CR 90-156 Resolution Annexation
.
.
~.'-
,.
, \'
o
:ca:
.y 'C~
o ,Q K " ,\
council Report: 90-156
July 30, 1990
RESOLUTION CONCERNING ANNEXATION - DETACHMENT
~
staff recommends the following motion: ~e that counqi!
ado~ Res91qtion 90-82, ReS9lYtion concerning Detachment Qf
~~~tain Lands Within th~ city of HOp~~Pp ~Q~~ADnexed
by :t.b.e City Qf Minnetol')ka.ll
This action sanctions the detachment of a portion of a
certain parcel of land (also known as the steiner property)
in the southeast corner of Hopkins at the end of Smetana
Road.
OVervi~~~ .
The city of Ninnetonka has undertaken a feasibility study
for the construction of a collector street routed through
portions of their city to Smetana Drive. The study cites an
alternative that requires some of the roadway improvement
within Hopkins city limits. Minnetonka wishes to designate
the entire proposed roadway as a state Aid street, use their
MSA funds to finance the total cost of construction, and
feels the public interest will be serv~d by acquiring and
annexinq the needed riqht-of-way from the Paul steiner
property located in Hopkins and adjoining the City of
Minnetonka.
E~im~r}~ Is~ues tQ~nsiger~
o What is to be annoxed by Minnetonka?
o What is the impetus for annexation?
o What are the benefits of this roadway?
o What happens after annexation - detachment?
o What are the alternatives?
suppo~ting Inf9rmA~ionM
o Location map
o Minnetonka feasibility report
o Resolution 90-82
A ~
~L _A-- ~ . '~~
James Gessele, Engineering Superintendent
"
I
I
..J
l
'1
i
,
i
i
!
----,1
'1
, ,
,
council Rpt: 90-156
July 31, 1990
Page 2
An,9,lysis,
.
o What is to be annexed by Minnetonka?
o
.
.
,-..'-i.
Minnetonka needs to acquire and annex a strip of
land 66 feet in width and approximately 705 feet
in length on a parcel in the southeast corner of
Hopkins at the east end of Smetana Drivef east of
the Westbrooke development and directly north of a
commercial building in Minnetonka known as Drag
Specialties, Inc. Mr. Paul steiner, owner of the
Hopkins property in question, has agreed in
principle to the annexation and will be a
petitioner for such action before the Minnesota
Municipal Board. The City of Hopkins must grant
its approval for such action by means of
resolution before annexation - detachment can be
granted.
What is the imp6tus for annexation?
A joint Hopkins-Minnetonka transportation study
was undertaken to address concerns by people in
both communities regarding traffic volumes, noise,
access, and future traffic operations in southeast
Hopkins and northeast Minnetonka. Once the report
was issued the city of Minnetonka ordered a
feasibili ty study for a north Opus area st:t-eet
reconstruction project. Minnetonkals interest was
in providing a two-way collector route between
Smetana Drive and Bran Road which would route
traffic away from residential areas in their city
and address traffic pattern needs of both cities.
Four street alignment alternatives were presented
in the feasibility report and all proposals called
for a two-way roadway 44 feet in width. The most
feasible alternative involves a northerly
extension of Opportunity Court in Minnetonka
oonnecting to an easterly extension of Smetana
Dri"t'e.. The right-Of-way for the Smetana Drive
extension would be entirely within the Hopkins
cit,y limits..
The City of Minnetonka sees a real need to expend
some of their MSA funds and would designate the
entire proposed roadway as a state Aid street and
is ~~~PQred to finance all construction costs from
opportunity Court to the present connection Of
Smetana Drive with Green Circle Orive. Minnetonka
proposes a construction project to get under way
'/'
.
council Rpt: 90-156
July 31, 1990
Page J
by this fall with a completi.on date of fall of
1991.
o What are the benefits of this roadway?
The alternative chosen by Minnetonka provides for
an opportunity Court extension and an access to
the east for the Westbrooke area as well as the
vacant steiner property. Cost and impact en a
wetland are limitations, however these factors
have diminished in light of Minnetonka's
willingness to assume the entire cost through MSA
and the fact that the Nine Mile Creek Wa~ershed
District is prepared to grant a permit.
Significant benefi.ts are realized by a direct two-
way collector between Smetana Drive and Bren Road
in that t,raffic noise around the Opus Condominiums
is reduced and needed access for the steiner
property is prDvided. This roadway makes
improvements on traffic flow patterns and reduces
traffic on sensitive roadway segments.
.
Construction of the roadway affords an opportunity
for the City of Minnetonka to provide water main
and sanitary sewer utilities to the now
undeveloped Steiner property..
The alternative roadway chosen by Minnetonk.a and
making annexation necessary is basically founded
on economics. If the roadway were to be centered
on the e~isting common boundary, land acquisition
costs would be $560,000. By following the
annexation route, land acquisition costs total
$133~OOO. The roadway alignment along the center
line of the existing boundary would have adverse
impact on Drag Specialties. A parking lot would
be lost and the oU.ilding would be in non-
conformance as far as set-back regulations are
concerned.
o What happens after annexation~detachment
proceedings?
The City will b~ asked to sign an agreement with
Minnetonka and as a responsible party to the
agreement will be asked to approve plans and
~pecitications for the street construction.
____--'----.p--,n_- - lI"T ~_
,
.
Council Rpt: 90-156
July 31, 1990
Page 4
o What are the alternatives?
1. The Council can adopt the resolution
authorizing annexation-detachment.
2. The Council can table action for further
information.
<.'
','" .'
;, -" (<' ~
l'
.. '
,
. ,." ~ :-,'~.
'<-.<":' -.
'!.":'-;,'"
~:~<~ '.; .
~~,'--,,'..! !
~~~,:~ ~:';-
:;j.i-::~y,,;;~
~. ~.,:/..,
t
FEASIBILITY REPORT
NORTH OPUS AREA
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
NnNNETONKA,McrNNESOTA
.
RIEKE CARROLL MULLER ASSOCIATES, INC.
.
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This feasibility report has been prepared and is submitted in accordance with the agreement
between the City of Minnetonka and Ricke Carroll Muller Associates, Inc. (ReM). The
report is for a two~way collector route between Smetana Drive and Bren Road which would
also route traffic away from the residential areas between Green Circlt Drive and Smetana
Drive, The alignment! studied in this report were chosen by City staff from studies
pr~pafecl by St.8ar~Roscoe.Fausch. dated February 1987. which focused on traffic patterns
and traffic .noise in and around the Opus Condominiums, and by Benshoof and Associates,
dated September 1989, which focused on traffic patterns between Minnctonka and Hopkins.
.
Alternative ! involves a northerly extension or Opportunity Court connecting to an easterly
extensiOll of Smetana Drive (Figure 1). The right-of~way for Smetana Drive extension
would be entirely within the city l~mits of Hopkins. Alternative 2 (Figure 2) is ~sscntially
the same as Al!ernativc 1 with the exception that the centerline of' Smetana Drive would
continue to f()Uow the Minnetonka-Hopkins boundary Hnc until it connects with the
northerly extcllslon of Opportunity Court. Alternative 3 is a northerly and westerly
extension or Opportunity Court (Figure 3) connecting at the intersection ot Green Circle
Drive and. Smetana Drive. Alternative 4 (Figure 4) would involve reconstructing Eren Road
and the wC$ter:y lea of Green Circle Drive between the westerly leg o.f G!e~n Circle Drive
aad Trunk Highway 169 interch.ange as two-wsy streets.
~l-
.
.
SECTION 2
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternative I is a northerly extension of Opportunity Court with an easterly extension of
Smetana Drive. Existing Smetana Drive is currently a border road between Minnetonka and
Hopkins. The proposed alignment curves to the north so that most of the right~of-way is
within the Hopkins city limits until it connects with the extension of Opportunity Court.
This was done to avoid infringing on the northerly parking lot of the former Drag
Specialties building. The affected parcel of land in Hopkins is owned by Mr. Paul Steiner
and is approximately 20 acres of which approximately 4 acres is buildable. The remaining
land is within the Nine Mile Creek flood plain. The affected property is currently zoned K-
2, low density. multi-family, and Hopkins has indicated that this zoning will not change.
Hopkins has established a policy for R-2 zoning that allows one residential unit for every
12,000 square feet of buildable land and therefore approximately 14 units could be built on
this property. The proposed alignment would require 1.0 acre of right-of -way from the
Steiner property of which approximately 0.6 acre is buildable land, resulting in a loss of 2
to 3 building units.
The alignment connects to Opportunity Court east of the east parking lot of the former
Drag Specialties building. The right~of~way would be within the floodplain of Nine Mile
Creek. This area of the wetland is protected by Corps of Engineers. The Corps' policy
when filling 3 acres or more of w~tlafid is that no filling of a wetland hallowed tlnless
there is no other alternative lind the public need is greater than the environmental damage
caused by the filling. When filling less than 1 acre, the proj~ct would fall under Ii national
permit with less restrictive requirements, When filling between 1 and 3 acres, the Corps has
tht; latitude to require either a national or individual permit, depending on the type of
project and I~~J conditions. This a.lignment fills approximately 1.5 acres. The Corps will
not commit to which permit they would require until a detailed plan is submitted with an
s'l.<ppcrtins data regarding pubH~ need for the road.
I
-2w
AUenmODI I reroutes traUie from the ~outb. and west side of the Opportunity Workshop
bUiiding to the east side. In the pan. Opportunity Workshol' has expressed opposition to this
a.U,auaent due to safety concerns tor their students udag the recreational area to the
northeast or the buUding. The rtereational area is no lonser used by the students and
Opportunity Workshop is in the process of selling that parcel of land. Student safety is 'Still
I coftccrn .ince the east parkins lot is \lIed as an arrival/departure area tor students. Tbese
concerns would ~ addressed during design,
~- '.WUiiN IIIIU
.
.
..---- _.._1Il .7T. -11
_l!JIIIJi' ....
-
-
Alternative 2 is simBar to Alternative I with the exception that Smetana Drive would
continue as a border road until it connects with Opportunity Court. One-half of the right-
of-way would be in Minnetonka and one-half of the right-of -way would be in Hopkins.
This alignment would require appro7:.imately 0.3 acre of buildable land from the Steiner
property in Hopkins resulting in a loss of I to 1 residential units. The aligument does
require additional right-of -way from the former Drag Specialties property and results in a
loss of the north parking lot and places the building in nonconformance with present zoning
regulations.
Alternatives 1 and 2 require acquisition of right-of-way from the Steiner property within
the City of Hopkins. Three possibilities exist to acquire the right~of~way to build the road.
each requiring cooperation between the two cities.
1.
Minnctonka will obtain the rightuof-way and Hopkins will allow
Minnetonka to ann.:x the property and build the road.
2.
Hopkins will obtain thi:: right-oC-way and partic~pate with
Minnetonka in building the road.
.3,
Hopkins will obtain the right-of-way and build the road
themseives.
Funding of this project is intended to be with state aid funds. Hopkins City staff has
indicated that there is Dot enough benefit to building the road for the City of Hopkins to
justify using their sta.te aid funds. Hopkins has expressed a willingness to cooperate with
Minnetonka to obtain the right-of~wal' and buiJd the road, but not to participate in
financing.
Alignments 1 end 2 provide good traffic flow for a two.way caUcelor road. with a minimal
amount of curves and moves traffic noise away from the Opus Condominiums. Traffic
disruption during construction would be minimal as most new construction would be
outside of existins right-of ~way.
Alternative 3 is a northerly and westerly el(te,~sion of Opportunity Court connecting at the
intersection of Green Circle Drive and Smetana Drivt. This alignment requires Obtaining
-3-
Iff[.
I
I
.
.
.
'"'~.
right.of~way from Opportunity Workshop along their northern property line. Currently. the
Workshop's building fits their present needs; however. they have long-term plans to expand
the building and parking areas. This a.lignment would limit or eliminate any possibi1ity of
expansion. Also. the northern portion of the property is used as a park and contains many
mature trees. The proposed alignment would eliminate approximately twenty-four 24"-30"
diameter trees.
Alternative 3 requires extensive reconstruction of Smetana Drive in front of the Drag
Specialties and DLS Industries buildings. ' Work in this area includes widening of the road,
modification to an existing bridge. and reconstruction of Drag Specialties and DLS
Industries western parking lots. This alignment reduces traffic noise around the Opus
Condominiums to acceptable levels; however, the work required to build this alignment
would cause considerable disruption to existing traffic requiring an extensive detour plan.
Alternate 4 would involve reconstructing approximately 5.200 lineal feet of Bren Road and
the westerly Ie! of Green Circle Drive into a two-way street. The alignment would follow
th~ existing dghtoof -way I1nd would require widening of the road and intersection and
curve modIfications to meet state aid standards. An additional 33 feet of right-of ..way in
Gnon Circle Drive and 21 fect of tigbt-of -way in Bren Road would be required to
accommodate the road widening.
The modified curve alignment along the northern end of Green Circle Drive would traverse
throUlh Outlot MAW of the Fourth Addition of Opus 2. This outlot is designated as I
protected wetland by the Depnrtmcnt or Natural Resources. DNR policy is more restrictive
than the Corp!!: of Engineers and docs not allow filling of a protected wetland unless the
pUblic need is sreater than the environmental damage caused by the filling and if lh~rc is
no other alternative avaHable, Limits of a protected wetland are determined in a field
survey by DNR personnel in which the ordina.ry high water elevations and existing surface
wattr elevations a.rc dct<:rw.ined and the limits of wetland vegetation arc cstabUshed. DNR
pcnonn.el then map the limits of the wetland. Field inves1iguioD of Alternative 4 (ound
that this aUSl1mcnt 'Would cross open water in a low marshy tHen which would be within the
prctc(aed wetllnd. In addition, a restrictive covenant has been established (or Outlot itA" in
which it bltated tbat tlO nUina shall be done in Outlot "A" within the IOO-year floodplain.
Construction of this alignment would caust considerable disrUPtion and contusion to
traffic USiill Bren Road due to ehc limited work area and the existins on~ way road system.
Closing Be-en Road west ot Smetana Drive during construction would be required and
-4-
""''T -;-----oq "A.
r;r lIIII'
- ili~1I1
11
Dr
.
traffic detoured to Highway No. 62 west to Shady Oak Road then north to Red Circle Drive
or Bren Road.
Alternative 4 shifts traffic from the east side of the Opus Condominium! to the west side
and theref'ore traffic noise may remain a.n ~ssue. Since traffic nohe would remain
qu<::nionable, and due to difficult c(>>Dstru,=tion conditions and DNR restdction~ th,i!
alilllmcnt does not appear to be feasible and further study of' A:tetllat.iv~ 4 wu
discontinued.
,..'.."
',' ,.
-5-
-.,,'.~'.1'..-; ~
-
.
.
-
11 I'
-,...g -
-
SECTION 3
ROAD DESIGN
The proposed roadway would be classified as an urban two-way collector road by state aid
standards and is required to be 44 feet wide with concrete curb and gutter with parallel
parking lanes on both sides of the 3treet. Due to confined areas and to minimize
encroachment on the flood plain and other affected properties, the horizontal curves arc
designed tor a 20-25 mile per hour design spe~d. which is less than the state aid standard of
30 miles per hour. To achieve a 30 mile per hour design speed, a longcr curve radius would
be required ~nd would encroach further on the Drag Specialties and Steiner properties.
Alternatives 1 and 2 traverse through the Nine Mile Creek floodplain. SoH borings have
found relatively deep deposits of swamp a.nd organic material through this area. Braun
Engineering TelStiug ha3 recommended that tile swamp material be excavated out and/or
surcharged for six months to one year to reduce settlement to acceptable levels. Road
grades were designed to minimize the amount of fill requir~d thereby reducing tbe amount
of :settlement caused by the filling. However, finished elevations of the toad arc below the
lOO-year stornl event and the strce~ would be subject to flooding and storm damage. A
combination of excavation/backfilJ and surcharging were used to further minimize
settlement of the road through the floodplain and reduce maintenance eosts.
Exisd:nl Smetana Drive and Opportunity Court road sections would be utm~~d when
possible. Additiona.i roadway width would be created by stripping the topsoil~ removing
\lnsuit~blc material, building up the subgrade and paving with a bituminous base course. A
nnRI wear course would be placed across the entire street width,
~6~
.
,.
SECTION 5
CONCL USIONS
1.
Alternatives 1 and 2 accomplish the goal of obtaining a direct two-way collector road
between Smetana Drive and Bren Road and reduce traffic noise around the Opus
Condominiums.
2.
Alternatives 1 and 2 win require cooperation between the cities of Minneto'Oka and
Hopkins to obtain the required right-oC-way and finance the cost of construction.
3.
Alternatives 1 and 2 provide the needed access for the Steiner property.
4.
AltcI"nat!:~e 3 probably does not reduce traffic noise around the Opus Condominiums.
5.
Alternative 3 severely affects t.he Opportunity Workshop property and requires
removing 2 dozen mature trees.
6.
Altetoative 2 severely affects the former Drag Specialties property.
7. Alternatives 1 and 1 provide the best traffic flow patterns of aU the alternatives
reviewed.
3. HorizoDtal street design is less than the standard 30 miles per hour design due to
~onfined u(';u and to minimize encroachment an the floodplain and other affected
properties.
~80
9. Alternative has the lowest estimated rightwof-way acquisition cost and lowest total
project cost.
Based ~n the above findings. Alternative! is t.he best alignment and provides a two.
way collector road. reduced traffic noise, good traffic flow patterns, ICiS! dbruPtion
tv existing traffic during .::onstruction, and provides needed access to the Steiner
property.
F !GURE !
~J~;~;"'.. . C==---~I~'~~= J .....Kj.01 ."....;~
.if~~~='::' [-~~.=JE'e.-J 'L'~i,j';
-~ ~-
,i ""~
;~
~ ~:":',..... ~
-a.
f
i
~
1
.
'" u,. 'I.Ul ,
.' Q"SMN
, ~ At:\IICK '
.'-'
.:.;.
-....
-
.
.
ii
~
:
-,~u.
, ,
," -;._ f'-;~.'"'~~w...~.'1.~..f.\:f
I
I
I
--
-,~~L~
.' scau:
mf::J.iD -- DeNOTES NEW ALiGNMENT
K\\~~ --CENOTES PAVEMENT REMOVAl
- --,---~ - ~- -,
~d" U
.".
i ~iU".
. I 0
III 2
1/ ;1
i A:
<< C
~u. "IUI ., ..
It.
MIIIlM
liWlIIMIJ.I,. .
co.
I'
G2lIII'M trl'lCU ~
I
L.
-...
iii:) ~.f.!,.~
.;,
""
~f3 --- DENOTES NEW ALIGNMENT
~---OENOTE5 PAVEMENT REMOVAL
- ,
,
i
~"
....
FIGURE 2
~~_=. ~~__"' ~~~_ ~: ~ ~ _J RE~I$IC~S
I =" ~ ..' l. ~,'
~~: ~~~__-.-J[OAT:~:...~~l 't(~~Q.,
,:"."""> 'c. I'rieke
',',: ".", ,,,:,, " " carrol
.'. :"/":muIIer. .
iU~C.:. '.. ~~~.
,', &rchiteea "*"girtftffl" land Stlrveyors
~-~.
'. ~~ 1-,.. u.
.;
i
. I '" .
.
II ;
~ ii III
<<: C
1liAu. ...e:t.Q OIl ..
... I
J
~ L
"
JlMlUIHI IWINMI
i I ~~-~
i
WOHxIi'lO~
I; .~~~ I
I
I
'----
. F,IGURE 3
,.".'.'..,:.','",..',D,'..,'.,..,".'...',:..,....~.','..,'.,.,.,.,',.,-....,...,."..-.',=-'",',.....~..',-.'...:,'-,'"..."" '1"-"::;' - ] r - ~ ~ I~ - -~ AI!VISIOWS.
.- -.- .-.... ~ [~ ~ ~ ~ ;; - J
'. . '> ,"., , aSsociates inc NORTH OPUS AReA .
t~~~~""d~' __~~__ -----E:-~L'.~
~~J
\ .
I
CPUiS O(:INOO~
-:- ....1---
..~
~
f.'
"" .' --- OENOTES r\lr:w AUGNMENT.
"
~.
~\\ \\ \~ --- CENOTES PAVEMENt REMOVAL
~-
-
.-, " ,_.- -,'
,.... -"-'- ,',-""
" ..~~~.,~~.d~~-..-...;..r-~_~".____~~..:....;~;~~::;f~~~.~~.-~~-:~~.:::: :~-~~:~,~,~2~:.,~~b~-:-;:~,~itt~?:/jjjjj2f;li:;,
-
-,
~,
.
0Ul'\D't 'AI
NO SCAlE
[j/
.
~-,-
.f.....
--- 1
i. I
';r,' ~ ".~;.,..' ,.
o
0I.a ~
~CM~
DD~-
~
~
-~
IIlI
-,
~_._-
~_""'IlMl'I
~ -
~~
~
-
~
0fJIIUB C()H;O D ..,1.!ii!!..tAU.
-...- -.:
DO
i
i,
I
'. ~
CJ
D
-..",~,~.:t
"_"1
'.h.'.' .'~
.. I ... . '4.--, .:0;;
~.~ ---- ,.i~
r/ " ',".,i~~-"',~
- ~~.!
I ,/~~
II ' .,.,.
'::_'~~
[:J!!
::1
. .~~'~~
'.~
. '.~
~3~J' ,J
.' ~J.._;~
'. ': ,',,<\ 'i, ;".,.,>,.,~",;;,~;,,\;,,,>,,,i.1I
~
",.~:.,
, ';;~:, " '
,
c-
........
FIGURE 4
. ~~~~~-"=.=J AEV'SIQtI~
rieke
=
~ inc.
.,,", -',
'~~ "engmeers 8 !and $unteyors
;"i::':.">;.:~_..-:,,.::~,
~. ":, c"- ,;::,'
'-s;~'i;;- ~-; ).':-,
HORTH OPUS AREA
ROAD ~
MlNHETOHkA. ~Ol1\
1'1:", 1II"'""'I:I'_JIl:I'"...~.....~~W\.~~~
BeL APPRAISALS
. BJORKLUND, CARUFEL, LACHENMAYER, INC.
2822 ANTHONY LANE SO., MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55418 (612) 781.0605 Fax: 781-7826
.
:e
BRAD BJORKLUND MAX SitE-'
AL CARUFEL MAt
RON LACHENMAYER SRA
May 14 1990
rnrn@rnaw~1ID
MAY 1 j 1990
RiMHuroll.Mu!ler As..~iates I~.
80x 130 Hookins. Minn. 55343
REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS
&
CONSULTANTS
City of Mlnnetonk.a
c/o John J:a.ne
14600 Mirm.w-OI'Aka Blvd.
Minneton.lta, Mi.-mesota. 55345
re: Prel.imi.na.ry Budgeting Acquisition Cost
Estimates, Snetana Road/Ofp:>rtunity
Court Extension, Minnetonr.a, Minnesota
Our File 87381
Dear Mr. Lane,
At your request and with the cooperation with Mike Johnson and COnsulting
EDgineer Pete Carlson of RCM, I have carpleterl the above captioned Preliminary
Acquisition ('..oat Est'...imates for Real Estate in three road alignment alternatives
affecting & total of four different properties. Iu the following paragraphs I
haw SUllrCl/!Irized the nature of the damages and the nature of the tak.i.nq. 'Ihese
, Prel1miwu:y Bud:geting Damage EstinDtes should be considered to be subject: to at
least a plus or minus 20' variation. They can be upgraded to a fonna.lized Real
!state A{:praiaal Report for an additional fee at a later date. These estimates
Lore only preliminar.y and based. upon your specific request to not contact the
~ owne.n nor i.nspect the interior of the arild.ings.
r have ~ t personally i.n.spected the nei9hborhocd, the sites, ~
hu.i.ldinq eccteriors, and in 1987 the interiors of two of the three bu,ildings.
~eles.s f t:hese estimates should not be uti.li2erl for condemnation pu:q::oses
due to the ~ na:b:Ire of the writ ccmpleted. specifically in this ,
fsshion" at. yCAJ3: request.
1.. The Og;Jortunity 1M:>rkshop parcel at 5500 Ofportunity COurt is identified on
the pltlt map atr~chedl as are all of the parcels ~ 1\ro parcels of land are
involved. The bulldinq parcel or main parcel, and the ballfield parrel to the
~.
Alternate ~ routes 1 and 2 invol',re only the ballfield parcel and
estiuated ~ t.~ are $15,000 for t.he 17 I 160 square feet of the peP'MI1snt
easeoont and the 5,200 square foot tenp'.)rarl' ea5enY:mt for one year.
Al~e No. :3 ~ are estimated at $315/000. It Ur<mlves the
pe.rma.nant. t.a.\dng of 33,000 square feet north of the building plus the taking of
$ignificani: trees. lk'd.ttional builc.i.i:ng depreciation will result due to the
c~ in building setback aOO land availability to meet onsite parking
raqu.i:L~ts .
. :1
. './~
',.,~"
.'.:J1
:':'rI
MORE THAN 50' YEARS FULL APPRAISAL SERVICES EEOiAA
,-,'.
".' '-~~~-'~',~::#t~
:T~_ .,.....-.M.....'- ~ ~I:....'
b. ~.......
'-"Y~~'-:--Idi~.-,;' ~~~JL~j!1iif,:i*"~1~
.
.
.
2
5. 'I'he Drag Specialties parcel at 5401 Smetana Drive sustains potE".ntially the
greatest .iJtpact f:ran the project depending up:m the alternative chosen.
Alternative 1 :results i.n cIaznages est.i.IM.ted at $11,000. It involves a 26,400
square foot penM1lent easement located far fran the north side of the building
and east of the east parking lot, A 5 f 200 square foot, taq;:x:>rnry constr.J.ct.ion
eaBEIlleD:t will exist for one year.
A!.t.ernate No. 2 results in esti..rated total damages of $490,000. The
permanent ta.kinq is projected to cane close to the north side of the building
eJJ.rni.natinq significant parking and placing the building in significant
nonconformance with ansite parking requiremarrts, CCln'plicating loading, ar.d
makinq ~ion difficult especially for parking east of the roadway I east of
the east parking lot where 23,100 square feet of llOre land area is to be
aoqu.ired on a permanent basis. 5,200 square feet of tstporary easement is also
to be 1:aken for a one year period. About $400 I ()OO of the damages results fran
placinq the b1i1ding in nonconformance with zoni.ng regulations.
Alternate 3 results in estimated da1Tages of $271000. Th.e taking would
acquire 10,500 square feet on a. penn:ment basis fran the front or westerly
portion of the site and 4,000 square feet for one third of a year as a
teqXll.AJ:y construction easement. Damages result fran ,8 taking of land plus
saue depreciated l.aOOt3caping.
6& Paul Steiner's prq;>erty in Hopkins is estimated to suffer damages fran
altcmative No. 1 a large taking of the majority of the developable, out of the
flocd zone, higb ground land, in the mnc::n.m;t of $107,000. tat of the damages
result in a reduction to the rern.fl'irrler of the land since it is far more
difficult to develop due to its reduced high ground size. DlD1geS to this
~ty fran this tak.ing are a significmrt p;rtion of the 1:ctal value of the
ptopert.y .
.Alternate 2 ~ are estirreted at $55,000. A 22,440 square foot
~ easement is required and a 7,000 square foot 'ten1?Oral'Y easement again
for a one year period. Again, a significant port:ion of the high ground, out of
the flood :::one, de\relopable ground is to acquired. When required front yard
setbacks are considered significant ~-m~ also result, but not as great as
t:hosf:: estimated in alter:native 1. The O"Nner appsrently has made extravagant
cla.ims of the developabllit:y of the parcel ~ r:fhe wriabillty of the damage
est.i.matas in x-egard to this pl:'t'Ipe.."'"ty is greater t'..han. any of the others.
7. ':ale IlLS IOOuatries parcel At 5451 Slret;arm Drive is est.1m!t:fd to suffer
c.itJmEIqM fran alternatiw 3 in the amount of $17,000. D!images &""e estimated in
a iStraight forward basis by t.~ amo-.mt of land taken at $2.50 per square foot
plL'IJ depreciated paving and. l.atxWcapil'.q. 6,000 aqum:e feet is erxpec.'t.ed to b$
taican 00 a p,ex1'!W1ent basis and 4 t 000 square feet 01. a telrporary roI'lEF'..ruct.ioIl
euumm.t for one tb.i.rd of a year.
The folJ.aid.nq li.st.i.ngs EP..tt!i'l\&.I"ucas the to+-...al preliminary budget.ing damage
iWltimatlis for the vuioua alternatives.
.
.
~i;,:::...
~:::~:'~:':'
:'J'._
,-.--:":'- '.
:~~'~.:'-" ~
r::c'-
;f//.'. '
~~~.'>, ,
~,.~-:~~-,,--,-.
',i",-;i':'
[,~(:::~~..-.
tii,$~;t"?-::;;::
~.:..~~~ ',",,:'-~-
~;'-;.'::"-'- -'" .
l~:;;;'; ,-".
T
Totals
~-
3
~ g>. 1
1 $15,000
5 11,000
6 m~OOO
$133,000
~T 00.,3
1 $315,000
5 27,000
7 JL.~
$359,000
AtIl. NO. :2
1 $15,000
5 490,000,
6 ~5.0QQ
$560tooO
1m c:pport:unity Court, Sa D:raq Speci~lties, ~ Paul Steiner's, 7m OLS In::lustries
In all of the above aJ:ter.oatives and in all of the aOOve dMcribed
pi.~, access is assumed to be gwmmteed dur.ing the oonstzuction period
and ~ ~ in the ~ constI:uction easEIDeIlt areas to sodding,
shru:bbary, trees aDd other onsite iDprovements is assumed to be repl ~ in
like and kind after the term of each teapX'm:y r.:onst%Uct.ion.
Any ~i:ta to the affected pt~j8 are not consideT:ed in this
pr&1 iminwty budgetittq mLlys.is. A IDJDi)er of ~ons were made about the
quality of subso.ils Oil various parcels. Areas in i!Dd near the flood ZCt1e are
as&'I.DD8d to bave poor qutUity subsoils. ow,Hications pages, maps and
~ are attacohed. Please call if you require addit~l ccmsultatioo
in ~d to this mat:tm:.
BD/rak
BDclcaures
f'~'::"~'~:. ' ": - - _ "
i;~Y;i',"."
~~:~t~-~::~,:. .
,=~,'.,~.,";,',:'-',
~i~~~Ih.clMi..Jt:l L- i ~~.
Sincerely ycm:s,
~Kro ,
Brad Bjarklund, M1\.I SRFA