The URL can be used to link to this page

6.0. SR 04-27-1998.y of MEMORANDUM Item #6. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor & City Council Pat Klaers, City Administr~ April 27, 1998 Capital Improvement Program The agenda for the April 27, 1998, City Council meeting has been mostly reserved for a discussion on the east Elk River project, a review of projects in the capital improvement program (CIP), and for a City Council update on current events and activities and. After the City Council discussion on the draft tobacco ordinance, we will recess into the training room for a few hours to discuss on a variety of current and future projects. The following is an outline of the topics and issues that need to be reviewed. East Elk River Project Update A.* Update on the Wild and Scenic River Ordinance B.* Project schedule and update on the commercial/industrial project and the residential project C. Update on possible BESTE funds (via Congressman Oberstar) for the eastern road corridor project D. Update on the delineation of wetlands in the Brown and Vandenberge areas E. Update on the permitting process for the sewer, water, storm sewer, etc. components of the east Elk River public improvement project F.* Appraisal Reports i. Request for Evergreen to begin negotiations for the three properties between 171~t and 173rd ii. Discuss the Kirkeide situation iii. Discuss the Brown situation G. Review funding sources for land acquisitions. i. Street right-of-way ii. Business Park/industrial properties H.** Consider appraisal for overall benefit of trunk utilities (possible increase in the $6,000 level which was identified in the summer, 1996, Patchin Report) 13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 ° Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425 o Ko Mo i. Consider Mayor's request to begin the 429 assessment process prior to the approval of preliminary plats ii? Review eastern Elk River assessment list Update on Scott Powell meeting for development between the highway and the river Economic Development Strategic Plan Implementation... Business Park/Industrial rezonings of the Brown and Mulvaney properties Update on schedule and funding for the 171st signal Update on schedule and funding for the railroad crossing construction project Review the 171sq173rd road construction timetable Finances (general) Consider City Comprehensive Transportation Plan Review MnDOT Tour Route and Discussion Items for the May 5 Tour Review Ongoing Street and Public Improvement Projects Ao B. C. D. E. F. G. H. County Road 12 School Street Business Center Drive Upland Avenue/Highway 10 County Road 1 County Roads 33/12 City Overlays Library Parking Lot Miscellaneous Activities A. Discuss Elk River Mall, its PUD Agreement and land use options B. Consider selling of the Jarvis Street residential lot C? Consider selling of the Holt and Jackson commercial lot D. Update on the Lions Park site preparation work for the B/G Club project E. Skatepark in Oak Knoll Park update F. Update on improvements at old Northbound store and plans for recreation center (Jeff Asfahl) CUP G. Discussions on the minor expansion of the police department parking lot H. Staff analysis of city building and space needs Other 1998 projects (these projects are moving forward and no discussion is planned for the 4/27/Council meeting) A. Boston Street Bo F. G. H. I. Railroad Drive Guardian Angels sewer and water 221st and Highway 169 turn lane Pedestrian bridge Pavement replacement program Lake Orono sedimentation removal Ice arena dehumidification Opticon system *See Attached Material *~Material is not expected until Monday, April 27th and will be distributed at the meeting. .y of iver INFORMATION MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Sandra Thackeray, City Clerk April 27, 1998 SUBJECT: Review of "Expectations of Civility at Meetings" The 2001 Committee has submitted the attached information entitled "Expectations of Civility at Meetings." The 2001 Committee discussed the issue of public meetings having the potential of getting out of control. Thus the Committee developed a list of guidelines to help assure more effective public meetings. These guidelines are attached for your review. The 2001 Committee is recommending that these guidelines be used at Council meetings, Planning Commission meetings, School District meetings, etc. The 2001 Committee has requested the following feedback on these guidelines. · Would the guidelines be used? · What changes could be made? · How should they be distributed? If you have any comments to relay to the 2001 Committee, please call me at 441-4906. 13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425 EXPECTATIONS OF CIVILITY AT MEETINGS Some Ways To Help Assure More Effective Meetings 1. As much as possible, be positive. Rather than concentrate on the negative aspects, or exaggerating the weakness of opposing views, emphasize the positive aspects of your position. 2. Personal attacks, whether overt or in the form of innocent sounding questions, are unacceptable. Respect the protocol of the meeting at hand. There may be a specific time for comments from the public, and there may be certain requirements for speaking. Stick to the subject and the issue at hand. The leader of the meeting should make known the parameters of the subject under discussion, and the participants should observe those directions. Remember that you are more apt to be heard if anger is kept in check, if your requests are reasonable, and if you speak with a calm and controlled voice. Many conflicts are the result of misunderstandings. Be open to a new or different understanding of past or proposed actions. It is the responsibility of decision makers to give undivided attention to speakers, to avoid distractions of every kind, and to respond if possible to give assurance that the speakers have been heard. Be mindful that certain laws and regulations may apply to the issue, and changing those may be beyond the scope of the meeting. Be willing to compromise. Recognize other points of view and different perspectives, and look for the reasons for those viewpoints. Be open for solutions that go beyond the views of the various parties. 10. Be aware that some issues simply cannot be easily resolved, and decision makers have to use their best judgment. Prepared by The 2001 Committee, Inc. to encourage respect and civility at public meetings. y of MEMORANDUM TO: iver CITY COUNCIL STEPHEN ROHLF, BUILDING' AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DATE: APRIL 20, 1998 SUBJECT: UPDATE ON WILD AND SCENIC RIVER ORDINANCE Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) provided the city with an updated draft of the Wild and Scenic River Ordinance in 1996. This updated draft was tabled by the Planning Commission in July of 1996 and the Council in August of 1996 because it conflicted with the city's comprehensive plan in several locations. For example, the draft ordinance makes the historic portion of downtown south of Main Street non-conforming. In addition, the draft ordinance conflicts with the city's plans to extend urban services to eastern Elk River. The Specht property could be developed with urban residential lots, however, lots that are within the Wild and Scenic River District would have to be a minimum of two acres. This impractical size for urban lots affects a major portion of this property. Further, a large portion of the eastern area with existing commercial uses is affected. Commercial uses are not allowed in the Wild and Scenic River District. City staff has been diligently working with the DNR on these issue and feels that we will eventually be successful in resolving them. We are trying to have the boundary of the Wild and Scenic River District redrawn to exclude the commercial areas discussed and have the residential areas affected be allowed to develop with urban lot sizes. What the Council needs to consider is that until these issues with the DNR are resolved, it may be difficult to justify an assessment on these properties for urban services. How this issue affects the expansion of urban services to eastern Elk River should be discussed. Mayor Hank Duitsman and city staffmet with appropriate DNR officials regarding this issue on March 17, 1997. At that meeting the DNR lead us to believe that they would complete the planning process and public hearings necessary to make the changes to the Wild and Scenic River Ordinance the city requested by this construction season. Staff is doubtful that this issue will be resolved this year. We will be attending a meeting on this subject on April 30th and can give the Council a further update on the timing of the DNR process. 13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425 177TH 176TH ~, 'h \ 175TH 174TH ~ 172ND PORTION OF THE EASTERN URBAN EXPANSION AREA AFFECTED BY THE WILD & SCENIC RIVER ORDINANCE ZONING MAP i 170~1 169TH 16811-I r City of Elk r CONSULTING ENGINEERS i 166'TH 165"n-~ - 164TH 163RD 162ND ~ 1615T Howard R, Green Company CONSULTING ENGINEERS April 22, 1998 File: 230156M-80 Formerly MSA Consulting Engineer~ Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway P.O. Box 490 Elk River, MN 55330-0490 RE: COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Dear Council Members: As you are aware, the City of Elk River completed a Comprehensive Transportation Plan in November of 1995. A copy of Figure 6 from that plan is attached, which indicates the proposed minor arterial additions to the City road network. These additions represent the main points contained in the Transportation Plan. On February 15, 1996, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this proposed Transportation Plan. At the close of the public hearing, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the plan and sent it on to the City Council. The City Council held a public hearing on March 12, 1996. At the close of that public hearing, the City Council elected to take no action; instead, decided to wait until the Sherburne County Transportation Plan, which was in the works at that time, was completed and approved to make sure there were no contradictions or points of conflict between the City's Transportation Plan and the County's Transportation Plan. Sherburne County completed their plan and it was adopted by the County Board on March 10, 1998. A review of the County's plan finds that the County plan and City plan are in concurrence with each other with no points of conflict noted. Therefore, if the City Council desires, it would be appropriate to adopt the City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan and attach it to the City's 1995 Comprehensive Plan by reference, much like the Park Plan was attached. Attached for the City Council's consideration is a resolution which would adopt the Comprehensive Transportation Plan dated November 1995. Of course, if the City Council desired, they could hold another public hearing on this issue, since the last public hearing was closed over two years ago. If you have any questions regarding this issue, I will be in attendance at your April 27, 1998, City Council meeting. Sincerely, Howard R. Green Company Terry J. Maurer, P.E. TJM:tw Attachment S:\ADMIN~ENGINEER\156-2214.DOC 1326 Energy Park Drive · St. Paul, MN 55108 · 612/644-4389 fax 612/644-9446 toll free 888/368-4389 RESOLUTION 98- A RESOLUTION FOR THE CITY OF ELK RIVER A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER ADOPTING THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN DATED NOVEMBER 1995 WHEREAS the City has ordered the preparation of a Comprehensive Transportation Plan which was completed in November 1995; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 15, 1996, and at the close of that hearing, recommended approval of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS the City Council held a public hearing on March 12, 1996; and WHEREAS Sherburne County has adopted its Comprehensive Transportation Plan on March 10, 1998; and WHEREAS the County's Comprehensive Transportation Plan and the City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan are in agreement with each other; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Elk River, Minnesota: The City of Elk River Comprehensive Transportation Plan dated November 1995 is hereby adopted and is attached by reference to the City's Comprehensive Plan adopted December 18, 1995. Passed and adopted this 27th day of April, 1998. ATTEST: Henry A. Duitsman, Mayor Sandra A. Thackeray, City Clerk S:\ADMIN~ENGINEER\156-2214.DOC mgm =h ill E ~ Ill--' 0 2000 1326 ENERGY pARK DRIV~ ST. PAUt.. MINNESOTA 55108 (612) 644-4589 5075 WAYZATA BLVD. ~ITE t225 MINNE~OLIS, MINNESOTA ~16 (e~2) 5~-o4~2 · ., .- m tm -, ' Minor Arterials FIGURE 6 PROPOSED MINOR ATERIAL ADDITIONS TO NETWORK 6 / Elk River Star News / Wednesday, March 11, 1998 Area news i Sherburne County Briefs Commissioners consider 20-year transportation plan Now, it's the Sherburne County commissioners' tarn to consider a 20-year county transportation plan. A consultant has put the plan together, based on all of the available data. The plan calls for spending $45 million to do the 63 pro- jects. Part of that money will come from get~_'ng state aid from an additional 55 miles of newly designated state aid roads. The plan specifies there is a need for an additional local Mississippi River crossing into Monticello. Some major improvements include: · A new service road on the south side of Highway 10 in Becket. · A new east-west connection between County Road 5 and County Road 73 in Big Lake. · A new east-west connector between Highway 169 and County Road I in Elk River. · An upgraded CSAH 4 in Zimmerman. Here are some suggested projects: · Reconstruction to four-lane urban of CSAH 12 in Elk River between CSAH 13 and county line, cos~ng $1 million. · Grading and paving of CR 65 between CSAH 7 and TH 10, costing $400,000. · Recommend swapping CR 50 for 200th Street and extending 200th Street to the north, realigning with CR 81/CR73 for a continuous north-south route. · County should study potential of using existing 211th Avenue alignment and extending it to CSAH 5 at a cost of $1,700,000. · Discuss with NSP establishing a corridor for the long- term development of a collector route. The plan projects traffic growth for the next 20 years. SRF Consulting Group, Inc. of Plymouth wrote the plan. COMPLETE APPRAISAL, SELF-CONTAINED REPORT BEFORE AND AFTER VALUES 78.71 ACRES OF VACANT LAND IN THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 11 ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA DATE OF REPORT: March 23, 1998 PREPARED FOR: City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway P.O. Box 490 Elk River, MN 55318 PREPARED BY: Peter J. Patchin & Associates, Inc. 101 West Burnsville Parkway, Suite #200 Burnsville, MN 55337 Peter J. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants (612) 895-1205 101 West Burnsville Parkway, Suite 200, Burnsville, Minnesota 55337. FAX (612) 895-1521 March 23, 1998 City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway P.O. Box 490 Elk River, MN 55330 ATTN: Mr. Patrick Klaers RE: Complete Appraisal, Self-Contained Report Before And After Values 78.71 Acre of Vacant Land in the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 11 Elk River, Minnesota Dear Mr. Klaers: At your request, we have made a complete appraisal of the above captioned property for the purpose of estimating its fair market value both before and after a partial taking for new right- of-way. The function of this appraisal is to provide valuation guidance to the City of Elk River in the acquisition and/or condemnation proceedings involving the subject property. The attached self-contained report presents the findings, analysis and conclusions of the appraisal and fully identifies the property. Based upon the inspection of the property and after careful consideration of the many factors influencing market value, it is our opinion that the subject property has a market value, as of February 20, 1998, as follows: Land Value Before The Taking Land Value After The Taking Total Just Compensation Due The Land Owner $470,000 $432,000 $ 38,000 This appraisal has been made in conformity with accepted professional, ethical and performance standards of real estate appraisal practice. The "Contin§ent and Limitin§ Conditions" section o~ this report should be thoroughly read and.understood before relying on any information or analysis presented herein, if you have any questions or comments after readin§ the appraisal, please contact the firm. The undersi§ned appraisers certify that they have investigated information believed to be pertinent to the valuation of the property and to the best of their knowledge and belief, the statements and opinions expressed herein are correct and reasonable, subject to the limiting conditions set forth herein. Certified to this 23rd day of March, 1998 PET/~R J. PAT!.,~I~N & ASSOCIATES, INC. Minnesota Certified General License #4000911 Jason L. Messner, MAI Minnesota Certified General License #4000836 Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultant~ 9786-1 SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS Fee Owner: Location: Date of Appraisal: Date of Inspection: Property Appraised: Property Rights Appraised: Zoning: Site Description: Site Area: Before Taking: After Taking: Part Taken: Highest & Best Use: Before Taking: After Taking: Value Conclusions: Market Value Before The Taking: Market Value After The Taking: Total Just Compensation Due The Land Owner: Roger and Jean Eull Vacant Land Located South of 1 73rd Avenue and east of the Rail Road Tracks in Elk River, Minnesota February 20, 1998 February 20, 1998 A vacant tract of I-1 and R-la zoned land. Fee Simple Market Value I-1, Light Industrial and R-lA, Single Family Residential Gently rolling site, sloping downward to a Iow area and ditch on the north side. Site is open fields on the south with woods and wetlands on the north. 78.71 Acres, or 75.06 Acres, or 3.65 Acres, or Metric 31.85 Hectares 30.3 7 Hectares 1.48 Hectares Unserved industrial and rural residential development. Unserved industrial and rural residential development. $470,000 $432,000 $ 38,O00 Patchin & Associates, Inc. VaLuation Consultants 9786-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TEM_ PAGE NO. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ........................................................................................ i-ii CERTIFICATION ......................................................................................................... SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS ..............................................iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ v SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS ......................................................................................... vi SUBJECT LOCATION MAP ........................................................................................ vii SUBJECT PLAT MAP ................................................................................................. viii SUBJECT ZONING MAP ................................................. ix TAKING DIAGRAM ..................................................................................................... x SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL ........................................................................................ 1 DATE OF APPRAISAL .................................................................................................. 2 PURPOSE AND FUNCTION OF APPRAISAL ............................................................... 3 PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED .................................................................................. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................... 3 MARKET VALUE DEFINED .......................................................................................... 4 AREA AND NEIGHBORHOOD DATA ......................................................................... 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 9 ZONING ..................................................................................................................... 9 APPRAISAL PROCEDURES AND TECHNIQUES ............... ~ ........................................ 11 BEFORE VALUE ......................................................................................................... 12 APPRAISAL PROCEDURES AND TECHNIQUES .................................................. 12 DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND PARCEL ............................................................... 13 HIGHEST AND BEST USE ................................................................................... 14 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH TO VALUE ................................................... 16 COMPARABLE LAND SALES LOCATION MAP ................................................... 27 DEVELOPMENT APPROACH TO VALUE ............................................................ 34 CORRELATION AND FINAL ESTIMATE OF VALUE ............................................ 45 DESCRIPTION OF TAKING ....................................................................................... 46 AFTER VALUE ........................................................................................................... 48 DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND PARCEL, AFTER TAKING ..................................... 48 HIGHEST AND BEST USE ................................................................................... 49 Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultant, 9786-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) ITEM PAGE NO. AFTER VALUE (Continued) APPRAISAL PROCEDURES AND TECHNIQUES .................................................. 49 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH TO VALUE ................................................... 50 DEVELOPMENT APPROACH TO VALUE ............................................................ 54 CORRELATION AND FINAL ESTIMATE OF VALUE ............................................ 57 ESTIMATE OF DAMAGES .......................................................................................... 58 TYPES OF DAMAGES ......................................................................................... 58 ADDENDA EXHIBIT #1 - LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ENTIRE PARCEL .................................... 60 EXHIBIT #2 - DESCRIPTIONS OF PART TAKEN ................................................... 63 CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ................................................... 65 QUALIFICATIONS OF JOSEPH E. MAKO, AS APPRAISER ................................... 70 QUALIFICATIONS OF JASON L. MESSNER, AS APPRAISER ................................ 71 Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultant~ . '~ ~. - ~ I ¥.~:.~:~?~'~ ~~, I~/~V//~~ SUBdEC~ ZONING MAP TAKING DIAGRAM 9786-1 11 APPRAISAL PROCEDURES AND TECHNIQUES Before And After Values This appraisal is being conducted in order to estimate damages caused to the real property by the taking for new highway right-of-way. The accepted method for measuring damages that result because of a taking by condemnation is as follows: 1. Value the property as it exists before the taking. 2. Value the property as it will exist after the taking. 3. The difference is the damage caused. In the "before value" section of this report we will estimate the value of the subject property as it existed in the before condition. We will describe the taking the remainder parcel, then appraise it in the "after value" section of this report. In the final section we will estimate damages occurring to the real property. In this case both direct and severance are accounted for by the difference between the before and after land values. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultanl~ 9786-1 13 BEFORE VALUE Description of The Land Parcel Size: Shape: Terrain: Wetlands: Vegetation: Soil Conditions: Utilities: Easements: Access/Frontage: 31.85 Hectares (78.71 Acres) Odd shaped, a 5 acre parcel has been carved out of this parcel on the north side. Gently rolling site, sloping downward to a Iow area and ditch on the north side. Site is open fields on the south with woods and wetlands on the north. The site has approximately 5.83 Hectares (14.4 Acres) of wetlands in the before condition. Open agricultural fields on the south, woods and wetlands on the north. Varies from high buildable soils to wetlands. Private well and septic required. A sewer and water project to serve a broad area of southern Elk River is currently in the planning stage. A UPA easement along the westerly property line. This property has approximately 160' of frontage with access on 173rd Avenue. However, this access requires a long driveway. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 9786-1 15 BEFORE VALUE Highest And Best Use Land As Vacant The highest and best use of the land, as vacant, is for unserved development of industrial uses on the westerly 39_+ acres and unserved residential development on the easterly 40_+ acres. o Legally Permissible: Continued agricultural use, industrial development on the westerly portion and rural residential development on the easterly portion are all legally permissible. Physically Possible: Continued agriculture use, industrial development on the westerly portion and residential development on the easterly portion are all physically possible. The land does include the following physical impediments to development. a. Limited road access, which will require extensive road construction for development. Low lands, slopes and a drainage ditch on the northerly edge of the land parcel.' These areas are located primarily in the easterly R-la zoned portion of the site and provide some view amenity. Financial ly Feasible: The potential for sewer and water availability in the future requires that we consider the financial feasibility of holding the property for future development. In this case, only the subject's industrial land is in the urban service area and this land must be crossed with a road in order to access the R-la land. There is sufficient demand to develop the subject's R-la land with 2.5 acre lots. In addition, the industrially zoned land has more value as industrial lots than agricultural land. Long term holding of the industrial land in order to develop lots served with sewer and water is also financially feasible. Currently municipal sewer and water are not available, these City improvements are still in the planning stages. Thus industrial development with sewer and water is a speculative use at this point in time. Maximally Productive: Near term development of the land consistent with its zoning is the maximally productive use of the land. This development would include unserved industrial lots on the westerly portion and unserved rural residential lots on the east. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 9786-1 45 BEFORE VALUE Correlation And Final Estimate of Value The subject value was estimated by two approaches in this appraisal. indications are as follows: The two value Sales Comparison Approach to Value Development Approach to Value $488,000 $4O8,OOO The sales comparison approach is typically the best indicator of value for undeveloped land. In this case, we will give strong weight to the sales comparison approach because we were able to locate nine comparable acreage sales. However, there are two types of land (industrial and residential) plus the necessity of creating an access road to 173st Avenue prior to development. The development approach is typically conducted to support the sales comparison approach. In this case, it demonstrates the viability of subdividing the subject. The development approach is somewhat limited, however, due to the lack of an actual subdivision plan. In addition to its subdivision development appeal, the subject, as a whole, has appeal to a single large user for industrial, recreational or residential use. Based on the preceding analysis and giving greatest weight to the sales comparison approach, we conclude to a total market value, before the taking, of $470,000. FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 9786-1 46 DESCRIPTION OF TAKING The City of Elk River plans to acquire a 120' strip of land through the westerly half of the subject. When the City constructs a road in this right-of-way strip, it will make the subject much easier to develop. However, the subject property will likely be accessed for the new street which will off-set any potential benefit. Thus, the taking is a land acquisition of 3.65 acres of unserved development land. The 3.65 acre strip of land is legally described in the addenda of this report. The taking severs the subject into two land parcels and creates a slightly triangulated area to the east of the adjoining Barrett property on the subject northerly border. The triangulation of the subject will be addressed in the after value analysis. The actual physical taking of the subject is described as follows: Configuration: Total Area Taken: Amount of Wetland: 120' wide, approximately 1,325 lineal feet, curving. 3.65 Acre 0.6 Acres See the Taking Diagram on the following page. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 4'7 TAKING DIAGRAM 9786-1 48 AFTER VALUE Description of The Land Parcelt After Taking Size: 30.37 Hectares (75.06 Acres) Shape: Odd shaped, a 5 acre parcel has been carved out of this parcel on the north side. A new 120' wide road right-of-way curves through the easterly half of the subject parcel creating two odd shaped remainder land parcels. The two parcels have reasonably developable shapes and the new road only creates one new tightly triangulated area. This new triangulated area is located in the steeply sloping area between the adjacent Barrett Parcel and the new right-of-way. Wetlands: In the after condition the subject has approximately 5.59 Hectares (13.8 Acres) of wetlands. Vegetation: Open agricultural fields on the south, woods and wetlands on the north. Soil Conditions: Varies from high buildable soils to wetlands. Utilities: Private well and septic required. A sewer and water project to serve a broad area of southern Elk River is currently in the planning stage. Current plans call for public utilities to be installed in the 120' wide easement being acquired. However, the installation of utilities is not envisioned in the original road construction. Also, any benefit created by the installation of utilities will be off-set by sewer and water assessments. .Easements: A UPA easement along the westerly property line. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultant~ 9786-1 49 AFTER VALUE Description of The Land Parcel, After Taking Access/Frontage: This property has approximately 160' of frontage with access on 173rd Street. However, this access requires a long driveway. This appraisal ignores the impact of the new street improvements on the subject's value. The potential benefit of these street improvements will be off-set by assessments. Highest And Best Use The highest and best use of the subject is the same as in the before condition. Unserved industrial development on the westerly 35+ acres and unserved residential development on the easterly 40+ acres. The major change in the property is that it will lose 3.65+ acres. All of the acreage lost is in the industrial zoned portion of the subject and most of the land taken is high and buildable. The taking does include a small amount of land area in the steeply sloping and wetland portion of the site. It also creates a triangulated area east of the Barrett Residence. (Most of the triangulated land is steeply sloping.) Overall, the land taken is topographically superior to the site as a whole in the before condition. Thus, the highest and best use is not altered, but the industrial portion of the subject development will be reduced in size. Appraisal Procedures And Techniques As in the before valuation, both the sales comparison and development approaches to value will be utilized. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 9786-1 57 AFTER VALUE Correlation And Final Estimate of Value The subject value was estimated by two approaches in this appraisal. indications are as follows: The two value Sales Comparison Approach to Value Development Approach to Value $450,000 $375,000 In this appraisal we are measuring the impact of a partial land taking. Thus, to make certain that potential damages do not get lost in the rounding, we will consider the difference between the before and after values as follows: Sales Comparison Approach to Value Before Condition After Condition Difference $488,0OO $45O,OOO $ 38,O0O Development Approach to Value Before Condition After Condition Difference $408,000 $375,000 $ 33,000 As in the before value analysis, we will give most weight to the sales comparison approach and supporting weight to the development approach. In the after situation, the subject's land value is estimated to be $432,000. FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 9786-1 58 ESTIMATE OF DAMAGES We have valued the property in the before and after situations in the preceding sections of this report. In this section, we will estimate just compensation (damages) as the difference between the before value and after value. Types of Damages The damages that result can be categorized as follows. Value of Direct Taking Value of Severance Damages to the Remainder Damages are measured by valuing the property as it exist in the before condition, then valuing the property as it will exist in the after condition. The difference between the two value estimates is damages (to the real estate) caused by the taking. A small amount of severance damages are believed to exist in this case because of a triangulation created by the taking. Our after value reflects this severance situation in both the sales comparison and development approach. Therefore, damages are estimated as follows: Before Value After Value Total Damages $470,000 $432,000 $ 38,000 Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultant=, COMPLETE APPRAISAL, SELF-CONTAIN ED REPORT BEFORE AND AFTER VALUES JAMES BARRETT PROPERTY 10768 - 173RD AVENUE ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA DATE OF REPORT: April 10, 1998 · PREPARED FOR: City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway P.O. Box 490 Elk River, MN 55318 PREPARED BY: Peter J. Patchin & Associates, Inc. 101 West Burnsville Parkway, Suite #200 Burnsville, MN 55337 Peter J. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants (612) 895-1205 101 West Burnsville Parkway, Suite 200, Burnsville, Minnesota 55337. FAX (612) 895-1521 April 10, 1998 City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway P.O. Box 490 Elk River, MN 55330 ATTN: Mr. Patrick Klaers RE: Complete Appraisal, Self-Contained Report Before And After Values James Barrett Property 10768 - 173rd Avenue Elk River, Minnesota Dear Mr. Klaers: At your request, we have made a complete appraisal of the above captioned property for the purpose of estimating its fair market value both before and after a partial taking for new right- of-way. The function of this appraisal is to provide valuation guidance to the City of Elk River in the acquisition and/or condemnation proceedings involving the subject property. The subject consists of an unserved industrial site improved with a single family residence. Since the improvements have not been damaged by the taking and are not consistent with the highest and best use of the site, they have been excluded from this appraisal. The attached self-contained report presents the findings, analysis and conclusions of the appraisal and fully identifies the property. Based upon the inspection of the property and after careful consideration of the many factors influencing market value, it is our opinion that the subject property has a market value, as of February 20, 1998, as follows: Land Value Before The Taking Land Value After The Taking Direct Taking (Change in Land Value) Severance Damages to Existing Improvements Total Just Compensation Due Land Owner $63,500 $60,500 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 6,O00 This appraisal has been made in conformity with accepted professional, ethical and performance standards of real estate appraisal practice. The "Contin§ent and Limitin§ Conditions" section of this report should be thoroughly read and'understood before relyin§ on any information or analysis presented herein. If you have any questions or comments after readin§ the appraisal, please contact the firm. The undersigned appraisers certify that they have investigated information believed to be pertinent to the valuation of the property and to the best of their knowledge and belief, the statements and opinions expressed herein are correct and reasonable, subject to the limiting conditions set forth herein. Certified to this 10th day of April, 1998 P ET E R ,~.~ATC H I~ASS O~IA~S, INC. ~"~,~,s..~'~//J~sep'h'15. Mako 1 ~/ ~lnenP~eeso~aMC~rtified General License #400091 Minnesota Certified General License #4000836 Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 9786-2 SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS Fee Owner: Location: Date of Appraisal: Date of Inspection: Property Appraised: Property Rights Appraised: Zoning: Site Description: Site Area: Before Taking: After Taking: Part Taken: Highest & Best Use (As If Vacant): Before Taking: After Taking: Highest & Best Use (As Improved): Before Taking: After Taking: James Barrett 10768 - 173rd Avenue Elk River, Minnesota February 20, 1998 February 20, 1998 Industrial zoned land improved with residential buildings (the buildings are not appraised). Fee Simple Market Value I-1, Light Industrial Rolling wooded site with 0.64 Hectares (1.57 Acres) of wetland on the northeast corner. Site is improved with a rural residence. 5.51 Acres, or 4.84 Acres, or 0.67 Acres, or Metric 2.23 Hectares 1.96 Hectares 0.27 Hectares Industrial Development Industrial Development Continued Residential Use Continued Residential Use Value Conclusions: Market Value Before The Taking: Market Value After The Taking: Direct Taking (Change in Land Value: Severance Damages to Existing Improvements: Total Just Compensation Due Land Owner: $63,500 $6o,5oo $ 3,000 $ 3,00o. $ 6,O0O Patchin & Associates, Inc. Val~a[;o~ Coflsuii,~,6.s 9786-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM. PAGE NO. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ........................................................................................ i-ii CERTIFICATION ......................................................................................................... iii SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ v SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS ......................................................................................... vi SUBJECT LOCATION MAP ........................................................................................ vii SUBJECT SURVEY .................................................................................................... viii SUBJECT ZONING MAP ............................................................................................. ix EAST ELK RIVER CONCEPT PLAN ....................................................... i ....................... x SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL ........................................................................................ 1 DATE OF APPRAISAL .................................................................................................. 2 PURPOSE AND FUNCTION OF APPRAISAL ............................................................... 3 PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED .................................................................................. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................... 3 MARKET VALUE DEFINED .......................................................................................... 4 AREA AND NEIGHBORHOOD DATA ......................................................................... 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 9 ZONING ..................................................................................................................... 9 APPRAISAL PROCEDURES AND TECHNIQUES ........................................................ 11 BEFORE VALUE .............................................................. '. .......................................... 12 APPRAISAL PROCEDURES AND TECHNIQUES .................................................. 12 DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND PARCEL ............................................................... 13 DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................... 13 HIGHEST AND BEST USE ................................................................................... 15 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH TO VALUE ................................................... 18 COMPARABLE LAND SALES LOCATION MAP ......................................................... 24 DESCRIPTION OF TAKING ....................................................................................... 28 AFTER VALUE ........................................................................................................... 30 DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND PARCEL, AFTER TAKING ..................................... 30 HIGHEST AND BEST USE ................................................................................... 30 APPRAISAL PROCEDURES AND TECHNIQUES .................................................. 31 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH TO VALUE ................................................... 31 Patchin & Associates, Inc. Val~a~o~ Consulta~[~ 9786-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) ITEM PAGE NO. ESTIMATE OF DAMAG ES .......................................................................................... 35 TYPES OF DAMAGES ......................................................................................... 35 ADDENDA EXHIBIT #1 - LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ENTIRE PARCEL .................................... 39 EXHIBIT #2 - DESCRIPTIONS OF PART TAKEN ................................................... 42 EXHIBIT #3 - SUBJECT FLOOR PLANS ................................................................ 45 CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ................................................... 48 QUALIFICATIONS OF JOSEPH E. MAKO, AS APPRAISER ................................... 53 QUALIFICATIONS OF JASON L. MESSNER, AS APPRAISER ................................ 54 Patchin & Associates, Inc. V~_!~on Cop.~!~ ~1,~, leSTH [] RIc Rid 0 CITY II 8WF: ZONING MAP File 175TH EAST ELK RIVER CONCEPT PLAN KI ,VENUE 9786-2 11 APPRAISAL PROCEDURES AND TECHNIQUES Before And After Values This appraisal is being conducted in order to estimate damages caused to the real property by the taking for new highway right-of-way. The accepted method for measuring damages that result because of a taking by condemnation is as follows: 1. Value the property as it exists before the taking. 2. Value the property as it will exist after the taking. 3. The difference is the damage caused. In the "before value" section of this report we will estimate the value of the subject property as it existed in the before condition. We will describe the taking the remainder parcel, then appraise it in the "after value" section of this report. In the final section we will estimate damages occurring to the real property, including the following. Direct and severance damages calculated as the difference between the before and after land values. 2. Damages to the improvements, if any. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 9786-2 12 BEFORE VALUE Appraisal Procedures And Techniques In order to develop a reasonable opinion of the value of the subject land, in both the before and after situations, the following appraisal techniques will be considered. The Sales Comparison Approach - which produces an estimate of value by comparing the subject property to sales and/or listings of similar properties in the same or competing areas. This technique is used to indicate the value established by informed buyers and sellers in the market. Development Approach - which produces an estimate of value by discounting the cost of developing raw un-subdivided land and the probable proceeds from the sale of the developed sites. The property being appraised is 5.51 acres of industrial land improved with a upper value home. The land does not currently have access to utilities and the home is not directly impacted by the taking. The site can be further subdivided for industrial development. However, under current zoning it could not be developed with a residential use. Subdividing the subject into smaller industrial lots would not significantly enhance the overall value of the land because a street would likely have to be constructed. Thus only a sales comparison approach will be conducted in appraising the subject land. The improvements on-site are not physically impacted by the taking. They will be briefly described, but will not be specifically valued in this analysis. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 9786-2 13 BEFORE VALUE Description of The Land Parcel Size: Shape: Terrain: Soil Conditions: Utilities: Easements: Access: 2.23 Hectares (5.51 Acres) Irregular, see Plat Map at the beginning of this report. Gently rolling, slopes downward on the northeast into a wetland. Approximately 1.57 acres of the subject tract is wetland in the before condition. Soils in the upland areas appear suitable for building. Private well and septic required, electrical and phone service to the site. County Road easements along northerly property line. Two UPA easements on the northwesterly portion of the site. Access available from existing 173rd Street. Description of Improvements The subject is improved with a single family home. The home is briefly described as follows. (Please see the house floor plans in the Addenda of this report.) Stories: Size: Rooms: Two over full basement. Basement - 1st Floor - 2nd Floor- 1,700 SF (Unfinished) 1,700 SF 936 SF Above grade square footage - 2,636 SF 1st Floor - Kitchen, dining area, family room, master bedroom, two baths, den/guest room and mud room. 2nd Floor -Two bedrooms, bathroom and family room. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 9786-2 14 BEFORE VALUE Description of Improvements Amenities: Garage: Exterior: Driveway: Overall: Good master suite, entry atrium and 1st floor laundry. 26' x 23.5' two-car garage, stairs to basement. All wood exterior, composite shingle roof, small wood porch on front and a large wood deck on rear. Grave! driveway from the s.treet with extensive concrete drive and parking areas near house. Attractive home in a good natural setting. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consulta. l~ 9786-2 18 BEFORE VALUE Sales Comparison Approach to Value The sales comparison method is the most common way of developing a market value estimate for land. In the sales comparison method, sales of vacant land comparable to the subject property are gathered and analyzed. The sales prices are adjusted for time, location, physical characteristics and other relevant variations. The adjusted prices are reduced to some common unit of comparison, such as price per acre or per square foot. The appraiser analyzes this information and derives a unit value applicable to the subject property. When applied to the appropriate unit measure, this value results in an estimate of the market value of the land as if vacant. The validity of this approach is based on the assumption that a continuity exists between similar properties of like adequacy and their market values. The reliability of this technique is dependent upon the availability of sales data and the degree of comparability of the sales analyzed. The unit of comparison for industrial land is typically price per square foot or price per acre. Industrial land value is driven by utility and how much can be built on a particular parcel. Thus, wetlands are significantly less valuable than uplands on a given parcel. The following sales were selected based on their comparability to the subject property. The sales were selected based on similarity in size, rural residential and/or industrial development potential, location and appeal. The sales used are presented on individual write-ups, followed by a location map, adjustment grid and analysis. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 9786-2 BEFORE VALUE 26 Sales Comparison Approach to Value Explanation of Adiustments Time of Sale: Appreciation in industrial land is estimated to be 4% per year over the time period represented by the comparable sales. This adjustment is based upon the observation that larger sites tend to sell for less per SF and vice versa. The 90% curve is typically found for land markets where growth is occurring and new land for development is available. The principle of the learning curve is that a site twice as large as the subject would sell for only 90% as much per SF. Location: Based on the appraiser's judgement of location features, as they affect industrial land. Usable vs. Unusable Land Area: · The subject has approximately 28.5% of wetland area in the before condition. Based on pairing Sales #4 and.#5, and #3 and #5, it appears that non-buildable areas contribute approximately 25% of the value of upland areas. In this case, we have given the subject's unbuildable area and the ponding easements on Sales #3 and #4, a .weight of 25% of the buildable areas. Other: Comparable Sale #1 included a small garage. A 15% adjustment was made for the value of this building. Sale #5 had a triangulated easterly corner and irregular northerly lot line. It is considered to have a less usable shape than the subject, thus it was adjusted 5%. Analysis The five comparable industrial lot sales indicate a value range from $7,028 per acre to $14,135 per acre after adjustments. The average of all the adjusted sale prices is $11,094 per acre. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 9786-2 27 BEFORE VALUE Sales Comparison Approach to Value Analysis Sales #3, #4 and #5 are most similar to the subject in location and will be given weight in our analysis. Thus, we will conclude to an estimated industrial lot value of $11,500 per acre. Thus, 5.51 Acres x $11,500 Per Acre $63,365 Rounded To $63,500 Patchin & A~sociates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 9786-2 28 DESCRIPTION OF TAKING The City of Elk River plans to acquire a 0.67 acres in the northeasterly corner of the subject. The 0.67 acre triangle of land is legally described in the Addenda of this report. Based on topographical and wetland maps, this area is entirely within the wetlands on the subject. The taking will not physically impact the improvements on the site. The actual physical taking of the subject is described as follows: Configuration: Total Area Taken: Amount of Wetland: Proximity to Improvements: Triangular with a curved southwesterly side. 0.67 Acre 0.67 Acres The new right-of-way will come to within approximately 120' of the northeast corner of the subject's garage at the nearest point. See the Taking Diagram on the following page. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation 29 ' ~ ~ [ I Subiect Remaindor I ~:-- }~lPartTaken , TAKIN3 DIAG~M 9786-2 30 AFTER VALUE Description of The Land Parcel, After Taking In the after value we will again value only the subject's land. The after value will be based on the following described land parcel. (Please see the Description of The Taking in the Estimate of Damages section of this report for a parcel map showing the subject in the after condition.) Size: Shape: Wetlands: Soil Conditions: Utilities: Easements: Access: 1.96 Hectares (4.84 Acres) Irregular, see the Taking Diagram. A new 120' wide road right-of-way curves through the northeasterly corner of the subject parcel. The parcel has an irregular but usable shape in the after condition. In the after condition the subject has approximately 0.9 acres of wetlands remaining. Soils in the upland areas appear suitable for building. Private well and septic required, electrical and phone service to the site. County Road easements along northerly property line. Two UPA easements on the northwesterly portion of the site. Access available from existing 173rd Street. Highest And Best Use The highest and best use of the subject is the same as in the before condition. As If Vacant: As Improved: Highest and best use is for industrial development. Highest and best use is for continued residential use. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultant · 9786-2 33 AFTER VALUE Sales Comparison Approach to Value Explanation of Adjustments Time of Sale: Appreciation in industrial land is estimated to be 4% per year over the time period represented by the comparable sales. This adjustment is based upon the observation that larger sites tend to sell for less per SF and vice versa. The 90% curve is typically found for land markets where growth is occurring and new land for development is available. The principle of the learning curve is that a site twice as large as the subject would sell for only 90% as much per SF. The subject's size is reduced by 0.67 acres in the after condition. Location: Based on the appraiser's judgement of location features, as they affect industrial land. Usable vs. Unusable Land Area: The subject has approximately 18.6% (the subject's wetland area is reduced by 0.67 acres in the after condition) or wetland of other unbuildable area in the before condition. Based on pairing Sales #4 and #5, and #3 and #5, it appears that non-buildable areas contribute approximately 25% of the value of upland areas. In this case, we have given the subject's unbuildable area and the ponding easements on Sales #3 and #4, a weight of 25% of the buildable areas. Other: Comparable Sale #1 included a small garage building of limited value. A 15% adjustment was made for the value of this building. Sale #5 had a triangulated easterly corner and irregular northerly lot line. It is considered to have a less usable shape than the subject, thus it was adjusted 5%. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 9786-2 34 AFTER VALUE Sales Comparison Approach to Value Analysis The five comparable industrial lot sales indicate a value range from $7,834 per acre to $15,338 per acre after adjustments. The average of all the adjusted sale prices is $12,298 per acre. Sales #3, #4 and #5 are most similar to the subject in location and will be given weight in our analysis. Thus, we will conclude to an estimated industrial lot value of $12,500 per acre. Thus, 4.84 Acres x $12,500 Per Acre $60,500 Rounded To $60,500 Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultanl~ 9786-2 35 ESTIMATE OF DAMAGES We have valued the property in the before and after situations in the preceding sections of this report. In this section, we will estimate just compensation (damages) as the difference between the before value and after value. Types of Damages The damages that result can be categorized as follows. Value of Direct Taking Value of Severance Damages to the Remainder (In this case we will examine severance as vacant and as improved separately.) Damages are typically measured by valuing the property as it exist in the before condition, then valuing the property as it will exist in the after condition. The difference between the two value estimates is damages (to the real estate) caused by the taking. However, we will also examine whether the property as improved has suffered any damages as a result of the taking. The first step in estimating damages is to calculate the damages to the land. Damages are estimated as follows: Before Value After Value Damages to The Land $63,500 $60,500 $ 3,000 The direct taking results in $3,000 damages to the subject's highest and best use land value. The second step involves estimating damages which are caused to the property as improved. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 9786-2 36 ESTIMATE OF DAMAGES This process is complicated by two factors. The current improvements are not the highest and best use of the land. Further, residential and industrial land uses are typically not complementary land uses. Thus, in most cases a residence on industrially zoned land will have less value than a similar home on residentially zoned land. The taking causes relatively minor changes to the property as improved. At the closest point, the new right-of-way will only come to within 120' of the house. However, the road will run through a wetland/wildlife area, thus replacing a positive residential lot feature with a negative. If the subjeCt land was a residential zoned lot, it would have a value in the high end of Elk River rural lot value - approximately $50,000 depending on the surrounding land uses. The home, if located on a residential lot, would have a value of over $200,000 (it sold in 1996 for $220,000 - however this sale was between Dirk and Jayne Barrett and James Barrett - father and son). This transaction was reportedly to facilitate financing and is not considered to be arm's length. Based on an on-site inspection and review of the local Elk River market, we believe severance damages to the property, as improved, would be approximately 5% of lot value, or 1% of total property value. Using a residential lot value of $50,000 and a total property value of $220,000, severance damages to the property as improved can be calculated as follows. $50,000 x .05 - $2,500 $220,000 x .01 - $2,200 The indicated range of severance damages as improved is $2,200 to $2,500. We will conclude to a value impact of $3,000 to the property as improved, because the property appraised involves an inconsistency in highest and best use. These damages are believed to be over and above the direct damages to the land. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 9786-2 37 ESTIMATE OF DAMAGES Final Summation The appraiser's final follows. summation of damages to the subject property is presented as Land Value Before The Taking Land Value After The Taking Direct Taking (Change in Land Value) Severance Damages to Existing Improvements Total Just Compensation Due The Land Owner $61,000 $58,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 6,000 Pat~hin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consulta~,l,, COMPLETE APPRAISAL, SELF-CONTAIN ED REPORT BEFORE AND AFTER VALUES ARTHUR & BERNICE KORTHALS 1 7379 TYLER STREET NORTHWEST ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA DATE OF REPORT: April 10, 1998 PREPARED FOR: City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway P.O. Box 490 Elk River, MN 55318 PREPARED BY: Peter J. Patchin & Associates, Inc. 101 West Burnsville Parkway, Suite #200 Burnsville, MN 55337 · Peter J. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants (612) 895-1205 101 West Burnsville Parkway, Suite 200, Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 FAX (612) 895-1521 April 10, 1998 City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway P.O. Box 490 Elk River, MN 55330 ATTN: Mr. Patrick Klaers RE: Complete Appraisal, Self-Contained Report Before And After Values Arthur & Bernice Korthals 17379 Tyler Street Northwest Elk River, Minnesota Dear Mr. Klaers: At your request, we }~ave made a complete appraisal of the above captioned property for the purpose of estimating its fair market value both before and after a partial taking for new right- of-way. The function of this appraisal is to provide valuation guidance to the City of Elk River in the acquisition and/or condemnation proceedings involving the subject property. The subject consists of a rural residential site improved with a single family residence and outbuildings. Since the improvements have not been damaged by the taking, they have been excluded form this appraisal. The attached self-contained report presents the findings, analysis and conclusions of the appraisal and fully identifies the property. Based upon the inspection of the property and after careful consideration of the many factors influencing market value, it is our opinion that the subject property has a market value, as of February 11, 1998, as follows: Market Value Before The Taking (Land Only) Market Value After The Taking (Land Only) Total Just Compensation Due Land Owner $37,000 $36,000 $ 1,000 This appraisal has been made in conformity with accepted professional, ethical and performance standards of real estate appraisal practice. The "Contingent and Limiting Conditions" section of this report should be thorou§hly read and'understood before relyin§ on any information or analysis presented herein. If you have any questions or comments after reading the appraisal, please contact the firm. The undersi§ned appraisers certify that they have investi§ated information believed to be pertinent to the valuation of the property and to the best of their knowledge and belief, the statements and opinions expressed herein are correct and reasonable, subject to the limiting conditions set forth herein. Certified to this 10th day of April, 1998 PETER J. PATCHIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~/~/ Minnesota Certified General License #4000911 Minnesota Certified General License #4000836 Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 9786-3 SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS Fee Owner: Location: Date of Appraisal: Date of Inspection: Property Appraised: Property Rights Appraised: Zoning: Site Description: Site Area: Before Taking: After Taking: Area Taken New Right-of-Way: Existing Easement: Highest & Best Use (As If Vacant): Before Taking: After Taking: Arthur and Bernice Korthals 17379 Tyler Street Northwest Elk River, Minnesota February 11, 1998 February 11, 1998 Rural residential lot. The site is improved with a single family residence and out-buildings which have not been valued. Fee Simple Market Value R-la; Single Family Rural Residential Gently rolling developed homesite on the north, Iow area and drainage ditch on south. Metric 6.74 Acres, or 5.70 Acres, or 0.55 Acres, or 0.49 Acres, or 2.73 Hectares 2.31 Hectares 0.22120 Hectares 0.197 Hectares Rural Residential Lot Rural Residential Lot Value Conclusions: Market Value Before The Taking (Land Only): Market Value After The Taking (Land Only): Total Just Compensation Due Land Owner: $37,000 $36,000 $ 1,000 Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 9786-3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM PAGE NO. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ........................................................................................ i-ii CERTIFICATION ......................................................................................................... iii SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS ..............................................iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ v SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS ......................................................................................... vi SUBJECT LOCATION MAP ........................................................................................ vii SUBJECT ZONING MAP ........................................................................................... viii EAST ELK RIVER CONCEPT PLAN .............................................................................. ix SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL ........................................................................................ 1 DATE OF APPRAISAL .................................................................................................. 2 PURPOSE AND FUNCTION OF APPRAISAL ............................................................... 3 PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED .................................................................................. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................... 3 MARKET VALUE DEFINED .......................................................................................... 4 AREA AND NEIGHBORHOOD DATA ......................................................................... 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 9 ZONING ..................................................................................................................... 9 APPRAISAL PROCEDURES AND TECHNIQUES ........................................................ 10 BEFORE VALUE ..................i ...................................................................................... 11 APPRAISAL PROCEDURES AND TECHNIQUES .................................................. 11 DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND PARCEL ............................................................... 12 HIGHEST AND BEST USE ................................................................................... 13 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH TO VALUE ................................................... 16 COMPARABLE LAND SALES LOCATION MAP ......................................................... 21 DESCRIPTION OF TAKING ....................................................................................... 25 TAKING DIAGRAM ............................................................................................ 26 AFTER VALUE ........................................................................................................... 27 DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND PARCEL, IN THE AFTER SITUATION ................... 27 DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................... 28 HIGHEST AND BEST USE ................................................................................... 28 Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 9786-3 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) ITEM PAGE NO. AFTER VALUE (Continued) APPRAISAL PROCEDURES AND TECHNIQUES .................................................. 28 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH TO VALUE ................................................... 28 ESTIMATE OF DAMAGES .......................................................................................... 31 CHANGE RESULTING FROM TAKING ............................................................... 31 ADDENDA EXHIBIT #1 - LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ENTIRE PARCEL .................................... 33 EXHIBIT #2 - DESCRIPTIONS OF PART TAKEN ................................................... 36 CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ................................................... 38 QUALIFICATIONS OF JOSEPH E. MAKO, AS APPRAISER ................................... 43 QUALIFICATIONS OF JASON L. MESSNER, AS APPRAISER ................................ 44 Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 9786-3 10 ~SAL PROCEDURES AND TECHNIQUES Before Ancl After Values This appraisal is being conducted in order to estimate damages caused to the real property by the taking for new highway right-of-way. The accepted method for measuring damages that result because of a taking by condemnation is as follows: 1. Value the property as it exists before the taking. 2. Value the property as it will exist after the taking. 3. The difference is the damage caused. In the "before value" section of this report we will estimate the value of the subject property as it existed in the before condition. We will describe the taking the remainder parcel, then appraise it in the "after value" section of this report. In the final section we will estimate damages occurring to the real property, including the following. Direct and severance damages calculated as the difference between the before and after land values. 2. Damages to the improvements, if any. 3. Damage to the property of converting the existing prescriptive road easement into fee owned city street right-of-way. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consui~.i,i 97136-3 11 ~E~O.K~rE VALU E~ A_p_p_raisal Procedures And Techniques In order to develop a reasonable opinion of the value of the subject land, in both the before and after situations, the following appraisal techniques will be considered. The Sales Comparison Approach - which produces an estimate of value by comparing the subject property to sales and/or listings of similar properties in the same or competing areas. This technique is used to indicate the value established by informed buyers and sellers in the market. Development Approach - which produces an estimate of value by discounting the cost of developing raw un-subdivided land and the probable proceeds from the sale of the developed sites. The property being appraised is 6.74 acres of rural residential land improved with a house and outbuildings. The land does not currently have municipal utilities available and it is questionable whether splitting of a 2.5 acre lot from the subject parcel is legally and physically possible. Thus, we have appraised the property as a single land parcel. The improvements are not valued in this appraisal because they are not believed to be impacted by the taking. In this case only, the sales comparison approach to value is relevant. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultanl, 9786-3 12 BE~FORE VALUE Description of The Land Parcel Size: Shape: Terrain: Vegetation: Soil Conditions: Utilities: Easements: Access/Frontage: 2.73 Hectares (6.74 Acres) Rectangular, a private road easement bisects the site into a north and south half. High, gently rolling site on the north; rolling with wetlands on the south. An old roadbed crosses the southerly parcel in a diagonal, from southwest to northeast. Mostly open with some trees on the north, trees and wetland vegetation on the south. Appears buildable on northerly half, southerly 3.80 acre are reportedly wetlands. Private well and septic required. A sewer and water project to serve a broad area of southern Elk River is currently in the planning stage. The subject property is not in the Elk River Urban Service Area, and is not expected to be served by this project. Tyler Street runs across the westerly .49 acres of the subject parcel. No recorded easement has been found for this street and thus it is considered to be situated on a prescriptive easement. A private driveway easement crosses the middle of the subject site from Tyler Street to land on the east. A UPA easement across the southwesterly corner and along the south lot line. Access from Tyler Street. Description of Improvements. The subject is improved with a rural home and outbuildings. The improvements have not been valued in this appraisal. However, we have examined the effects of the taking on the improvements and conclude that no damages have occurred to the improvements. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultant, 9786-3 16 BE~FORE VALUE S_ales Comparison Approach to Value The sales comparison method is the most common way of developing a market value estimate for land. In the sales comparison method, sales of vacant land comparable to the subject property are gathered and analyzed. The sales prices are adjusted for time, location, physical characteristics and other relevant variations. The adjusted prices are reduced to some common unit of comparison, such as price per acre or per square foot. The appraiser analyzes this information and derives a unit value applicable to the subject property. When applied to the appropriate unit measure, this value results in an estimate of the market value of the land as if vacant. The validity of this approach is based on the assumption that a continuity exists between similar properties of like adequacy and their market values. The reliability of this technique is dependent upon the availability of sales data and the degree of comparability of the sales analyzed. The unit of comparison most applicable to residential lots is price per lot. This holds true even when rural residential lots are involved which are 2.5 - 10 acres in size. Wide variations in price per acre are observed when comparing 2.5 acre lots to larger rural residential lots. However, little incremental value change is noted on a per lot basis. Wetlands provide a view and open space amenity, but do not contribute value on a pro rata per acre basis. This can be seen in the larger comparable sales in our grid which like the subject include a significant amount of wetland. The following sales were selected based on their comparability to the subject property. The sales were selected based on similarity in size, rural residential development potential, location in or near Elk River, and date of sale. The sales used are presented on individual write-ups, followed by a location map, adjustment grid and analysis. Patchin & Associates, Inc. VaLuation C'onsulta,,~. 9786-3 24 BEFORE VALUE Sales Comparison Approach to Value Correlation We have valued only the subject's land in this analysis. The buildings are not believed to be impacted by the takings for the new street right-of-way. In the before situation the subject's land value is estimated to be $37,000 on February 11, 1998. THIRTY SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 9786-3 25 DESCRIPTION OF TAKING A triangular portion of land will be taken on the subject's southwest corner. In addition the City will acquire fee title to the subject's half of the Tyler Street right-of-way, which is currently a prescriptive easement. The description of the subject taking is summarized as follows: Land Area Before: Land Area Acquired for New Street Right-of-Way: Existing Tyler Street Right-of-Way Acquisition of Fee Title: Land Area After: 6.74 Acres 0.55 Acres 0.49 Acres 5.70 Acres The land taken, which is not in the existing Tyler Street right-of-way, is reportedly all wetland. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants -- F--~ Subject Remainder F-~ Existing Pemcriptive Easement, Taking of Rema~mng Fee Simple Prope~ Righ~ ~ ~isfing Fee Simple Prope~, T o~l Taking TAKING DIAG~ 9786-3 27 AFTER VALUE In the after value we will again value only the subject's land. The after value will be based on the following described land parcel. (Please see the Description of The Taking section of this report for a parcel map showing the subject in the after condition.) Description of The Land Parcel Size: Shape: Terrain: Vegetation: Soil Conditions: Utilities: Easements: Access/Frontage: Remarks: , In The After Situation 2.31 Hectares (5.70 Acres) Rectangular with a rounded southwesterly corner, a private road easement bisects the site into a north and south half. High gently rolling site on the north; rolling with wetlands on the south. An old roadbed crosses the southerly parcel on a diagonal from southwest to northeast. Mostly open with some trees on the north, trees and wetland vegetation on the south. Appears buildable on northerly half, southerly 3.25 acre are reportedly wetlands. Private well and septic required. A sewer and water project to serve a broad area of southern Elk River is currently in the planning stage. The subject property is not in the Elk River Urban Service Area, and is not expected to be served by this project. A private driveway easement crosses the middle of the subject site from Tyler Street to land on the east. A UPA easement across the southwesterly corner and along the south lot line. Access from Tyler Street. The subject will lose 0.49 acres of land encumbered by a street easement as well as 0.55 acres of land in the southwest corner. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 9786-3 28 AFTER VALUE Description of Improvements The subject is improved with a rural home and outbuildings. The improvements have not been valued in this appraisal. However, we have examined the effects of the taking on the improvements and conclude that no damages have occurred to the improvements. Highest And Best Use The taking of road right-of-way on the subject site will not alter the highest and best use of the site either as vacant or as improved. The site as vacant still has the physical size and street frontage for subdivision, but as in the before condition, is considered a poor candidate for such a use. Appraisal Procedures And Techniques The property being appraised is 5.7 acres of rural residential land improved with a house and outbuildings. The land does not currently have municipal utilities available, thus the development approach would be inappropriate in this case. Therefore, only the sales comparison approach to value will be performed to value the larger remaining parcel. This after value will only address the land value in the after situation. Sales Comparison Approach to Value We will use the same comparable sales as were used to value the property in the before value section of this report. Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 9786-3 30 AFTER VALUE Sales Comparison Approach to Value Explanation of Adjustments The adjustments in the after condition are the same as in the before condition. The subject loses 0.55 acres of land in the after condition. However, the taking is wetland with little recreational or view appeal. In addition, the subject will lose the fee simple rights to the existing Tyler Street road easement (approximately 0.49 acres). None of the land to be taken adds to the appeal of the subject overall. As can be observed by the comparable sales, overall size in rural residential lots has a limited impact on value. Analysis The four lot sales indicate a value range from $35,150 to $37,107, with an average indicated value of $35,961. In the after condition, Sales #1 and #4 are still most similar size and amount of wetland. As indicated in our analysis to this point, the difference from the before to the after condition is the loss of .55 acres of wetland and the loss of fee simple rights to the land underlying the easterly half of Tyler Street in front of the subject. Neither of these changes will graphically impact the property, thus we would expect little or no change in value. Thus, in the after condition giving weight to Sales #1 and #4, we conclude to a value of $36,000 for the subject land. Correlation We have valued only the subject's land in this analysis. The buildings are not believed to be measurably impacted by the takings for the new street right-of-way. In the before situation the subject's land value is estimated to be $36,000 on February 11, 1998. THIRTY SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 9786-3 31 ESTIMATE OF DAMAGES We have valued the property in the before and after situations in the preceding sections of this report. In this section, we will estimate just compensation (damages) as the difference between the before value and after value. In addition we will also estimate damages for the taking in fee of existing prescriptive street easements. Change Resulting From Taking The subject will lose land area as a result of the taking. Most of the land area lost is wetland or encumbered by an existing street right-of-way easement. The effects of the taking include the following. 1. Reduction in size of the property. 2. Terrain will not be affected. 3. The improvements will not be physically effected by the taking (i.e. no building will be removed). Direct And Severance Damages - Land Only The direct and severance damages to the land, resulting from the taking can be calculated, based on the difference between the before and after land values, as follows: Before Land Value After Land Value Difference (Direct and Severance Damages to the Land) $37,000 $36,000 $ 1,000 Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL 4/22/98 EASTERN ELK RIVER ~Assessment rate = $6,000 2Assessment rate = $7,000 TOTAL AREA ASSESSABLE T. RUNK TRUNK NAME (ACRES) AREA (ACRES) ASSESSMENT~ ASSESSMENT2 Contractor Property Developers 9110 83rd Avenue N. Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 358.77 266.35 $1,598,100! $1,864,450 Brown, Leroy F and Ruth 10815 175th Ave NW Elk River, MN 55330 99.80 67.35 $404,100 $471,450 Vandenberg, Robert and Bonita 10811 181st Ave NVV Elk River, MN 55330 80.00 67.45 $404,700 $472,150 Hohlen, Earl H and Lorraine 39 Main St Elk River, MN 55330 77.76 47.24 $283,440 $330,680 Eull, Roger and Jean 18880 Boston St. Elk River, MN 55330 42.17 39.12 $234,720 $273,840 Reitsma, Stoffel and Sandra 10860 181st Ave NW ;Elk River, MN 55330 39.50 34.68 $208,080 $242,760 ~Mulvaney, Louise PO Box 218 Elk River, MN 55330 28.00 26.62 $159,720 $186,340 Morrell, Larry and Arlyce 841 Line Ave Elk River, MN 55330 22.00 11.27 $67,620 $78,890 Kruse, F and Lundquist,L 17445 Highway 10 Elk River, MN 55330 12.55 12.55 $75,300 $87,850 Powell, Scott S 17219 Highway 10 Elk River, MN 55330 12.23 12.19 $73,140 $85,330 Guenther, Ronald L 7848 Odean Avenue NE Elk River, MN 55330 10.12 8.12 $48,720 $56,840 Lefebvre Leasing Co, LLP 7700 Highway 10 Shakopee, MN 55379 9.80 7.44 $44,640 $52,080 Houle Oil Co., Inc 17069 Highway 10 Elk River, MN 55330 7.73 4.12 $24,720 $28,840 Kemethese Motel, Inc 17291 Hwy 10 Elk River, MN 55330 7.58 6.59 $39,540 $46,130 Ebner, Ronald and Norma 17015 Highway 10 Elk River, MN 55330 7.30 5.75 $34,500 $40,250 Price, Thomas N 4810 Magnolia Ln. N Plymouth 55442 6.89 6.89 $41,340 $48,230 Barrett, Dirk and Jayne 10768 173rd Ave NVV Elk River, MN 55330 5.51 3.94 $23,640 $27,580 o:\proj\800110j~assess.mtg.xls 1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL 4/22/98 EASTERN ELK RIVER TOTAL AREA ASSESSABLE TRUNK TRUNK NAME (ACRES) AREA (ACRES) ASSESSMENT~ ASSESSMENT2 Warden, Delton and Joan 11020 181 st Ave NW Elk River, MN 55330 4.33 4.07 $24,420 $28,490 Divine, Dick M and Tammy L 10457 181st Ave NW Elk River, MN 55330 4.15 4.02 $24,120 $28,140 Industrial Hardfacing PO Box 303 Elk River, MN 55330 3.76 3.54 $21,240! $24,780 Worts, Marlene M 5614 Dunlap Ave N St. Paul, MN 55126 3.62 3.62 $21,720 $25,340 Dehn, Kenneth F and Donna PO Box 325 Elk River, MN 55330 3.60 3.60 $21,600 $25,200 Majkrzak, Dean A 18260 Yankton St NW Elk River, MN 55330 3.28 3.28 $19,680 $22,960 Hickman, Larry S and Florence 15612 Jan/is St NW iElk River, MN 55330 2.80 2.80 $16,800 $19,600 Carpe Kairos LLC 17242 Ulysses St NW Elk River, MN 55330 2.15 1.20 $7,200 $8,400: Eastey, and Johnson, Inc. 21480 147th Ave. N. Rogers, MN 55374 2.14 2.14 $12,840 $14,980 Lundquist, Lester L 17445 Highway 10 Elk River, MN 55330 2.12 2.12 $12,720 $14,840 First National Bank of Elk River 729 Main St. NW Elk River, MN 55330 2.04 2.04 $12,240 $14,280 11070 181st Ave NW PO Box 585 Elk River, MN 55330 2.04 2.04 $12,240i $14,280 Aust, Allan and Janice 11039 181st Ave NW Elk River, MN 55330 2.00 2.00 $12,000 $14,000 Black, Robert and Susan 10976 181st Ave NW Elk River, MN 55330 2.00 2.00 $12,000 $14,000 Christian, Thomas and Diana 10989 181st Ave NW Elk River, MN 55330 2.00 2.00 $12,000 $14,000 Kirkeide, Joseph P. and Yvonne 10873 175th Ave NW ,Elk River, MN 55330 2.00 2.00 $12,000 $14,000 Novco, Inc. 9884 174th Ave. NW Elk River, MN 55330 2.00 1.84 $11,040 $12,880 Heath, Robert and Grace 18409 Twin Lakes Rd NW Elk River, MN 55330 1.85 1.85 $11,100 $12,950 o:\proj\800110j\assess.mtg.xls 2 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL 4/22J98 EASTERN ELK RIVER TOTAL AREA ASSESSABLE TRUNK TRUNK NAME (ACRES) AREA (ACRES) ASSESSMENT1 ASSESSMENT2 Rousseau, Joanne 17015 Hwy 10 Elk River, MN 55330 1.75 1.75 $10,500 $12,250 L & W Limited Liability Co. 11061 173rd Ave. NW Elk River, MN 55330 1.60 1.60 $9,600 $11,200 Bell, Paul T and Norine K 18270 Fresno St Elk River, MN 55330 1.37 1.37 $8,220 $9,590 Snyder, Michael and Cheryl 17119 Highway 10 Elk River, MN 55330 1.28 0.32 $1,920: $2,240 Lundquist, Chad 17445 Highway 10 Elk River, MN 55330 1.22 1.22 $7,320~ $8,540 Johnson, Keith P.O. Box 62 Elk River, MN 55330 1.20 1.05 $6,3001 $7,350 Houle, Gregory A and Donna 14917 221st Ave NW Elk River, MN 55330 1.061 0.92 $5,5201 $6,440 Macziewski, Lonny A 18649 Twin Lakes Rd NW Elk River, MN 55330 0.93 0.90 $5,400 $6,300 Lundquist, Caryn G 17445 Highway 10 Elk River, MN 55330 0.87 0.87 $5,220 $6,090 Majkrzak, Michael J 18260 Yankton St NW Elk River, MN 55330 0.70 0.70 $4,200 $4,900 Locher, Landol J, II 10983 171st Ave NW Elk River, MN 55330 0.66 0.66 $3,960 $4,620 Slivnik, Joseph and Dorthea 150 Hwy 10 N St. Cloud, MN 56304 0.64 0.53 $3,1801 $3,710 Enron Inc Attn: Property Tax Dept PO Box 1188 Houston TX 77251 0.17 0.17 $1,0201 $1,190 TOTAL AREAS 889.04 685.89 TOTAL ASSESSMENT $4,1'15,340 $4,801,230 o:\proj\800110j~assess.mtg.xls 3 .y of MEMORANDUM iver ROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor & City Council Paul T. Steinman, Director of Economic Development April 27, 1998 Marketing Holt/Jackson Property Issue The issue before the City Council at this time is to determine how you wish to proceed with the marketing of the Holt and Jackson site. Background The site is located at the corner of Holt and Jackson with frontage on Highway 169. It appears the site can accommodate an approximately 6,000 square foot building with 33-40 parking stalls. The trees along the north and west side of this site would not need to be cleared in order to accommodate this size development. Staff envisions utilities being provided to the site at the time work is being done on the remaining pad at the Kraus-Anderson development. Staff suggests the Council discuss the following two primary questions with regard to marketing this site: · What is the asking price? · What are the desired uses? Attached to this report is a hst of the allowable uses in the C4 zone. After receiving direction from Council on the priced and desired uses, staff will proceed to have a sign constructed on the site which will be visible from Highway 169 and also create a marketing brochure for the site which will be distributed to all area real estate offices. 13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425 iii. Nonprofit clubs, lodges, or halls iv. Licensed daycare facilities v. Institutional uses vi. Equipment rental businesses vii. Commercial recreational facilities viii.Auto repair shops ix. Shopping centers x. On-sale liquor establishments xi. Governmental buildings and facilities xii. Veterinary clinics xiii. Car Washes xiv. Restaurants (Class II) xv. Motor vehicle service stations xvi. Motor vehicle specialty shops xvii.Therapeutic massage and sauna establishments xviii.Lumber Yard xix. Pawnshops (250 foot setback from any residential zone and 500 foot setback from schools, parks, daycare centers, churches and other pawnshops, measured from the property line) xx. Hotels and motels xxi. Restaurants (Class I) 13. C4 - Neighborhood Commercial STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: The purpose of the C4-Neighborhood Commercial district is to provide land use opportunities to attract convenience retail stores, and personal service establishments. It is intended that this district primarily serves surrounding residential neighborhoods and businesses within the immediate area. Neighborhood Commercial districts shall be located adjacent to collector or arterial streets so that traffic.does not impact local streets. In order for development to occur within this district, public sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and municipal water must be available and hooked up in order to occupy the particular business. 9.32 Co Permitted Uses i. Convenience retail sales of goods and services ii. Dry cleaning and laundry establishments iii. Personal service and repair establishments such as barber and beauty shops, shoe repair, etc. iv.. Printing shops and publishing shops Accessory Uses i. Uses customarily incidental to the permitted or conditional uses allowed in this district ii. Off-street parking areas iii. Signs as regulated in the Elk River zoning ordinance Conditional Uses i. Retail sale of gasoline ii. Car wash facilities iii. Daycare centers iv. Educational/institutional uses v. Off-sale liquor stores vi. Class 1 and Class 2 restaurants vii. Financial institution viii. Mortuaries, funeral homes Lot Standards i. Minimum lot area - one (1) acre. ii. Minimum frontage - 150 feet. iii. Minimum depth - 150 feet. iv. Maximum building height shall not exceed 2 stories or 30 feet, whichever is less. v. Maximum lot coverage by building shall not exceed thirty-five percent, {35%). 9.33 E. Building Setback Go Ho i. Front yard setback - 25 feet. ii. Side yard setback - 20 feet. iii. Rear yard setback - 20 feet. iv. The yard adjacent to any residential district shall have a minimum setback of thirty (30) feet. Parking and Driveway Setback i. Front yard - twenty-five (25) feet. ii. Side yard - ten (10) feet. iii. Rear yard - twenty (20) feet. iv. The yard adjacent to any residential district shall have a minimum setback of twenty-five (25) feet. Architectural Standards i. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, or decorative block, or an approved equivalent material as approved by the Zoning Administrator. Signage i. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 900.22 (Sign Ordinance) the following requirements shall be met: a. General Guidelines 1). Ail signs within a neighborhood commercial development must consist of materials and a design which compliments the architectural elements of the principal building and character of the project. 2). Ail freestanding signs shall have a minimum ten (10) foot setback from all property lines. 3). Prior to installing any signs, a sign permit must be obtained from the City of Elk River Planning Department. b. Freestanding Sign 9.34 1) . Ail freestanding signage shall consist of a monument style sign. A maximum height of ten (10) feet along collector streets and a maximum height of twenty (20) feet along arterial streets, with a maximum area of one-hundred (100)square feet. C. Wall Signs (Freestanding Sites) 1). Wall signage for each freestanding building must consist of individual letters and shall not have more than one (1) wall sign for each principal building. 2). The gross surface area of a wall sign for freestanding buildings shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the area of a building wall, including doors and windows, to which the sign is to be affixed. d. Wall Siqns (Multi-Tenant Building) 1). Fascia signs for individual retail tenants shall be for store identity only. 2). Capital letters shall be no larger than 36" high, lower case letters shall be no larger than 24' high. Signs may be located on the building in a symmetrical manner, but in no case shall they extend closer than 2'0" from the projected lease line. 14. I-1 Light Industrial STATF24ENT OF PURPOSE: This District shall serve as a transition between more industrial uses and residential and other business uses. This District is appropriate for manufacturing, warehousing, and similar industrial uses because of access to warehousing, thoroughfares, the full complement of urban services such as sewer and water, and distance from residential districts. These areas are intended to encourage the development of industrial uses which are clean, quiet, and free of hazardous or objectionable elements such as noise, odor, dust, smoke, glare, or other pollutants. These industries should be compatible with each other and with surrounding land uses. A. Permitted Uses i. Offices ii. Warehouses 9.35 / ! / ON¥ 3S¥3 ./ 0 m u3 ~ r- Z m 0 0 ~ m i'rl z ...i 190' /I /I Og'9~Z; 424.20' 193rd 200-55' ~ ~ ' o o I I o t __ 170.00' ~[ ~70.00' AVE. N.W. 170.00' 170.00' 200.04' 199.._.98_.' __ __ -- -J '1 -1 1---- I o I I :::::0 I oI r'n I I I I,.-. ~ JAMES L. OBERSTAR 8TH DISTRICT, MINNESOTA 2366 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515-2308 {202) 225-6211 FAX: (202) 225-0699 RANKING DEMOCRAT: TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE oF cDrcscntatiocs ashin con, April 9, 1998 The Honorable Henry A. Duitsman Mayor City Of Elk River 12354 Ridgewood Drive Elk River, Minnesota 55330-8219 DISTRICT OFFICES: BRAINERD CITY HALL 501 LAUREL STREET BRAINERD, MN 56401 (218) 828-440O CHISHOLM CITY HALL 316 LAKE STREET CHISHOLM, MN 55719 {218) 254-5761 231 FEDERAL BUILDING DULUTH, MN 55802 {218) 727-7474 ELK RIVER CITY HALL 13065 ORONO PARKWAY ELK RIVER, MN 55330 (612) 241-0188 Dear Hank: I'm delighted to tell you that the BESTEA (Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act) bill that passed the House contains $3.2 million for Elk River Bypass, and $707,000 for Highway 169 Pedestrian Overpass. I'm glad we were able to include these important projects in the bill. In all, H.R. 2400 authorizes $218 billion over the next six years for surface transportation projects. We are now in Conference with the Senate, whose bill is considerably different. It has no projects, and slightly less money overall. Further, BESTEA exceeds the spending cap set by last year's Balanced Budget agreement by $26 billion. If the Conference accepts the House version we will have to "find" that $26 billion somewhere, in some other programs. If we can't, then the full $218 billion can't be spent. The bottom line is that there are some uncertainties in the future of BESTEA, and therefore funding for projects. I selected projects on their merits, for their contribution to safety, and will stand by them to the end. However, I did want to let you know the situation so that, if we're forced to cut back on the amount of funds for each project, you would understand the difficulties we're facing. Nevertheless, I remain hopeful that we'll find the $26 billion in offsets, and be able to fully fund every project. With all best wishes. Sincerely, ~erstar, M.C. JLO/cdg /, In Elk River trunk utilities are understood to convey to following property rights. Access to municipal water sources and waste water treatment plants. a. Additional SAC (sewer access charges) and WAC (water access charges) are assessed upon hook up. 2. Trunk water and sewer lines will be constructed to serve those lands being assessed. a. Lateral water and sewer lines will hav.e.::!iib be developed to serve most of the land assessed. b. The cost of lateral water and sewe~iit~i'nes is':i~ii~ddition to sewer and water trunk lines and will va~iiilb~ on '~pe of development. Additionally some delay w:i.!l b~iii~perienced by those property owners which are furthest c. If a property has an adj~.~t'~'.6~:'s~wer and/or water line, it will be assessed for laterals.:~n ~Eou~.it will use the trunks as laterals· Based on the attached data ~:'an~l~js~:~i~e estimate the market benefit of water and sewer trunk lines to lands within th~i~iectli~iea, as of May 1, 1996 as follows. Residential Lands $6,000 Per Acre Industrial Lands $6,000 Per Acre Commercial Lands $8,000 Per Acre This limited value analysis has been made in conformity with accepted professional, ethical and performance standards of real estate appraisal practice. The "Contingent and Limiting Conditions" section of this report, and should be thoroughly read and understood before relying on any information or analysis presented herein. If you have any questions or comments after reading the appraisal, please contact the firm. /--% t ./