10.0.a.-.c. EDSR 04-12-1993 tyof TO: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
lkRiver FROM: PAT KLAERS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
DATE: APRIL 7, 1993
SUBJECT: PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
CONCEPTS
The Park and Recreation Commission has discussed that a viable
option for the EDA site may be to use the area as a park and an
entrance to the river and future trail. The Commission is
fully aware that the number one priority for the EDA is to see
a building constructed on this site with new businesses being
located in the facility that will compliment the downtown
area. However, if a building project is not on the horizon,
then turning the area into a park should be considered. At a
previous EDA meeting, staff was requested to investigate the
expenses involved with filling in the EDA site.
Attached for your information is some material from Phil Hals,
Street/Park Superintendent, and his crew, regarding the EDA
site. As previously estimated, the cost of filling in the site
is in the $40-$45,000 range. In addition to this amount, to
make a presentable park environment, another $40-$45,000 would
need to be spent. These figures exclude the removal of the
foundation that currently exists, if this is necessary.
Phil Hals is on vacation and will not be in attendance at this
meeting. The information provided by Phil is simply offered to
give the EDA and Commission some idea of what is possible and
what the costs are for the paver brick patio and steps to the
river concept.
720 Dodge Avenue N.W., Elk River, Minnesota 55330 (612) 441-7420
oit0
• 000° HOLE IN THE GROUND ESTIMATE
Remove Foundation- All or part? Cost?
Fill dirt 2 .00/cy
Haul 3 .00/cy
Level & compact 1 .00/cy
7,000 cy 6 .00/cy $42,000
Retaining Wall Blocks 3,000 blocks @ 5 .50 16,500
Labor to Install Block 10,000
Paver Bricks 4,000 sf @ 1.75/sf 7,000
Labor to Install Brick 4,000
Concrete Steps 2,000
Labor to Install Steps 2,000
Miscellaneous Lighting & Hand Rails 2 ,500
$86, 000
• Out of Pocket Costs $49 ,000
City Labor and Equipment $37,000
•
• 1522115 N I VW
At >11VM30 I S
NF ,,.- - < .05.179 >
•C
Cl) w . .
o • -
Q •• : :
w
z 0• Z
Iw
U) - • 0
0z •• - 0 _J
UJ 0
I
<
w
Z
.▪ •
•▪ • } U
/ •▪ - J
• C
•
.
▪ •
w .• •
C o •▪ :
z \ : . ' 1'
1
/ JIVM3A 1210
-..A` t� w 0
o X00.9- �
o Tr-
O
u
z
--144 41;<
�
i
Z
3
• O
v
212AI2j IddISSISSIW
•
•0
C _
ll
o
w
: o
c W
.f,
Y �
< .OZ �+
>11\i/M0 I S
.05.179
V
U
0
m '-'
o
O <
• W J
3
>
Z
W F-
W W
F-- W
WH J
fYCf)
I I 3
U U
< < C_
W W Z
?:i0N00 0N00
I-- H Z
< < II
a 000 w
00
HI
0 U
• O Z
Ctl CV
• L
• -
!mignon" j i--1-1-
- woman
_ ■ ■ ■ No
-i-i:f:i:.
. ■ ■ -1 _
11A11111 ---J- =
-
14 z `
Z0 111110�■ ■ -
•
■ � ■ -
_ 4"1"1"‘'R■ ■ ■ ■'
■ ■ ■
__ 1 '1
• _- ill■-1-1 -
f:
o.
_ q . .1. ■ . -
- -1. 1. a _
•
• •
.
dirch >171M3CIS
,N, l al
ion _ vim mum
0- -.-U-U
....2
(.z
..2,11,im.
. _
(r) • - 0 rig al: lad nolip
o _ - me
.41H1 II Mk E-
_m.��
Ix. 11111111113711
IMO
C .3—
-
o mill
L' r �I�I�L.r1�i
•........3.,..1-1-1-i.4
.a.. a:•-�s
• cts = .
ci_. ____0
ri--), o
ti.torait."
1.1
0 0 -_-
FROM LARKIN. HOFFMAN LAW 16TH 612 896 3334 04. 12. 1993 15:41 P. 2
g//)-( 3
MEMORANDUM
• LARKIN,HOFFMAN,DALY&LINDGREN,LTD.
TO: PETER BECK
FROM: GARY RENNEKE
DATE: APRIL 9, 1993
RE: ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN THE SUNSHINE DEPOT AND THE EDA SITE
SOUTH OF MAIN STREET
OUR FILE NO. 7837-172
I reviewed the abstract of title and miscellaneous documents provided to us concerningownership of
the above-referenced alley,(the "Alley"). The short answer is consistent with our preliminary analysis
(which was based on certain assumptions): upon vacation of the alley, we will need to obtain a d
from the owner of the Sunshine Depot property in order to convey tte to a third party.
Original title to the property was established in the name of Joseph M. Marshall by federal patent in
1853. The property changed hands (private parties) a couple of times and was platted as part of the
Plat of the Village of Elk River in 1868. According to the abstract, the plat dedicated "all roads,
streets and alleys shown on the plat to the public use forever." The plat shows a 98 foot gap
(the
subject property) between Blocks 4 and 5, as if a street or alley, but no street name is shown.
In 1889, Nickersdn executed a warranty deed in favor of Elk River Starch Company for the property
• described as "the Mastglylialf of that part of Princeton Street that lies south of Main Street running
towards the Mississippi River between Blocks 4 and 5 (commonly known as the Gully) of the Village
of Elk River according to the recorded plat thereof but reserving the Westerly 20 feet of said street".
(emphasis added). Said deed also granted to the Elk River Starch Company the privilege of
connecting said premises with the Mississippi River by means of pipes laid to connect the same. The
deed included an exception to title for any rights that the public may have acquired to the subject
property.
Also in 1889, Burrell conveyed by warranty deed to the Elk River Starch Company the gast_half of
the same property. For what it is worth, the deed from Burrell referred to the wash out" instead of
the "gully". This deed also excepted any rights that the public may have acquired to the property.
Presumably, Nickerson owned the property adjacent to and the west of the street and Burrell owned
the property adjacent to and east of the street.
In 1890, a judgment vacating the east 78 feet of said street was entered. More specifically, the court
vacated "the east 78 feet of that certain street lying between Block 4 and 5 of the Village of Elk River
and extended from Main Street to the south line of Block 4 and 5 thereof, according to the duly
recorded plat of the Village of Elk River."
Note that the fact that the street vacation was subsequent to the execution and filing of the warranty
deeds to Bik River Starch Company has no bearing on the analysis since warranty deeds also act to
convey after-acquired title.
In summary, this property was privately owned and was dedicated as a public street. The street was
partially vacated and the adjoining property owners appeared to properly join in the conveyance of the
vacated property to Elk River Starch Company. The remaining (unvacated) property appears to
• remain an existing dedicated street, which by virtue of its size or all practical purposes, is an alley.
FROM LARKIN. HOFFMAN LAW 16TH 612 896 3334 04. 12. 1993 15:42 P. 3
Based on the documents reviewed, the owner of the Sunshine Depot property will be able to claim .
rights to at least the center line of the remaining 20 foot alley in the event it is vacated. Again, it is
also possible that the Sunshine Depot owner will be able to claim the entire 20 feet based on the
argument that the entire 20 feet would have accrued to the Sunshine Depot site if it had been vacated
at the time of the vacation of the other 78 feet back in 1890. I have not researched the rather esoteric
issue of whether vacation of the alley would cause only half of the alley or all of the alley to accrue to
the Sunshine Depot site since a quit claim deed will be required from the owner of the Sunshine Depot
either way. I suspect that it may be somewhat difficult to find an answer to theuestion; however I
will do some additional research on it if the answer is of significance to the City (forexample, in the
event that it may be important in determining how much consideration, if any, to pay to the owner of
the Sunshine Depot for its interest in the alley, if vacated).
Please let me know if you have any questions or if you desire any additional information.
• •
•