PRECA 02-06-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

WINFIELU A. MITCHELL APPRAISALS X12 MIpWE5T (~EpGRAL DUILbING SAJNT PAUL, MINNE50TA SSIUI ,~_ ?th St. ?V11'. , 1`c.t,~ lirightan, Alirui. Appraisal No. 84-11 Ct~'+1~ZE.'~'TS ON GOItI)ON EIA1QlII ST APPRAIS_Al 1. Elmquist treats the 11' 1y 4 ~ ft of Lots 1 t.hru ~ as though it was ~t separat.e entity. A<S a matter of law, it is part o.1: Lots 1 thru 5 azid the o~mer must. petition for a lot dir,~~ision before the part can be separated. ~. I-(is definitions of m~irket 1-alue asstnne a willing seller and a w:il.].ing haver aztd an ea-posure :in t}ze market to more than ore ~?uyer. ;. Tire concept of highest. and "best use ignores t1E 1 act that the part. tci be separated :is part of the exi.stin~ home-.=:te. iie aclr;its that it has mini- mtn:t value as pant of the hon~esteau, taut attemi~ts to ascribe greater value as an adit.ulct to Har.se.1 F'ark. (ie i ~~ores file fact that ad;i:ing t.hE~ tract. to i-iarlsen I'arl; could: require vacation of the inter-tTenin~ al]e~~ which the City is not. inclined to do, and also that. the cotmt~ ditci~ physically er:- cumbers the property and precludes its t~se for any other purpose. 4. )/lmquist does not make a value conclusion. He cant.ends that single faznil~' residential sites range ira value from 51.50 to ~l.?i per square foot.. ~Ll~at • cartclusion would. indicate that the value or the ~iedlund tract., exclusive of the vacated street and the 1'~' l;~ 4 ~ ft. would Iac~: 16,65; sf _ 51.70 - 5~4,98~.SO or 16,655 sf ~ ~1.~5 -- 5~9,146.?5 G, iledlund confirmed that he hacl sol` the pmpert,v, excltz_5ive of the ~-acated street. and the titi'ly ~3 ft. far ~~~-,OOi?.00. Tt is apparent that. 1~1rrxlui.st's suggested land value is not consistent. with the sale price. 5. I:~lrnquist's conclusion that. the twa parcels in question should be traded equally is inconsistent wi.t.h his opinion of square foot values. Carrying li.s opinion to a logical canclttsion wauld indicate that the larger xiedltuzd parcel is more valuable than the smaller city parcel. His conclusion that 'k?arcel 2' could be tLSed in conitmctian with ot.hr~r ]and as a homesite also ignores the fact. that wren combined with tine west half of the ~Yacated street, the tract will he only 60 feet wide and less than. mini- mtIIn width of a single homesite. ' ~' r • ~v~~ ~ C~ Winfield A. Mitchell January 7, 1985