Loading...
4.1. SR 08-11-2008ITEM 4.1. giver MEMORANDUM TO: Economic Development Authority City Council FROM: Jeff Gongoll Community Development Director DATE: August 11, 2008 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION: Development of "Gateway" Business Park and Surrounding Area PURPOSE A key area of the City, including City property, is available for what many view as our next significant opportunity for effective and inspiring economic development projects. The intention of this meeting is to: 1. Seek consensus to the following: Who - do we want to market this property to? What -type of land use is appropriate/suitable? When - do we want the property to be developed in order to market it accordingly? 2. Provide an update of activities (A.) and an opportunity to re-examine the issues regarding the Gateway development site and surrounding area (B.). A. STATUS 1. Entertainment Proposal The proposed project was originally submitted to the EDA in October 2007. In early July 2008, we were informed that the location of the project, encompassing approximately 14 acres, has shifted east onto City property, generally Outlot C of the Gateway Business Park plat (attached). Initially the proposed site was along Highway 10. However, a site plan has not been submitted. EDAICity Council Workshop August 11, 2008 Page-2-of3 2. Land Valuation At the July 7th meeting, the City Council gave authorization to hire an appraiser to better understand the dynamics of this property and the marketplace. This will provide us with a stronger position for reviewing and possibly selling the property to the appropriate developer and/or development. Nagell Appraisal & Consulting is conducting the appraisal. (The EDA has previously reviewed their work through the appraisal of the Post Office property on Line Avenue). Once complete, it will be submitted for staff review followed by a probable Executive Session meeting with the City Council for review and discussion. In this regard, we are aware of two parties that have expressed interest in Outlot C; one in a verbal expression as "an investment," and one by receipt of a letter requesting approximately 5 acres of the northern portion of Outlot C (along 171St Avenue). And, we were contacted by Globe College regarding their interest in placing a facility in Elk River (requiring 3 - 4 acres). Although Gateway was not offered as a location by the City due to its light industrial/non-retail nature, a portion of Outlot C was suggested to them through a third party developer. B. DISCUSSION 1. Issues We are consequently faced with the following issues/questions to better prepare an effective and ultimately successful series of development projects that are suitable for this site in support of our growing city: - What are the goals for development (i.e., jobs, tax base, etc.)? What do we want to see here? Priorities? ^ highway commercial ^ business professional ^ service ^ light industrial - Should the property be marketed as one large parcel (e.g., with a "Master Developer"), or platted and sold as individual parcels? - How soon should the property be developed? - Once priorities have been established are we willing to wait for development? 2. 171St Focused Area Study (171St FAST) The Community Development department is seeking to develop a strategy to complement and maximize the benefits of the Northstar Commuter Rail to the City. We anticipate many ancillary activities and development opportunities to occur because of this; however, a formal plan has not been formally discussed or established. The Gateway property plays a significant role in any future development in this area. Furthermore, the immediate surrounding properties can be important contributors as this area develops into a node of commerce and industry. EDAICity Council Workshop August 11, 2008 Page-3-of3 We should also consider the impacts this area will have on the entire community and how this new transit mode can benefit the rest of Elk River. An expanded "benefit area" may include such items as satellite parking, an infra-city shuttle bus operation, enhanced pedestrian and bicycle paths, etc. Possible redevelopment activities may also become available along the east Hwy. 10 corridor in support of this new transit operation. If we want to proceed with this type of expanded study, the FAST could provide short and long range guidelines fox development and possible redevelopment opportunities surrounding the Northstar Rail station. An effective plan will also establish expectations for land uses and design guidelines in and around the station. SUMMARY Effective development requires equally effective planning. Discussion and consensus of these issues will provide the direction to successfully plan, market, and develop this property. Have we arrived at a consensus of: Who, What & When? Who -big box retail, neighborhood retail, light industrial? What -highway business, community commercial, light industrial? When -now, market driven, new development, redevelopment? Next Steps With goals and priorities established, we will then be able to begin the process of preparing a Marketing Plan that can identify these priorities, offer a suggested site plan and provide an analysis of possible incentives that could be available. In order to prepare a complete Marketing Plan, certain steps will need to be fulfilled. These steps will include such items as review of the property appraisal, determining the proper land use, and establishing the associated property costs, including infrastructure improvements and wetland mitigation. This activity will be brought back to the EDA and Council for review, discussion and direction to launch the Marketing Plan. Attachments: ^ Aerial of Gateway Business Park ^ Gateway Business Park Plat ^ Option "B" from June 11, 2007, EDA meeting. ^ EDA Meeting Minutes: April 9, 2007 & June 11, 2007 ^ Executive Summary -Gateway Market Study, March 2007, Maxfield Research, Inc. .x _~ - ~~..~ ;+ ~. ~. `__ , . ~, ~ ~- ~ .. a r ~.~.:~ w~ . ,r .~' _ ~.x •. ~°s .: M~} i _ ~ ~ / ' w~ I / / _ xa ~~ W I ;.` - ------ sy ~ ~ ~ / / - // // ~ \~~ / I , ` / ~ ` ~ 3 ~ i ,~ _ - ;_ == - ,~\~ - ... ~ y ~¢rrw I ua ax 'u3 , •o, wv.rom3, ~ t LfTY M Z{M.10 5 J ~ ~ ° ~ E I I ~ I \ m t _ _ _ _ _ / u o _ _ _ _ _ / o ~ _ _ { i'I~ ~ ! t_ ~ y - e i ~ w--~. ~ ~ - w 1~ R: rn.s,;r ~ moo-. ! - ~V -~-' _ ~-___ - -- J x - : ~~ ~- 3 ~,_: z~ ~ m,~. 3.~1~,.~- ~ -~• y=am= .-tom--- i=- ~ ~ ~ , • • I ~ • r ~ - ~ ~ 1 ~ o- -~- ~ o ~§ ' s .= '' - _ d I - - a ~ ~~ - I~ ' ~ ~ g °i € I -~~_ ~I __W ~ D __~ e ,L I , ~ ` - - - - - - - - -e, ` ~ .; w , d h7 . ;I 3 N 0 1 1 ~ ,~ Q ti _ ` 0 ~- - ,., `~, ----\~ ~/r. W~ Y i ~ ~ .~ !~3 O~X 3~ s a i a M d I ~~ I-I - Z-r _ ~ ~ S 5~ yS~ i C ~~ 3- yq$. ~a ~SQ -~- ~ I y ~ (r. y ((r~, C C I~Ig3~g3'. C~Iu ~ ~ - K S ~dA~ ~~g ~ ~ ^ S ~ ~ ~ g y 0369 ZF ~ g I • o • L CAF -+\ ~~ a g . 5 ~~ ~-~ \ ~ g i a '----- CM.C ~N 2 \ ~ _ ~ tiw - I Z^ 1 UW ~ 1~ ~N 4 W Z j 3 ~ 1 1 _ _ ~~* __ a I I ~ $ $ Ti._-- ._ n I 5 I a .- ----~~ -~ N aV ~ t` N t^r l~y N y V W ~ -I---~ . ' / , ~- -- .fir '~ ~~ I _,~-• S ~ ~ ~~ j Wh ~v~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~a ,'~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ®. . a ~ ~ at; a Z--~1 8 ~ 8 ~Y ~~ s and ris v+a < / ,~ i.~..a P ~, ~~ I Z I ~ O ' _ _ Y I I •' ~ ~ I ~ _~ ~ U I I x I ~\J W ~ ~`~ f~~ I I e ~~ ~ ~ I ~~ x~xf _- ~ ~ U Z We O w FG Fi m az 5 9 a l a f d i /® ~QA s ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ e~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~>, r-^} ~ % W ' ~/}\, X~ ~ w /. cWn cWWn ~~; ;~: <r U V ~ ~ "' ~ ~ ~ ~ /~ i ~' 'z, o R'. Q ~ Q v` ~ ~~ ~ J max` , ~. Gs // ~ ~ U ~ Q ~ I ~ w ~ - x ~ c~ r~ R ~~ ~~ ~~. ~„ -1 ~ \\~ ~ ,. ~:~ c,> _, ~ i, ~~` ~ ~ _ - .r 5 I ~~ N ay $A+~ 1 ~ _~ _v --- ~ . ~ ~ ~ '~~, ~ ~ z_ 5 I! ~ ~ - i ' -, i ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ e-, ut L ~ ~ r /~ r ~ d. i ~ ~ // ~~ _ ~ Q ~ ~ I (~ f~ A w c~ rsw = ~__--° ~s~ Id /^ ~',~JEFZ Economic Development Authority Minutes Apri19, 2007 Page 2 MOVED BY COMMISSIONER DWYER AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MOTIN TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 07-01 APPROVING THE DECERTIFICATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT N0.15 WITHIN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO.1 IN THE CITY OF ELK RIVER. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 6. Other Business Mr. Clark noted that information on a proposed road alignment for TH 10 from a Mn/DOT representative was personal opinions of that person and not what is being proposed by Mn/DOT. l~djourn to Worksession for Discussion on Gateway Business ('enter Development Grant Martin, Maxfield Research, Inc., provided an explanation of the study his firm completed for the Gateway Business Park. He reviewed the methodology used by his company. He stated the Park has limited market use for office and retail based on access and visibility to TH 10. Mr. Martin stated he found industrial demand for the site. He recommended 40 acres dedicated to owner-occupied industrial space and 20 acres for multi- tenant lease space. He stated the focus of the study was for the city-owned property. Mr. Barnhart stated he is looking for direction on the type of land uses the EDA would like to see for the Park. Commissioner Motin stated the access issues for this Park are not any different then the Wal-mart location. Mr. Clark stated there could be some retail in the Park but questioned how much the EDA would like to see. Commissioner Gongoll stated the surrounding properties need to be considered for development of the Park. Commissioner Klinzing concurred. She stated people shouldn't have to go through industrial properties to get to commercial properties. Commissioner Tveite stated if the EDA wants retail it may need to wait until there is more of a demand. Commissioner Farber concurred. Commissioner Dwyer concurred. He questioned if the train station was considered in the study. Mr. Barnhart stated he has spoken to a couple of the property owners and they are looking to put in commercial/retail. Commissioner Gongoll stated the consensus of the EDA is to see more of a retail component in the Park. He stated he would like to see a higher level of architectural standards, some high-tech infrastructure, and a different name for the Park. Economic Development Authority Minutes Page 3 Apri19, 2007 Ms. Mehelich questioned the types of retail the EDA would like to see. Commissioners Motin and Klinzing stated they would like to see a big bog retail area similar to the Wal-mart area in Elk River. Commissioner Gongoll stated he could see it as a small boutique neighborhood center. Mr. Barnhart created a sample drawing of the land uses the EDA is requesting. Mr. Maurer stated there will be some constraints to the site due to wetlands and gas lines. Ms. Mehelich questioned how Maxfield Research, Inc., considered the viability of developing retail in this proximity from the rail station. Mr. Martin stated the key feature they considered for the rail station is walkability. He stated if a site can be walkable, you will keep people there to utilize the retail; but once they are in the car they can go anywhere. He stated the city shouldn't count on rail as a draw for retail. Commissioner Moon disagreed with the walkability component. He stated people coming home at the end of night don't walk and shop and they don't have time in the morning to shop. He stated commuters plan their trips to the rail station to within five minutes of an available train. He stated it is not walkable from the rail station to the Gateway Business Park. Ms. Mehelich stated people catching the train will come and go in short time frames limited to the train's arrival. She questioned the support of retail businesses for the non-commuter times throughout the day. She noted initially there w~11 be limited train trips from the station. Mr. Claxk noted there will be competition with Elk River Station and their retail development. Ms. Mehelich questioned if the study area scope was broadened to include adjacent private parcels for development, would that improve the market opportunity for retail. Mr. Martin stated it would but the city would need to improve the access to the southern portion of the site. 8. Adjournment The meeting of the Elk River Economic Development Authority adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Tina Allard City Clerk MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HELD AT THE ELK RIVER CITY -HALL MONDAY, JUNE 11, 2007 Members Present: President Gongoll, Commissioners Dwyer, Farber, HIinzing, Motin, and Zerwas Members Absent: Commissioner Tveite Staff Present: Director of Economic Development Catherine Mehelich, Planning Manager Jeremy Barnhart, City Engineer Terry Maurer, and Recording Secretary Jessica Miller Call Meeting To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Economic Development Authority was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by President Gongoll. Consider Agenda MOVED BY COMMISSIONER KLINZING AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FARBER TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 3. Consider Consent Agenda MOVED BY COMMISSIONER DWYER AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FARBER TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS FOLLOWS: 3.1. MAY 14, 2~7 MINUTES 3.2. CHECS REGISTERS 3.3. BALANCE SHEET 3.4. REVENUE/EXPENDITURE REPORT MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 4. en Mike No one appeared for open mike. 5, consider Gatew~.y Business C'.enter Development Concevts Planning Manager Jeremy Barnhart explained that at the April 9, 2007 EDA meeting, staff was directed to develop three conceptual layouts for discussion on the Gateway project. Mr. Bamhart stated that the consensus of the EDA was that the park should have more of a retail component. Mr. Bamhart reviewed the assumptions staff made in development of the plans. Mr. Barnhart then presented the three options as follows: Economic Development Authority Minutes June 11, 2007 Page 2 O tion A Includes a variety of lot sizes, including three big box lots (10-17 acres), three smaller commercial lots, and 9.57 acre industrial parcel in the southeast. The plan includes aright-in off of Highway 10, The smaller commercial lots are served via a `backage' road between Highway 10 and Ulysses. Option A has the greatest impact to existing wetlands, and a big portion of property west of Ulysses is used to mitigate these wetlands. An additional 11 acres of wetlands would need to be mitigated elsewhere. Option A requires the mitigation of 12.14 acres (24.3 acres). O 'on B Shows two big box retail sites immediately adjacent to Highway 10, sized 19-28 acres. This plan provides more land for industrial sites, although any of the lots on any of the plans could conceivably be converted to industrial uses based on size. The plan also utilizes a right-in off of Highway 10. This plan has slightly reduced impact to the wetlands, requiring mitigation of approximately 9.64 acres (19.3 acres). Any access off of Highway 10 would require MnDOT approval. tion C Includes small ancillary commercial lot in the NW corner, two big box lots along Highway 10, and 5-9 acre commercial sites on the east side of Ulysses. A 12-acre industrial site is located in the SE corner. There is minimal impact to wetlands (1.1. acres) requiring only the creation of 2.2 acres. This plan effectively requires the acquisition of the Weicht property. President Gongoll indicated that Commissioner Tveite was unable to attend the meeting but provided his comments via email. President Gongoll shared these comments. He stated that Commissioner Tveite's preference is Option B with the revision from "big box" to "commercial" to allow the city as much flexibility as possible to address potential users. Commissioner Tveite also prefers Option B because of the industrial presence away from the Highway and near the RDF plant. President Gongoll explained that Commissioner Tveite would like to the city to reach out to private land owners to verify their plans and see if they are willing to work with the city on land acquisition. Commissioner Tveite also noted in his email that even though the market survey wasn't optimistic about commercial/retail along Highway 10, he believes the highway offers an asset down the road (i.e., 5 years) and he would want to keep an eye towards this use fronting the highway. President Gongoll concurred with Commissioner Tveite's comments. Commissioner HIinzing stated that Option B best reflects what she would like to see. She believes the area will be valuable for commercial and likes the size of the lots. Commissioner Motin questioned if staff could check with Cargill and see if they are interested in developing their portion of the neighboring property in the future. He stated that he was leaning towards Option A but has no problem with Option B. President Gongoll indicated that he believes the best option is for the city to have discussions with the property owners to see if they are interested in selling. I-Ie stated that if the city owns the property then the city has the flexibility of when the property is developed. Mr. Barnhart stated he felt that single ownership was necessary for the efficiency of the development. He noted that if the city purchasing the neighboring land is not an option, the city map want to consider selling their property to a neighboring landowner in order to create a larger parcel. Economic Development Authority Minutes June 11, 2007 Page 3 Mr. Barnhart verified that the EDA indicated a preference for the land layout in option B. He indicated that based on the EDA's direction, staff will begin discussions with neighboring property owners regarding land acquisition. Commissioner Motin noted that staff should also initiate discussions with Cargill. He added that he is not interested. in the city land being bought out unless strict development restrictions are placed on the land in order to control project quality. Mr. Barnhart questioned the EDA's timing goal for opening of the Gateway project. President Gongoll stated that the roads and utilities could be constructed and the market could dictate the rest., but agreed that these improvements not be made by spring 2008. The EDA concurred to wait for the market/development before moving dirt, but have preliminary plans ready to go. 6. Uodate on Downtown Redevelopment Plan Taskforce Director of Economic Development Catherine Mehelich provided an update on the Downtown Redevelopment Plan Taskforce meeting. Ms. Mehelich explained that at the last meeting, a large group visioning took place. She reviewed the proposed timeline as follows: ^ June 25 - Taskforce's first review of draft plan ^ July - Taskforce's final review of draft plan ^ August -Plan distributed to boards and commissions for comment ^ September -Three open houses held to gain public input ^ October/November - Taskforce review input received from boards /commissions and public ^ December - HRA and Council adoption of plan Ms. Mehelich outlined a few of the items identified by the Taskforce as part of the plan: 1. Revitalize and strengthen residential housing areas adjacent to the downtown. 2. Enhance the connection to the river. 3. Redefine core downtown from the traditional retail focus to improve economic success. Look at other market opportunities like residential and specialized commercial to strengthen the area. 4. Identify different land uses for north of Highway 10 to help maximize the market opportunities but not compete with the southside of Highway 10 and the core downtown. 7. Other Business Ms. Mehelich indicated that Alliance Machine, 17520 Tyler Street, is having an open house on June 13 from 1:30 to 5:30 p.m. to celebrate their new building. 8. Adjournment There being no other business, President Gongoll adjourned the meeting of the Elk River Economic Development Authority at 6:14 p.m. Minutes prepared by Jessica Miller. `An Analysis of the Market Potential for Retail and Industrial Uses at the Gateway Business Center in Elk River, Minnesota Prepared for: City of Elk River Elk River, Minnesota ' March 2007 -d Inc. 615 First Avenue NE Suite 400 Minneapolis, MN 55413 612.338.0012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Maxfield Research Inc. was engaged by the City of Elk River to conduct market research and provide analysis regarding current market conditions and the potential demand for retail and industrial space at the Gateway Business Center. The scope of this study includes an assessment of the Gateway .Business Center as a site for highway retail and light industrial uses; an analysis of the relevant demographic growth trends and characteristics affecting retail demand and industrial demand in the azea; an assessment of retail and industrial development trends and current market conditions; and a projection of demand for these uses that could potentially be captured by the Gateway Business Center. Retail Conclusions The following bullets summarize our findings for retail uses at the Gateway Business Center. - The parcels designated for retail use at the Site suffer from access and visibility issues. ' The northwestern portion of the Gateway Business Center would have better access, due to its proximity to 171st Avenue, but visibility is less than desirable because of the distance to Highway 10. This area might have some marketability for destination retailers. However, because there aze several developable parcels in the immediate azea that have better visibil- ity, retailers would be more attracted to these sites. ~ The southwestern portion of the Gateway Business Center would have good visibility from Highway 10. However, the access is poor. Customers would have to exit at 171st Avenue, continue south on a proposed connector road, and finally tum down an access road or cul- de-sac. We believe retailers would find this access too burdensome for customers, making these parcels uncompetitive in the mazket. If access could be improved through the devel- opment of an intersection at 167th Avenue, this parcel would have better market appeal. - The retail market is strong in the Elk River Mazket Area, primarily driven by household growth. The overall vacancy rate for competitive properties is about 10%, which is comps- rable to the northwest Metro Area as a whole. - Most potential retailers, however, would prefer to locate along the Highway 169 retail corridor north of the Site. Other competitive sites in Ramsey, Otsego, and Rogers would also impact demand at the Gateway Business Center. The overall competitive mazket fur- ther reduces demand at the Site and ultimately would result in lower lease rates achievable at the Site. - Based on our Site analysis, demographic analysis, competitive market analysis, and inter- views with retail brokers, we find demand for about 4,000-square feet of additional retail be- tween 2008 and 2015. i MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. r. vt~l~i Trit lL` CiTIViMAi2V DEMAND SUMMARY ADDITIONAL DEMAND FOR RETAIL AND INDUSTRIAL SPACE GATEWAY BUSINESS CENTER ELK RIVER MARCH 2007 ...2006- to 2015 Total Annuall Retail Buildings City of Elk River 376,300 Sq. Ft. 41,800 Sq. Ft Gateway Business Center 3,800 Sq. Ft. 400 Sq. Ft 2006 ta'2015 Total Annually ~ Industrial Buildings City of Elk River 784,800 Sq. Ft. 87,200 Sq. Ft Gateway Business Center 259,200 Sq. Ft. 28,800 Sq. Ft Industrial Acreage City of Elk River 106.0 Acres 11.8 Acres Gateway Business Center. 35.0 Acres 3.9 Acres * Data is summarized from demand calculations shown in Tables 10 and 21. Data is adjusted slightly to make time comparisons the same. Source: Maxfield Research Inc. Industrial Conclusions The following findings summarize our conclusions on industrial space demand at the Gateway Business Center. - Overall; the Site has excellent qualities for industrial use. It has excellent access to Highway 10, a key feature that industrial businesses would consider to be desirable. - The surrounding uses aze compatible with industrial uses. In addition, the Site's proximity to the proposed Northstaz Commuter Rail station would expand the potential labor pool for employers located at the Gateway Business Center. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 11 EXECUTIVE SUbIlVIARY - The one issue that would make the Site less desirable for industrial space users is the dis- tance to Interstate 94. This fact will segment the market for industrial users, and make the Gateway Business Center site appealing to certain types of industrial users, similar to the ex- isting mix of industrial users in Elk River currently. - Industrial employment is projected to be strong in the region, especially in the Construction, Wholesale Trade, and Transportation sectors. This projected growth will continue to drive demand for industrial space in azeas with access to the State's transportation system - Employment growth in Elk River has been steady. Over 2003 and 2006, Elk River added several new industrial businesses, almost all small manufacturers, with about 200 new jobs added. - Manufacturing employers aze attracted to the quality labor force, good access to the trans- portation system, lower land prices, and the availability of larger lots for potential expan- sion. We believe that, even as manufacturing becomes a smaller part of the overall regional economy, Elk River will remain an attractive location for these employers into the next dec- ade. - The industrial mazket in the northwestern Metro Area is strong and is improving. Between 2005 and 2006, we estimate that about 1.8 million-square feet of industrial leased space was absorbed. Over that period, the vacancy rate in the sector declined from 10% to 7.5%. - The industrial space market in Elk River is relatively strong. Affordability and availability have driven industrial development in Elk River, where other azeas of the Twin Cities have struggled due to higher land costs. The Elk River multi-tenant market is chazacterized by newer facilities that aze still in their lease-up phases. These newer facilities tend to have higher vacancy rates than the overall market. The industrial land market has also been rela- tively strong; we estimate that between 2003 and 2006, the average absorption was about 67,500-square feet of industrial building space for owner-occupied industrial land. - Based on our Site analysis, demographic analysis, competitive market analysis, and inter- views with industrial brokers, we project that annual industrial land absorption in Elk River will be about 11.8 acres per year. We believe the Gateway Business Center could capture about one-third of this demand, or about four acres per yeaz. Recommendations Based on our analysis, we do not recommend traditional retail uses at the Site. The access, visibility, and competitive mazket issues dictate that retail would struggle to fmd a market. We recommend a mix of traditional industrial space (office warehouse, manufacturing) with more non-traditional industrial space (office showroom, flexible office/wazehouse). We recommend that the more traditional industrial space be located on the eastern portion of the Site, in the area currently being designated as light industrial. We recommend developing the non-traditional industrial space adjacent to Highway 10, where there would be better visibility. This western MAXFIELD RESEARCH iNC. iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY area is also adjacent to properties on Highway 10 that would likely be developed as retail in the future. We believe this strategy would provide the best opportunity to capture the spectrum of the market, from manufacturers and transport firms that have traditionally operated in Elk River to smaller distribution wholesalers and retailers who may want a more flexible space that better caters to their business. The table that follows shows our proposed development concept. The Gateway Business Center is divided into two areas, one with single-user, owner-occupied parcels and the other with three multi-tenant, leased industrial buildings. RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT GATEWAY BUSINESS CENTER ELK RIVER FEBRUARY 2007 Estimated Total Lan@ Land Building Land Pric Land Acres Ft . Ft. Per FL Price. Lot # 1 3.0 130,680 20,000 - 25,000 $2.50 $326,700 Lot #2 3.0 130,680 20,000 - 25,000 $2.50 $326,700 Lot #3 3.0 130,680 20,000 - 25,000 $2.50 $326,700 Lot #4 3.0 130,680 20,000 - 25,000 $2.50 $326,700 Lot #5 3.0 130,680 20,000 - 25,000 $2.50 $326,700 Lot #6 3.0 130,680 20,000 - 25,000 $2.50 $326,700 Lot #7 4.0 174,240 25,000 - 35,000 $2.50 $435,600 Lot #8 4.0 174,240 25,000 - 35,000 $2.50 $435,600 Lot #9 4.0 174,240 25,000 - 35,000 $2.50 $435,600 Lot#10 5.0 217,800 35,000 - 45,000 $2.50 $544,500 Lot #11 5.0 217,800 35,000 - 45,000 $2.50 $544,500 Total 40.0 265,000 - 345,000 Estimated Tatai Land Land Building Land Pric Land Achief able Lease Rates Acres S Ft S . Ft. Per S Ft. Price Building #1 6.7 290,400 40,000- - 60,000 $2.50 $726,000 $10.00 $4.50 Building #2 6.7 290,400 40,000 - 60,000 $2.50 $726,000 $10.00 $4.50 Building #3 6.7 290,400 40,000 - 60,000 $2.50 $726,000 $10.00 $4.50 Total 20.0 120,000 - 180,000 Source: Maxfield Research Inc. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. iv