ST CI DOCKETING OF JUDGMENT L P? oAI.LEY MN 55124 ` . Court Flle No.: C5-91-7756 ASSESSMEN'PS FOR PROJECT 584, RNOWN AS RAgN RD RECONSTRIICTION ETC. 1N RE: NATnN R BENOY ETAL V CITY OF EAGAN ETC. 13X l b u a r e h e r e b y n o t l fl e d t h a t o n JANUARy 2 4 T H 1992 el g an Order was du(y iilad ln tha above entitled matler. 43 You are hereby notifled that on' JANUARy 24TH 1992 , 19 a Judgment wea duly anterod In tha abova entitfad matter. _ ? Yau are hereby notlfled that on , 19 e Judgmant waa duly docketed In tha above eniltled mattar ln the amount o( $ A trve and correct copy of thle Notica has boen served by mali upon the partias namad hereln at the last known addresa of each, pursuant to Minnesola Rules o( Clvll Procadure, Rule 77.04. Deted• JANUARY 24Tg 1992 ROGER W SAMES ' Court Adminlstrator by ] Deputy 4t&CA 4N Fli e t}tls day 0} C?,`'' ROGER W. AMES, Court Aemini;trator • ?CF? 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 Eagan on FINDINGS OF FACT, June 18, 1991: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JIIDGMENT Name Address P.I.N. Nathan R. Benoy Gregory/Cindy Cox Irene Gillespie Dean/Karen Goche Darrell/Pat Haines Robert/Antoinette Keeney Vernon/Janet Nelson Paul/Deb Notermann Brian/Carrie Olwein Mary Rock Ron/Lorri Trenary Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft 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, 10-70775-020-01 10-16703-250-01 10-16703-220-01 10-16702-170-07 10-16704-110-03 10-70775-010-01 10-16704-100-03 10-48050-104-01 10-16703-240-01 10-16703-200-01 10-16702-080-03 10-16703-210-01 Respondent. The above-entitled motion for amended findings or in the alternative, a.new trial came on for hearing on calendar at 9:00 a.m. on January 21, 1992 at t Judicial Center in Hastings, Minnesota before judge of district court. Annette M. Margarit, appeared on behalf of the City. Howard Groves, appeared for Appellants. Based on the arguments, the memoranda, 1 the Special Term :he Dakota County the undersigned Attorney-at-Law, Attorney-at-Law, affidavits and the Fde thls ? y day of 19 -fl. ? ROGER W. SAAAES. Gourt Aamintstruot er r?? • 1??... QE TY . Eile, 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 result in a new trial. ORDERS 1. That the Respondent City's Motions be and the same are hereby denied in their entirety. 2. The following Memorandum is hereby incorporated by reference. 3. That the Court Administrator shall forthwith enter judgment accordingly. DATED: January 23, 1991 BY THE COIIRT: TIN J. S udge of is ict Court ' ••. l"lial-1V1?CYV VLJ Those proposed "technical" amended Findings which are not germane to the determination of the trial's outcome have not been addressed herein. The Court recognizes that there are two sides to this issue, and the City's case was fully, competently and fairly presented , 2 to the Court. Appraisal di the properties was of the greatest `import to the tacifinder. As articulated in this Memorandum and in the December 1a, 1991 Ffndinc.?s, Order and Memorandum, in the ; factfincler1s view, the faGts tp-t1d to support Appellants. The crux of Appellants' olAim ia that the City unfairly asse-qsed them Par strset improvements. Tha etandard for ,valid speoial assessments is: (1) the ].and must reeeive a spacial benefit from the a.mprovement being aonstxucted; (2) the assessment must be uniform (3) the aosessulent may not Lana kpa1 tY..Co=v- CitY of 517, 519 (Minn. 1976). inc:rease in the market upon the same alass of property, and exceed the special benefit. Carlson- lindQm, 307 Minn. 368, 369, 240 N.W.2d Special bensfit fs measured by the value of the land owing tid the improvement. In appraising the aubjaat property, an appraiser datermineg what 'a willing buyex would pay a willing ee11er far ths property before, and then after, the imprnvement has been conatructed. ?c. While the govarnment entity is presumed to have set the assessment lega11y, an appellant may overcome tha presumption by introduaing cpmpetent evidence that the assessment is greater than the inorease i.n.market vaJ.ue o£ the property due to the improvement. ,?. These are the criteria whivh the Court applied ta the Pacts pxessnted at trigl. It shoula be noted that in its MQmoxandum sunporting its ° motion for a new trial or amended. f indings, the City 'rel.ies on Villauq--of Ectina y,j, Zoscgb, 264 M3,rin. 84, 199 N.W.2d 809 (1962). In that case, tha residsnts whose property abuttecl the i.mpravad 3 E?00 -iydlhso-1anUo lo I J.Ls I Q 0o d10>iHa 91:2S Z6iLZiTO length of France Avenue objected to special assessments for . widening and paving of the street. Minnesota's Supreme Court stated the law in Villaae of Edina, without setting out a standard or formula, by saying that "[t]he basis and justification of a special assessment are benefits to the property affected... [b]enefits which may be demonstrated by a mathematical exactness are not always required in order to support an assessment." Village of Edina v. Joseph, 119 N.W.2d at 818. ?\ Minnesota has also adopted a specific test, as cited in Carlson-Lanq Realty Co., above, which this Court has chosen to apply. While the City asserts that Viliaqe 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 ? I properties' market value. Appellants' expert, Mr. Daniels, appraised each property based on individualized, detailed inspection of the properties and analysis of "comparables". His written appraisals were for both "before" and "after" values. Mr. Daniels factored into his appraisals his analysis of the . efEect of the Rahn Road improvements. There was also evidence , that many prospective buyers refused to make offers for purchase of Rahn Road property after the improvements, and because of them, and testimony about the actual sales data available for those properties. Some of that data indicated that average sale prices of 4 , , Eagan homes in 1991 were 11.5% higher than 1988 averages. Yet, ? an assessed Rahn Road home whose owner did not participate in this action, which was bought in 1988 (before improvements) and sold in 1991 (after improvements) failed to achieve that 11.5% increase. The City used this home in its effort to show that , some increased value occurred. But the home's appreciation plus the cost of the improvements was significantly less than the price needed to justify the 11.5% average sale price plus the assessment cost. Mr. Daniels's credentials, his testimony and his exhibits were persuasive. That evidence indicated that the Rahn Road improvements had not only not benefitted the Appellants' properties but that the real market value of the properties had been adversely effected. Where no benefit is conferred by the ; improvement, no special assessment is permitted. The City, on the other hand, offered evidence which was less persuasive. The City's well-qualified expert, Mr. Metzen, 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 t COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ----------------------------------------------------------------- In Re: Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction, adopted by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991: Name Address Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road Gregory/Cindy Cox 4369 Rahn Road Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road Dean/Karen Goche 4065 Rahn Road Darrell/Pat Haines 3990 Rahn Road Robert/Antoinette Keeney 4370 Rahn Road Vernon/Janet Nelson 3996 Rahn Road Paul/Deb Notermann 4374 Rahn Road Brian/Carrie Olwein 4363 Rahn Road Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn Road Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft 4345 Rahn Road File No. C5-91-7756 FINDINGS OF FACT. CONCLIISIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR 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 Appellants, VS. Q? ") ?19? RCiiFA W. S14tr1ES. C" AM, Gtitrlatur City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, py G??•J'? Y Respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------- The above-entitled appeals from the assessments levied by the City of Eagan have been consolidated for the purposes of the trial and were heard by the undersigned on the Court calendar and without a jury on Friday, November 15, 1991, and Friday, November 22, 1991, at the Dakota County Judicial Center, Hastings, Minnesota. The Appellants appeared in person and were represented by Howard Groves, their attorney. The Respondent City was 1 ? ? ? • ? • . 1 represented by Annette M. Margarit, its attorney. . .t 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 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 s Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the ? amount of the assessment'levied against said property was $30.79 ger front foot for,a total of $2, 309. 25. The parcel i.s 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 abutti.ng on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 17, plock 7, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota., Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied" against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $4,178.20. The 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 ? f a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and f 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 t residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel if for residential use. 9. That Appellants Paul and Deb Notermann are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: ' Lot 104, Block l, Meadow Land, First Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 90.98 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,801.58. The pardel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. • 10. That Appellants Brian and Carrie Olwein are the owners of a parcel of land. abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 24, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against-said property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the.highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. ' il. That Appellant Mary Rock is the owner of a paresl of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: 5 Lot 20, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4,,Dakota County, ? Minnesota. Said Appellant has 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 ` per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. . . ? . 12. That Appellants Ron and Lorri Trenary are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 8, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 195.21 feet of frontage'on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against -such property was $30.79 per tront 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 ilse of said parcel is 6 . for residential use. 1 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. i City's Value • Witness's Opinion Amt of Name Sa.ft. lhouse As to Amt of Benefit Assmt. 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 21500.00 2,801.58 Olwein 1,008 2,309.25 2,309.25 Rock' 11236 21309.25 21309.25 Trenary 912. 21500.00/3,000.00 6,010.52 Weidenhaft 1,232 2,309.25 2,309.25 14. That the Appellant's value witness testified follows: Name I3efore Value After Value Benoy $ 99,500.00 $ 99,500.00 Cox 89,000.00 89,000.00 Gillespie 72,500.00 . 72,500.00 Goche 80,000.00 .80,000.00 Haines 72,500.00 . 72,500.00 Keeney. . 130,000.00 130,000.00 Nelson 95,000.00 95,000.00 Notermann ' -110,000.00 110,000.00 Olwein 84,000.00 84,000.00 Rock 85,000.00 . 85,000.00 Trenary . 74,500.00 74,500.00 Weidenhaft 95,000.00 95,000.00 as 7 15. That the abutting properties enumerated herein have . r borne prior street resurfacing, curb and gutter assessments. . 16. That prior to the improvement, Rahn Road was a quiet, residential street. 17. That the improvement established Rahn Road as a heavy capacity roadway, invited and did, in fact, substantially increase truck and other vehicular traffic. 18. ?That the increased traffic flow, change in the type of traffic and its attendant characteristics create hazards, noise and pollution, all of which are detrimental to abutting residential properties. 19. That the overall evidence shows that the fair market value of the Appellants' property did not change in the before and after value following in the installation of the improvement, that is, the improvements did not increase the value of the Appellants' property. . • 20. That by reason thereof, the City of Eagan Improvement Project No. 584 did not specifically benefit each of the Appellants' properties. CONCLIISIONS OF LAW 1. That the assessments levied against the Appellants' properties be and the same are hereby vacated and set•aside. 2. The following Memorandum is incorporated herein by ref erence . . 3. Let judgment be entered accordingly after - a stay of 30 8 days. I DATID: 12-18-91 BY THE COIIRT: v?..-:. . 4TIIN SIIR Judge o Di trict Court I+fEMORANDUli The assessment of benefit to Appellants' properties as indicated in the assessment roll was sufficien?ly countered by Appellants to require the fact issue as to the reasonable value of the property assessed before and after the improvement, and to what extent the properties may have benefitted. In considering the evidence of the before and after value, greater weight was given to the testimony of the Appellants' witnesses. Mr. Daniels formed his conclusions as to the market value of the respective properties in the year the assessment roll was adopted. His opinion as to the properties was further supported by realtors active in the sale of residential homes in the area, one of whom testified that the improvements of Rahn Road changed the character of the neighborhood, and this change impacted in•a- negative manner as to value of the Appellants' properties. In addition, one or more of these realtors cited actual sales listing experiences to further support thei= 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 parceZs 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 difterence 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 ? , • a . v knowledge of the area, the builder whom he was acquainted with, k • . and some comparables, and then he concluded that the properties benef itted in the amount that he testif ied without regard to the before and after value as to each: It should be noted that five of the parcels have 75 foot frontage and the square footage for each of the dwellings ranges from 912 square feet to 'a high of 1;232 square feet. This approach appears to treat each parcel i the same, regardless of size, whereas in addition to the differences noted with the properties that have 75 foot frontage, one need only review Finding No. 14 to see the further disparity. Finally, the Court has determined the assessments must be vacated for the reasons set forth herein. Therefore, it is not necessary to determine whether the method employed by the City in computing the assessment is statutorily proper. , 11 , ucr•?oo??a?? , ' i' + lbrror ? t wq, G*ry, Oeel,w+p rfloWaxD J cROVEs ATTY AT LAW STE 260 SKYLINE SQ 12940 HARRIET AVE S LBURNSVILLE MN 55337 BTATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF D OTA NO71CE OF; 9 F1UNG OF ORDER O ENTRY OF JUDGMEMf O DOCKETINa OF JUDCiMENT ?ANNETTE M MARGARIT ATTY AT LAW 600 1+iIDWAY NATL BANR BLDG 7300 W 147TH ST (APPLF. VALLEY MN 55124 0 Cout1 Flt• No.: C5-91-7756 IN R E: NATHAN R. BENOY ET AL VS. CITY OF EAGAN ETC. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLIISIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JIIDtM NT Nbw nm heroby noUAad lhat on nFrEMR lRTH .19 91 an Order was duty filed tn the above enlltlsd mattor. ? lbu ere horoby noUMed lhal on 19__.,__ a Judgmenl ware duly enlerod (n 4he.e:bove entlped matier. ? You ero heroby notlMed ihel on • 18_... a Judpment - waa duly dxketed in the above enUtted maNer In the amounl of $ .r .? A trva nnd correcl copy ot Ihle Nolioe hae been served by mall upon the pactiea namsd hereln at the lasf known eddress, ot oach, pureunnl to Mlnneaola Rulee oi Civll Proceduro, Ru{e 77.04. Daled@ DECEMBER 18TH 1991 Cia? ` 8 tll 07 07 LJIe ) 19q/> RD"uER W. SAMES. Oart AdmkdMa BY t ?7 '(?L??-,-w1 cFJllf , ' j_ ROGER W. SAH1:S CouH AdminlBtretor by Deputy . w" .r" \ p " " ? ? IZ 4\. STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRTCT COURT . v COUNTY OF DAKOTA. FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------- In Re: Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction, adopted by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991: Name Address Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road Gregory/Cindy Cox 4369 Rahn Road Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road Dean/Karen Goche 4065 Rahn Road Darrell/Pat Haines 3990 Rahn Road Robert/Antoinette Keeney 4370 Rahn Road Vernon/Janet Nelson 3996 Rahn Road Paul/Deb Notermann 4374 Rahn Road Brian/Carrie Olwein 4363 Rahn Road Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn Road Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft 4345 Rahn Road File No. C5-91-7756 FINDINGS OF FACT. CONCLIISIONS OF LAW, QRi?ER 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, Appellants, t?89P?? ?? dY vs. of 19-Fz • ROuER i1t. SA6AES. Oaat AdminWrata City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, ey DEIIi-ft --------------------------------------------------------------- The above-entitled appeals from the assessments levied by the City of Eagan have been consolidated for the purposes of the trial and were heard by the undersigned on the Court calendar and without a jury on Friday, November 15, 1991, and Friday, November 22, 1991, at the Dakota County Judicial Center, Hastings, Minnesota. The Appellants appeared in person and were represented by Howard Groves, their attorney. The Respondent City was 1 , represented by Annette M. Margari"`, its attorney. The Court having considered the evidence adduced at trial, having examined the evidence offered by the respective parties and all the records of the proceedings and being fully advised, makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the above-named property owners appealed from a Special Assessment levied by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991, for Project No. 584. The Project as proposed by the city council included the widening, grading, base and bituminous resurfacing, curb and gutter and utility improvements on Rahn Road between Beau 'D Rue Drive and Shale Lane. 2. That Appellant Nathan R. Benoy is the owner of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as: Lot 2, Block 1, Sons Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellant has 85 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,617.15, and the highest and best ; use of said parcel is residential.. 3. That Appellants Gregory and Cindy Cox are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as: Lot 25, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. 2 Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontags on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use, and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 4. That Appellant Irene Gillespie is the owner of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 22, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellant has 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 5. That Appellants Dean and Karen Goche are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 17, Block 7, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. ; Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $4,178,20. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 6. That Appellants Darrell and Pat Haines are the owners of 3 ' a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and 'r - legally described as follows: Lot 11, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $3,694.80. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. ?7. That Appellants Robert and Antoinette Keeney are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Sons Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 125 feel of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $3,848.75. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 8. That Appellants Vernon and Janet Nelson are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 10, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 5, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 4 per front foot for a total of $3,694.80. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel if for residential use. 9. That Appellants Paul and Deb Notermann are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 104, Block 1, Meadow Land, First Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. ? Said Appellants have 90.98 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,801.58. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 10. That Appellants Brian and Carrie Olwein are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the *east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 24, Block 1, Cedar.Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 11. That Appellant Mary Rock is the owner of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: 5 Lot 20, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4,,Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellant has 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 ? per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 12. That Appellants Ron and Lorri Trenary are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 8, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 195.21 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $6,010.52. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 13. That Appellants Mark and Kathy Weidenhaft 'are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and Iegally described as follows: Lot 21, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County Minnesota. Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best dse of said parcel is 6 I for residential use. 14. Upon the trial of the above enumerated appeals the City's value witnesses offered testimony as to the amount of the assessment that would be reasonable and did not specifically address the before and after value as to each property that is the subject of this appeal. Enumerated herein is a summary of the City's value witnesses. Name Benoy Cox Gillespie Goche Haines Keeney Nelson Notermann Olwein Rock Trenary Weidenhaft 14. follows: Name Benoy Cox Gillespie Goche Haines Keeney Nelson Notermann Olwein Rock Trenary Weidenhaft Citv's Value Witness's Opinion Sq. ft. /house As to Amt of Benefit 1,176 $ 2,500.00 1,120 2,309.25 912 2,309.25 990 2,500.00 864 2,5Q0.00 2,184 2,500.00 1,066 2,500.00 1,112 2,500.00 1,008 2,309.25 1,236 2,309.25 912 2,500.00/3,000.00 1,232 2,309.25 Amt of Assmt.. $ 2,617.15 2,309.25 2,309.25 4,178.20 3,694.80 3,048.75 3,694.80 2,801.58 2,309.25 2,309.25 6,010.52 2,309.25 That -the Appellant's value witness testified as Before Value $ 99,500.00 89,000.00 72,500.00 80,000.00 72,500.00 130,000.00 95,000.00 110,000.00 84,000.00 85,000.00 74,500.00 95,000.00 P 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. 7 . 15. That the abutting properties enumerated herein have borne priar street resurfacing, curb and gutter assessments. 16. That prior to the improvement, Rahn Road was a quiet, residential street. 17. That the improvement established Rahn Road as a heavy capacity roadway, invited and did, in fact, substantially - increase truck and other vehicular traffic. 18. That the increased traffic flow, change in the type of . traffic and its attendant characteristics create hazards, noise and pollution, all of which are detrimental to abutting residential properties. 19. That the overall evidence shows that the fair market value of the Appellants' property did not change in the before and after value following in the installation of the improvement, that is, the improvements did not increase the value of the Appellants' property. 20. That by reason thereof, the City of Eagan Improvement Project No. 584 did not specifically benefit each of the Appellants' properties. ? CONCLOSIONS OF LAW 1. That the assessments levied against the Appellants' properties be and the same are hereby vacated and set aside. 2. The following Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. 3. Let judgment be entered accordingly after a stay of 30 8 days. DATED: 12-18-91 BY THE COIIRT: TIN ' SIIR udge' o Di trict Court, - 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 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 , t 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 i conclusions reached is that the city's value witness considered the availability of the use of the improvement rather than the increase in value. Additionally, it should be noted that the Appellants' value witness submitted written appraisals for each parcel in support of his opinion as to value in the before and the after, whereas the city's value witness testified from his 10 knowledge of the area, the builder whom he was acquainted with, t 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 ? • ? rj CA** ? ? eoe1;a.cl '7-t7-i 1 ll;o?m. DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA ? FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ? CASE TYPE: 10 OTHER CIVIL ? SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEAL ? f ?? ) ------------------------------- &- - A\ ------------------------- In Re: ?'r*%%Court File No. Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction adopted by the City of Eagan k OTICE APPEAL on June 18, 1991 TO: THE ABOVE-NAMED COURT AND THE CITY OF EAGAN: NOTICE is hereby given pursuant to Minn, Stat. Sec. 429.081 that each of the property owners listed below hereby appeal the adoption of the above-referenced Assessment Roll as the same relates to property owned by each of the parties set forth below at the address and property identification number set forth next to their respective names, all of which property is located in the City of Eagan, County of Dakota, and State of Minnesota. Written objections to said Assessments were duly made to the City by each of the property owners listed below prior to or at the hearing at which said Assessments were adopted. Said Assessment Rolls were adopted by the City Council of the City of Eagan at its meeting held on June 18, 1991 as evidenced by a copy of the Minutes of said meeting which are attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof. The bases for this appeal with regard to each of the properties listed is as follows: 1. There is no special benefit to the property as a result of the "improvements". 2. The market value of the property has not been increased in the amount of the assessments adopted. 3. The assessment was not regularly and properly adopted. The property owners making this Appeal and the address and property identification number of their respective properties are set forth below: NAME • ADDRESS P.I.N. Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road 10-70775-020-01 Gregory Cox and 4369 Rahn Road 10-16703-250-01 Cindy Cox Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road 10-16703-220-01 Dean Goche and 4065 Rahn Road 10-16702-170-07 Karen Goche Darrell Haines and 3990 Rahn Road 10-16704-110-03 Pat Haines . Robert Keeney and 4370 Rahn Road 10-70775-010-01 Antoinette Keeney Vernon Nelson and 3996 Rahn Road 10-16704-100-03 Janet Nelson Paul Notermann and 4374 Rahn Road 10-48050-104-01 Deb Notermann Brian Olwin and 4363 Rahn Road 10-16703-240-01 Carrie Olwin Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road 10-16703-200-01 Ron Trenary and 4137 Rahn Road 10-16702-080-03 Lorri Trenary Mark Weidenhaft and 4345 Rahn Road 10-16703-210-01 Kathy Weidenhaf t c 2 0\ Dated this day of July, 1991. ( Howar J. Grove Attorney for Pr4erty Owners on Rahn Road 260 Skyline Square Building 12940 Harriet Avenue South Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 (612) 890-2477 Atty. I.D. No.: 38313 3 - EXHIBi'- A Page 6/EAGAN C1TY COUNCIL MINVTES ?. )une 28, 1991 PROJEC'C??84,,,,f??NAL?.AsSESSIN£NT HEARiNG 13.AHN 9OA1) RECONSTRUCi7ON After introduction by Mayor Fg;aa and City Administrator Hcdges, Diredor of. Public Works Tom Colbert provided a brief overview ot the asseuments and the ncighbothood meeting 6eld on lune 11,1991. He aa;d seventy propertics wich direct sccess oato Rahn Road received noticxs of assessmcat on this project. Mayor Egan then opened the public hcaring to public wmmeat. Mr. Charles MacDoaald, of 4145 Rahn Road, said he bad filed written objeciiod:t6:tbe assessments against his property. Mr. MacDonald said the value of ltis bos,e had actually dropped because::ot the upgrade oE Rahn Road and the resultant heavy traff c. He sa;d evidence of that is the Dakota County Assessor'a 6tGce loweriag the value of his bome by a S percent due to Rahn Road. .... . .. Mayor Egan asked Mr. Bill Pett?san?.ol'the ?Coub?ty?As?C?sor's ofTice to explain the S perctnt dedudion Gom propert}, taxes because a number of 6omeowners had referenced it in eoanection with the Rahn Road improvements. Mr. Peterson said a misunderstandiag exists among the bomeowers as to the meaning of the S percent moditier. He said the modifier has been used since 1983 and was used for property along Rahn Road. lt was done, however, for 1990 valuations and, therefore, preceeded rtconstruction of Rahn Road. The Dakota County Assessor's office uses mass appraisa] and deaLs witb awrages and norms. He said they use a standard site value and then look at each property and add or stabtr"ct:from this standard value considering a number of [adors, including being located on a major.atreet::;`Hcls2?d the County Asse,ssor'a oftice uses modifiers quite frequentl}' and is aot implying tbat the impr'clvcIDeiifs on 3tahn Road had any impad on their valualions. Mr. Niark Weidenhaft, o[ 4345 Rahi+:?tiad, 3xid,.widening and improving Rahn Road had compounded the negative ettect of the road oa their property. Ht sd?ed the State Attorncy General bas ruled that to tx assessed (or improvements, the City has to prove beneCt to:t3ie property. He said his property could not be worth more v%itb more Uaffic. . Mr. Darrell Haines, oi 3990 Rahn Road, complained about the poliry used for assessments, the toss o( 6ome value and said additional properties on Bluestone, Carnelian, Jadc, Flint, dc. s6ould share in the costs. Ms. Laurie Luconic, of 4137 Raho:R644iid sht'b'W:"o aa informal survey of otber aties and [ound that many do not assess by [ront iootage:;:;$?e'alsoooimgl'mhod'6ecause the lac]c of double etriping on the road has lcd motorists to belicve that passiag ?a :permiss?hi?: ? :•:•:• . . . Mr. Gerard Bents, representingi?Ipuat Ca?v*afy Lutberan Cturch, objeded to the assessment against the entire churcb property at the public:tsi?ittic,s':istt:: ?,.dattd out that this rate was the same ss that or commercial propcrty. He said t6ey heve:mdae'(be*iehirr&:availalile to organizadons [or meetings Gee o[ charge and have, as a result, generated additional vagic. He pointed out, bowever, that appraximatety 190 feet of the frontage on Rahn Road belongs to the parsoaage and felt it sbould be assessed at a single-lamily rate. Mr. Bents wis6od to note that the 544,000 asussment constitutes LS percent of the cburc6's annual budget. Diredor of Public Works Coibort said the entire pval has .qae.legO, desciption and it was asse.scad at one rate based oa the zon.ing. Mr. CoJbcrt said that the CoupcQ:had :Qt?asidet?d assrss?ents on a different case at the last City Council meet.ing and had determinetl that a"'3.'sments Shoiild:bt;basod on zoning. Mr. Bents asted that the City Council make an exapEiae. ..... . . Councilmember Pawlenty then ?i?cussed the situation ???erred to by Mr. Cotbert. In that instance, if the Ciry Coundl had assessed at a higher:iiikC;;pkpp?etfyowioeti;;oo?ild have dad'assessmont-bacYcd expectations' for a hig6er and better tise of the propecty;:::?a'tfis?is'staflet{??tte it s higher zoning aod the property owner is asking for assessments based on a bwer use. D'uecior of Public Works Colbert noted that if the property Page 7/EAGAN C1TY COUNCIL MINLJTES lune 28, 1991 u assessed at a lower rate and is ultima(tty put to a higher use, the City would not have the opportunity, once the asscssments arc levied, to reassest 94::hiitt::RB?te: . . . . . .•: .. . . . . . . . . .•.•. .. . . . . .. . . Mr. Terry Stover, o[ 3906 RahA :Rosd, objeded to the !«ss*r+ents kvied against Outlot A o[ the Woodhaven Addieion. He said that oatloc:lioes nW have assess onto Rahn Road and, further, the developmeat plan tor the property indicates that acce3s"must bt oBr Beau de Rue Drive. Mr. Stover said any possibility ot access onto Rahn Road was a vertuat impossibiliry due to the new elevation of the road. He referred to the fact that several properties along Rahn Road were aot assessed because they had no driveway assess onto Rahn Road aod said he believed Ouelot A was the on}y one wiebout access beiag assessed. He said his Qroperty has alrcady been assessed for improvements to Besu* Rue. • Mr. Stover then pointed out he5.parceTs 1oa5:of value because of a permanent storm sewer easement ganted to the City. While he had rectiv,o4 :S8,000 far;Ehe easement, 6e said an appraiser had estimated the loss to his property at between S17,000 and 518,000. " Ms. l.euie Knutson, of 2014 ShafE,Lenie; said:s6t k?s A;?aiage with access ofT Rahn Road but 6er bome has its driveway access.on Shale Lane. Ms: Kifutson- pcrinhed Otit t6at two yeurs ago 6er 6ome was appraised at S98,000 and now the County tax assessor 6ad iadicated the value as $91,000. Sbe asked wby her property values had gone dowa. Mr. Paul Notterman., at 4374 Rahn Road, said it only took. common sense to realize that values had gone dowa with lhe widening and repairing of Rahn Road. . Mayor Egan then askcd City Attooa?to explain the process for objecting to assessments. Mayor Egan said the City Council,had:tto.choice:fiut to make this road improvement as Rahn Road in its previous conditioa was ao longer functiona?:'?ii::Mld it:.u:one of Lhe fust reconstruction projects in the City and the City Couocil has tried to adopt a cost formiila t?a?;thCy,believe equitable to all t6ose concerned. McCrea moved, Wac6ter seconded a motion to close the public hearing, approve the 5na1 assessment ro0 for Project 584 (Rahn Road Reconstroction) and suthoriu cettiticadon to Dakota County. Councilmember Gustafson asked, in regard to asscssmeats based on pucels rather than front footage, i[ Mount Calvary Lutheran Churcb could 6ave:Lbe,issue of,sin,?le family and public facilities [rontage tesolved by the City or whether the court would hare'tb:malce:l.}ot; aeiGtm?ation. Dirwor ot Public Worics Colbert said an assessment hearing judge would nat i;v aluate ttie.itieihod used to urive at the asstssmcnts, 6owever, suc6 met6od would be the prerogative of the Gity Coundl: >S'tatute does require that the City Ueat all like propertics in a similar man.ner aad there oould be a:*:hallenge frow the Baptist Chutch if the C,ity Couod assessea Mount Calvary Lutberan Churcb at a lesser ratei?:?:?...:•::.:•.:?????:?:.•:.•: :• ::•:. Recogniring tbat t6ere was a motioaaada aecondbefore the City Coundl, Mayor Fgan uked City Attorney Sheldon whether the City Council could iacorporate some discretioaary policy in regard to the Mount Calvary Lutheran C6urc6 property. Mr. Sheldon said the Cty Covnul coo]d oomplete the motion and send it on in the process and theo remove Monnt Calvary Getherao CAurcb froop the process st a Iater date or t6ey could request lhat atafi malce a review ot that,p?aTQO.Af:iiftiadon and reture wit6 tbeu findings at the nexi City Council meeting. • . 7'6e motion befoTe the Council was??hen revised to McCrea moved, Wac6ter seoonded a motion to close the public bearung„ approve the rVW:assessment roU forPmjec:t 584 (Rahn Road Reconswd.ion) noting all written ob'edio ? ns, authoriu ies certili"fbn to Dakota.CovA?!;.??'it6 spedal instructions to stati to review the aituation involviag the Mount Calvary 1;aEk?;es:?:?itip,?*tL?y with pariicular attention being paid to any precedent-setting actioa. .... . . ........ .:...::. r 04-Jun-91 ASSESSMENT COST BREAImONN PROJ NAME RAHN ROAD RELONSTRUCTION PROJ NUM P584 SA NAME ST584 F RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION SA NAME ST584 SA# 2183 YEARS 15 SF 30.790 /FF INT RATE .085 MF 75.160 /FF MOS 1ST YR INT 18 CI 75.160 /fF YEAR 1991 WC 15.400 /FF ASSESSMENT REC PROPERTY GROSS NET UNITS PRO-RATA RATE AMWNT NMBR IDENT# CL UNI7S 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 10-01900-010-10C1 150 0 150 1 150 7 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 . 10-84700-040-07SF 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.T90 1126.61 8 10-84700-050-01SF 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61 9 10-84700-060-01SF 61.4 0 61.4 1 61.4 1 30.790 1890.51 10 10-84700-070-01SF 112.76 0 112.76 1 112.76 1 30.790 3471.88 11 10-84700-010-OOMF 299.7 0 299.7 1 299.7 1 75.160 22525.45 12 10-16700-010-09SF 137.88 0 137.88 1 137.88 1 30.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.T90 2617.15 17 10-16700-060-09HC 0 0 0 1 0 1 15.400 0.00 18 10-76700-110-11SF 115.18 0 116.18 1 116.18 1 30.790 3577.18 19 10-11700-010-02MF 155 0 155 L 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 10-32800-010-01MP 583.3 0 583.3 1 5833 1 75.160 43840.83 22 10-48050-104-01SF 90.99 0 90.99 1 90.94 1 30.790 2801.58 23 10-70775-010-01SF 125 0 125 1 125 1 30.790 3848.75 24 10-707T5-020-01SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.T90 2617.15 25 10-16701-300-01Sf 115.7 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.790 3562.40 26 10-16701-310-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 27 10-16701-320-01SP 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.T90 2309.25 28 10-16701-330-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 29 10-16701-340-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.T9A 2309.25 30 10-16701-350-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 31 10-16701-360-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 p1 pfe,r ,nar1 ke.en e.y &-Ae/ Y 04-Jun-91 RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION SA NAME ST584 Sa# 2183 YEARS 15 INT RATE .085 MOS 1ST YR INT 18 TEAR 1991 REC PROPERTY GROSS NMBR IDENT# CL UNITS 32 10-16701-370-01SF 75 33 10-16701-380-01SF 75 34 10-16701-390-01SF 75 35 10-16701-400-01SF 75 36 10-16701-410-01SF 75 77 10-16701-420-01SF 75 -08 10-16701-430-01SF 75 39 10-76701-440-01Sf 75 40 10-16701-450-01SF 75 41 10-16701-460-01SF 95.73 42 10-16701-470-01SP 90 43 10-16703-180-01SF 75 44 10-16703-190-01SF 75 45 10-16703-200-01SF 75 46 10-16703-210-01SF 75 47 10-16703-220-01SF 75 48 10-16703-230-01Sf 75 49 10-16703-240-01SF 75 50 10-16703-250-01SF 75 51 10-16703-260-01Sf 90 52 10-16703-010-02uC 121.96 53 10-16702-080-03SF 195.21 54 10-16702-110-04SF 115.7 55 10-16702-120-04Sf 115.7 56 10-16702-170-07SF 135.7 57 10-02000-010-28MF 589.43 58 10-02000-010-29MF 175.52 59 10-16704-100-03SF 120 60 10-16704-110-03SF 120 61 10-02000-011-52Mf 262.01 62 10-16704-090-045P 95 ASSESSMENT COST BREAImOWN PRQJ NAME RAMM ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJ NUM P584 SA NAME ST584 F Sf 30.790 /FF MF 75.160 /Ff CI 75.160 /FF WC 15.400 /Ff ASSESSMENT NET UNITS PRO-RATA RATE AMOUNT CREDITS SUBTOTAL fA ASS'BLE SHARE 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2304.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 95.73 1 95.73 1 30.790 2947.53 0 90 1 90 1 30.790 2771.10 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 R oe-.V- MF" ha?•t e 0 751 75 1 30.790 2309.25 - W 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 O 1-W ? n 0 •75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 Co X 0 90 1 90 1 30.790 2771.10 0 121.96 1 121.96 1 15.400 1878.18 0 195 . 21 1 195.21 1 30.790 6010. 52 na 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.790 3562.40 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.790 3562.40 0 135.7 1 135.7 1 30.790 4178.20 G a ?h e.. 0 589.43 1 589.43 1 75.160 44301.56 0 175.52 1 175.52 1 75.160 13192.08 0 120 1 120 1 30.790 3694.80 0 120 1 120 1 30.790 3694.80 *' h e' S 0 262.01 1 262.01 1 75.160 19692.67 0 95 1 95 1 30.790 2925.05 7 4 TO: FROM: DATE: ""c ??L !i?'.";1a P? E af?r.A ??? E,; MEMORANDUM Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works Annette M. Margarit November 4, 1991 RE: Rahn Road Assessment Appeal &pSao SFy Enclosed please find Judge Mansur's Order and accompanying memorandum denying our motion to sever the twelve assessment appeals for Rahn Road that are combined into one action. The Judge seemed to basically buy the argument that because the parties are raising the same issue, namely, that increased traffic has diminished the value of their properties, the combination is appropriate. The trial is currently scheduled for November 15, 1991. I understand that you will be on vacation on that date. Rather than continuing this trial because there are so many appeals that have been set for December and into January, I would prefer to have Mike Foertsch testify or get someone from Bonestroo to be available for this trial. I will contact Mike to see if he is available on that date. ANIIM/wkt ,A- :. .. ? . uu•IOO (???) ?+e?or It 1 Un4. [rA"t, CeeL ky FIOWARD J. GROVES . . . ' , . ATTORNEY AT LAW . SUITE 260-SKYLINE SqUARE . BTATE OF MINNESOTA 12940 HARRIET AVENUE SOUTH C OU N'TY O F ' DAKOTA LBURNSVILLE MN 55337 . . . No71CF. OFt . . . , • • X?FI?1NQ OF ORDER . rANNETTE M. MARGARIT ATTORNEY AT LAW [3 ENTRY OF JUDOMF-N7' . 600 MIDWAY NATIONAL BANK BLDG • . 7300 wEST 147Tx sT C] DOCKE1'Wa OF JUODMENT APPLE VALLEY MN 55124 ? Court Fll• No.t C5 91 7756 ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584 KNOWN AS RAHN.ROAD RE06NSTRUCTION ECT. .. ? 1bu are horoby noili{od ihal on OCTOBER 29 18 91 an Order ,waa duly tl(od ln ttla abovo onlltlod mnltor, . C] Nbv aro horaby nolitled lhnl on ? 9- e Judgmont . v,-e.a duly onterod In Iho,above onllllod mattar.' O You are lioroby notlned ihat on . , --- • 10 -- A.ludpment wi.e ciuly docketad In the, nbove enllUad maller In lh• amaunl ol S . to Mfnn nolA Huloo ol Clvil Procoduro Rulo 77e?in?ltn? Alrue nnd a???? o( oactt, Nolloo Ie?l known ? Purtu OCTOBER 29, 1991 _ ROGER U. 5Ati?ES . Datod? . • ' Court Adminletralur • .' bYDnp tY Fle th?s : ot --A ROGER ' l.- BY / WC at" t A Flle this - - day ROGEII W. SI;M.ES, Coun ndrtuntsvator STATE OF MINNESOTA sy pEp DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL'DISTRICT ---- -- - ------------------- In Re: Assessments ------------------- for Project 584, --------- File - ---- ------ No. C5-91-7756 known as Rahn Road Reconstruction adopted by the City of Eagan on ORDER June 18, 1991 The above-ent itled 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 Road. The parties who are for the improvement of Rahn identified as the Petitioners represent 12 property owners on Rahn Road and have filed a joint appeal from the assessment promulgated by the Respondent City. The City moves for severance and for separate trials for .? each of the Petitioners. Based upon the file, the record made, the file and proceedings heretofore had, IT IS HEREBY ORDEftED: 1. That the Respondent-City's motion be and the same is hereby denied. 2. That the following Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. DATED: 10-28-91 BY T E OURT: ` ARTIN . UR Judge f D strict Court 1 '? ' • File th?s day ol 19 ROGER W. SAMES, Court Admmistratot MEMORANDUM The property is unique and, as such, the versus costs of improvements must be determined exclusive of the other. Here the Petition, residents on Rahn Road in the city of Eagan together in appealing the assessments that have By DEPUN ? issue of benefits for each property ars apparently are and have joined 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 Petitianers 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 a11ow 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 groperty awners 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 ? R 1 TO: FROM: MEMORANDIIM Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works 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 tfie Judge was not totally supportive of Mr. Groves' position. The Court asked for the City's position and I reitera.ted the Judge's own comments namely that each pareel is unique and by the very nature of the special assessment, the City may not levy an assessment greater than the benefit to that particular parcel. I pointed out to the Court that the parcels were not all assessed the same amount indicating that they differed in some respect. I also argued that, in the event the Court did not agree that the properties had been benefitted to the amount of the assessment, the Court would need to be able to arrive at some equitable means of determining a reduction in the assessment. Without knowledge of the individual characteristics of the properties, the Court would have to resort to a blanket type of reduction which would be unfair to the City and likely also the landowners. The Court noted that appellants paid only one filing fee. The Judge stated that he would take the matter under advisement and issue an order. AMM/wkt , 1987 BIIILDING PERMIT iPPLICATI - CITY OF EAGlN SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS INCLIIDE 2 SETS OF PLANS, 3 CERTIFICATES OF SUFdVEY, 1 SET OF ENERGY CALCIILATIONS NOTE: gDDRESSES FOR CORNER LOTS - CONTRACTOR/HOMEOGINER MIIST DESIGNiTE WfiICH ADDRESS IS DESIRED. NO CHANGES WILL BE ALLOWED ONCE BIIILDING PERMIT IS ISSIIED. MULTIPLE DWELLINGS - RESIDENTIAL RENTAL UNITS FOR SgL.E iJNIYS INCLUDE 2 SETS OF PLANS, CERTIFICATE OF SIIRVEY - CHECK `iITH BLDG. DEPT., 1 SET OF ENERGY CALCULATIONS rn:?urTer 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: ? 019,( 1 cblU Valuation: 1J?000=-? Date: Site Address Lot ?l Block Parcel/Sub Owner P? /9 ?. ? G ) ? : lU1 P ?? ???1? ? Address 9A/1 Gr- ? ? City/Zip Code -r Phone /C/ T F Contraetor p 60 r v r' iL Address City/Zip Code Phone Arch./Engr.• Address City/Zip Code Phone 4k OFFICE USE ONLY On Site Sewage MWCC System On Site Well City Water 9PPROVALS Assessments Water/Sewer Police Fire Engr Planner Council Bldg Off = 14. APC Variance Oecupancy _1? -3 Zoning Type of Const (Actual) U- N (Allowable) - ?-ti- # of Stories Length Depth S.F. Total Footprint S.F. FEE.S Permit 1-a8, SD Surcharge r;SO Plan Review lo4.2s SAC, City SAC, MWCC Water Conn Water Meter Road Unit Treatment P1 Parks Copies TOTAL o2U0 %S f I ? { I ? ? ? I ? . i / r? . ? p i ? ? 01..(7„ \J? ? . e ? ? ; , S i ? i i • d-? _??!:1Y_i"_i._...FO? Ud A?? 1(? ?l i41! i . V ` o"";O A?:p ? G:? ? E 1 ?. ! ? ? k t ? ? ?..,.. , • . . . ?t ? ? îý ùð ÿþþý üûüû úýýþþííõ ý ì ùóèî é ì ÿþ ÿþýüûúãáÿ ùþüûú øüûúãáÿ ú ùþùéòþúû Þ ÿïþç ãîúúúã îðþðîúöàãýå þ þúýþãúå øî èããð ðèä ðíååýîþýèëú çæÜæ éìåôê åêô ÷ú ÿþî ÝþæÜæéå åì ô Ýþ å öõô õ óò úú ùÝùùþõ ììêîÿÿþîéôî ù óèõ÷ôô õ÷ôô ìì í ìëêôôô îýûö î îèîúúîîãð ðúûöîúúýÿ ãõÿþùûã òå úúà þûÿ þ Date: City of Eapn 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan MN 55122 Phone: (651) 675-5675 Fax: (651) 675-5694 2013 RESIDENTIAL1t34-/5-' BUILDING PERMIT s X � J Site Address: `I 3 4-i 0/c4 LI L ` c Clef - Name: Resident/ Owner Address / City / Zip: -/.3 Applicant is: ✓ Owner Contractor r Use BLUE or BLACK Ink For Office Use Permit #: // Z2-F/ Permit Fee: Date Received: 49 ( 3 Staff: APPICATION /14 Unit #: Type of Work Description of work: Construction Cost: Phone: Cc 3C7 66-79r r1 ,/ f9y MA/ 5 -5 -122 - Type izz /36 4.):3 Company: &e,#„eicr4 Address: q 3 y5 4 4 ♦ Multi -Family Building: (Yes Contact: State: 41, Zip: RC2 Phone: / No ) City: Lead Certificate #: If the project is exempt from lead certification, please explain why: (see Page 3 for additional information) COMPLETE THIS AREA ONLY IF CONSTRUCTING A NEW BUILDING In the last 12 months, has the City of Eagan issued a permit for a similar plan based on a master plan? Yes No If yes, date and address of master plan: Licensed Plumber: Mechanical Contractor: Sewer & Water Contractor: Phone: Phone: Phone: NOTE: Plans and supporting documents that you submit are considered to be public information. Portions of the information may be classified as non-public if you provide specific reasons that would permit the City to conclude that they are trade secrets. CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. Call Gopher State One Call at (651) 454-0002 for protection against underground utility damage. Call 48 hours before you intend to dig to receive locates of underground utilities. www.gopherstateonecall.orq I hereby acknowledge that this information is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City of Eagan; that I understand this is not a permit, but only an application for a permit, and work is not to start without a permit; that the work will be in accordance with the approved plan in the case of work which requires a review and approval of plans. Exterior work authorized by a building permit issued in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code mus days of permit issuance. Applicant's Printed Name Appli ant's Signature eted within 180 Page 1 of 3 PERMIT City of Eagan Permit Type:Building Permit Number:EA117200 Date Issued:10/16/2013 Permit Category:ePermit Site Address: 4345 Rahn Rd Lot:21 Block: 1 Addition: Cedar Grove 4th PID:10-16703-01-210 Use: Description: Sub Type:Reroof Work Type:Replace Description: Census Code:434 - Zoning: Square Feet:0 Occupancy: Construction Type: Comments:Please print pictures of ice and water protection and leave on site. Carbon monoxide detectors are required by law in ALL single family homes . Beth Chu Valuation: 4,000.00 Fee Summary:BL - Base Fee $4K $103.25 0801.4085 Surcharge - Based on Valuation $4K $2.00 9001.2195 $105.25 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 - Brett M Lindert 4345 Rahn Rd Eagan MN 55122 Cvc Construction Llc 9722 78th St S Cottage Grove MN 55016 (612) 685-5765 Applicant/Permitee: Signature Issued By: Signature 11/21/2013 17:08 9525522820 1,11' City of Eapli Date: 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan MN 55122 Phone: (651) 675-5675 Fax: (651) 675-5694 t'Rbt t711 t7 / Use BLUE or BLACK Ink For Office Use Permit #: Permit Fee: Date Received: Staff: 2013 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION 11/21/13 Site Address: 4345 Rahn Road Unit #: Name: Brett Linden Phone: 651-398-6674 Address / City /Zip: 4345 Rahn Road, Eagan, MN 55122 Applicant Is: Owner X Contractor Description of work: interior Drain Tile System w/ sump & basket (124') - See attached description Construction Cost: $5,282.00 Multi -Family Building: (Yes / No X ) Advanced Waterproofing & Foundation Repairs, Inc. Company: Contact: Kari Johnson Address: 12585 Rhode Island Ave State: MN Zip: _ 55378 License #: SC634927 Phone: City; Savage 952-562-8100 Lead Certificate #: NAT -113770-1 If the project Is exempt from lead certification, please explain why: (see Page 3 for additional information) Nil / - rr (�er,oAa. -- R he-" brocAr,,urer I'1a5 ipeer1 rev f 1 I f COMPLETE THIS AREA ONLY IF CONSTRUCTING A NEW BUILDING r" In the last 12 months, has the City of Eagan issued a permit for a similar plan based on a master plan? _Yes _No If yes, date and address of master plan; i v . ) Licensed Plumber: Phone: Mechanical Contractor: Phone: Sewer & Water Contractor: Phone: N, U i CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. Call Gopher State One Cali at (661) 454-0002 for protection against underground utility damage. Call 48 hours before you intend to dig to receive locates of underground utilities. www.aooherstateonecali,zq I hereby acknowledge that this information is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City of Eagan; that 1 understand this is not a permit, but only an application for a permit, and work is not to start without a permit; that the work will be in accordance with the approved plan in the case of work which requires a review and approval of plans. Exterior work authorized by a building permit issued in accordance with the Minnesota State Build days y permit Issuance. YLV\I o\VO V' Applicant's Printed Name Code must be completed within 180 Page 1 of 3 11/21/2013 17:08 SUB TYPES Foundation Single Family Multi 01 of ` Plex Accessory Building WORK TYPES New Addition Alteration Replace Retaining Wall DESCRIPTION Valuation Plan Review (25% 100%_J Census Code #of Units # of Buildings Type of Construction 9525622820 DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE Fireplace Garage Deck Lower Level itrtni Interior Improvement Move Building Fire Repair Repair REQUIRED INSPECTIONS Footings (New Building) Footings (Deck) Footings (Addition) Foundation /( Drain Tile rt,,, (e"t-'' Roof: Ice & Water Final Framing Fireplace: Rough In Air Test Insulation Sheathing Sheetrock Reviewed By: F'AUL 03/ 0I Nays le-41-w),� j1c3. Porch (3 -Season) _ Storm Damage Porch (4 -Season)` Exterior Alteration (Single Family) Porch (Screen/Gazebo/Pergola) — Exterior Alteration (Multi) Pool` Miscellaneous Occupancy Code Edition Zoning Stories Square Feet Length Width _Final Siding Reroof Windows Egress Window Demolish Building' Demolish Interior Demolish Foundation Water Damage *Demolition of entire building — give PCA handout to applicant MCES System SAC Units City Water Booster Pump PRV Fire Sprinklers Meter Size: Final / C.O. Required Final / No C.O. Required HVAC — Gas Service Test Gas Line Air Test Other; Pool: Footings __Air/Gas Tests Final Siding: Stucco Lath _Stone Lath Brick Windows Retaining Wall: Footings — Backfill Final Radon Control Erosion Control Building Inspector RESIDENTIAL FEE$ Base Fee Surcharge Plan Review MCES SAC City SAC Utility Connection Charge S&W Permit & Surcharge Treatment Plant Copies TOTAL 2 Page 2of3 Use BLUE or BLACK Ink - - - - - - - I I For Office Use I ( I a# * G I Permit ~ I ` I City of Eaing~ x I I I Permit Fee: I 3830 Pilot Knob Road I I Eagan MN 55122 R+~C INJ i Date Received: ( 2' I Phone: (651) 675-5675 I I Fax: (651) 675-5694 MAR 2 2014 L Staff: 2014 RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING PERMIT APPLICATION Date: 12__ ILl Site Address: `f3`15 ('Vii AJ 31~ Tenant: Suite . w............. . . Resident/Owner Name: L-~ Phone: 34'F C '7~ 3 x Address/ City /Zip: z, Name: License Contractor Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: i Contact: Email: Type of Work -New placement _ Repair _ Rebuild - Modify Space _ Work in R.O.W. Description of work: z,, 4,,, c) RESIDENTIAL Water Heater Lawn Irrigation RPZ PVB) Water Softener Permit Type Septic System Add Plumbing Fixtures L_ Main / Lower Level) New Water Turnaround Abandonment RESIDENTIAL FEES: $60.00 Water Heater, Water Softener, or Water Heater and Softener (includes $5.00 State Surcharge) $60.00 Lawn Irrigation (includes $5.00 minimum State Surcharge) $60.00 Add Plumbing Fixtures, Septic System Abandonment, Water Turnaround" (includes $5.00 State Surcharge) "Water Turnaround (add $200.00 if a 5/8" meter is required) $115.00 Septic System New ($10.00 per as built) (includes County fee and $5.00 State Surcharge) TOTAL FEES $ CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. Call Gopher State One Call at (651) 454-0002 for protection against underground utility damage. Call 48 hours before you intend to dig to receive locates of underground utilities. www.gopherstateonecall.org I hereby acknowledge that this information is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City of Eagan; that I understand this is not a permit, but only an application for a permit, and work is not to start without a permit; that the work will be in accordance with the approved lplan ,i-n the case of work which requires a review and approval of plans Applicant's Printed Name Applicant's Signature FOR OFFICE USE Reviewed By: Date: Required Inspections: Under Ground Rough-In Air Test Gas Test Final Meter Related Items: Meter Size Radio Read Staff: Use BLUE or BLACK Ink " For Office Use I 1 I (~1}} 6 Permit _ 1~~~ li' of Ea Win RECEIVED i I Permit Fee: 315 3830 Pilot Knob Road MAR 12 2014 1 Eagan MN 55122 I Date Received: Phone: (651) 675-5675 I I Fax: (651) 675-5694 I Staff: I - - - - - - - - - - - - 2/014 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Date: J 17 jy Site Address: 4GI Unit Name: hCD CC'-7y q Phone:l 6 7 Resident/ d- Z Address / City / Zip: t~S d t Applicant is: Owner Contractor Type of Work Description of work: °~er'~ Construction Cost: is Multi-Family Building: (Yes J No Company: Contact: Contractor Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: License Lead Certificate If the project is exempt from lead certification, please explain why: (see Page 3 for additional information) t COMPLETE THIS AREA ONLY IF CONSTRUCTING A NEW BUILDING In the last 12 months, has the City of Eagan issued a permit for a similar plan based on a master plan? _Yes _No If yes, date and address of master plan: Licensed Plumber: Phone: Mechanical Contractor: Phone: Sewer & Water Contractor: Phone: • PJansanr!_suppoWng-ctocu nests-that-yo idered4o--be-p1blic infermatiep. Portions of the information may be classified as non-public if you provide specific reasons that would permit the City to conclude that they are trade secrets. CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. Call Gopher State One Call at (651) 454-0002 for protection against underground utility damage. Call 48 hours before you intend to dig to receive locates of underground utilities. www.gopherstateonecall.org I hereby acknowledge that this information is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City of Eagan; that I understand this is not a permit, but only an application for a permit, and work is not to start without a permit; that the work will be in accordance with the approved plan in the case of work which requires a review and approval of plans. Exterior work authorized by a building permit issued in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code must be completed within 180 days of permit issuance. Applicant's Printed Name Applicant's Signature Page 1 of 3 L{.3 Y5 /{th t?W DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE SUB TYPES _ Foundation _ Fireplace _ Porch (3-Season) _ Exterior Alteration (Single Family) Single Family _ Garage _ Porch (4-Season) _ Exterior Alteration (Multi) Multi Deck Porch (Screen/Gazebo/Pergola) _ Miscellaneous 01 of - Plex Lower Level _ Pool _ Accessory Building WORK TYPES New Interior Improvement _ Siding _ Demolish Building* Addition _ Move Building _ Reroof _ Demolish Interior Alteration _ Fire Repair _ Windows _ Demolish Foundation Replace _ Repair _ Egress Window _ Water Damage Retaining Wail *Demolition of entire building - give PCA handout to applicant DESCRIPTION Valuation Occupancy MCES System Plan Review Code Edition SAC Units (25%_ 1000/.-4) Zoning a L City Water Census Code Stories Booster Pump # of Units Square Feet PRV # of Buildings Length Fire Sprinklers Type of Construction Width REQUIRED INSPECTIONS Footings (New Building) Meter Size: Footings (Deck) Final / C.O. Required Footings (Addition) Final 1 No C.O. Required Foundation HVAC _ Gas Service Test Gas Line Air Test Roof: -Ice & Water -Final Pool: -Footings -Air/Gas Tests -Final Framing Drain Tile Fireplace: -Rough In -Air Test -Final Siding: -Stucco Lath -Stone Lath -Brick Insulation Windows Sheathing Retaining Wall: _ Footings Backfill _ Final Sheetrock Radon Control Fire Walls Erosion Control Braced Walls Other: Reviewed By:~ , Building Inspector RESIDENTIAL FEES ase ee Surcharge Plan Review MCES SAC City SAC Utility Connection Charge y)-0 S&W Permit & Surcharge Treatment Plant Copies TOTAL Page 2 of 3 • ` f Use BLUE or BLACK Ink -----------------, � For Office Use � �l ' i�C��i�.o ' t� of �a�aIl � Permit#: � � � � �Qo � o � � Permit Fee: � 3830 Pilot Knob Road i ��j -�'� i Eagan MN 55122 I �ate Re ived: �r� ( — � I � Phone: (651)675-5675 � staff: � � Fax: (651) 675-5694 i________________� 2015 ESIDENTIAL PLUMBING PERMIT APP�ICATION 5' � � � ��1�� Date: Site Address: � Tenant: Suite#: ��is °� �� : ._� �� f C4 Phone: ��" �� Name: � � � ��''`R St�i.'Il ��,� '�; �� y�� . ,V �� ti � Address/City/Zip: � �� ;*��,��,;, ,� �-��_� �' �� . Name: �bert Cornpany Inc dba Culligan Water �icense#: �C64137G �'�� C�o�itr�cto�� Aad�eSs: 18Qt 50`� St East ��ty. Inver Grove Hgts. �� state:� Mn zip: 55077 Phone: 651-451-2241'� � �� < � � �� J � � William R Milbert '�� Contact: � Email: � = P � � � ��"� �� __New �Replacement _Repair _Rebuild _Modify Space _Work in R.O.W. � � „� � �� _ � � ��°� � Description of work: � - � ��-�� r y �� RESIDENTIAL �� { � �� °`� � Water Heater �� F� •�_ � � � � �Water Softener �.� � , �� Lawn Irrigation�RPZ/_PVB) � � "% Add Plumbing Fixtures�Main/_Lower Level) � __- Septic System � New Water Turnaround �-� ��, = — �'"�` �� Abandonment ��,��• P��'� ��t * R�SI�ENTI,4L,FEE�: � $60.00 Water Heater,Water Softener, or Water Heater and Softener(includes$5.00 State Surcharge) $60.00 �.avs�r; !rrigation{includes$5.00 minimum State Surc;harge) " $60.00 Add Plumbing Fixtures, Septic System Abandonment,Water Turnaround''(includes$5.00 State Surcharge) *Water Turnaround(add$200.00 if a 5/8"meter is required) $115.00 Septic SVstem New($10.00 per as built)(includes County fee and$5.00 State Surcharge) 6 O O TOTAL FEES$ CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. Call Gopher State One Call at(651)454-0002 for protection against underground utility damage. Call 48 hours before you intend to dig to receive locates of underground utilities. vwvw.aopherstateonecall.org I hereby acknowledge that this information is complete and accurate;that the work will be in confortnance with the ordinances and codes of the City of Eagan; that I understand this is not a permit, but only an application for a permit, and woric is not to start without a permft; that the work will be in accordance with the approved plan in the case of work which requires a review and approval of plans. � X ►��l(�, � �.., ��.�- x � ApplicanYs Printed Name App nt's Signature � �_ v r � t��- � :1� 9 ��.� � Q � �';`��w- -- , ��,� :�i �� '�.' �,�-