08-02-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.> Property Value Comparison - Whispering Lane Area - Lyn Way Area I was asked by the Commission to document similar circumstances where condominiums were introduced into mature neighborhoods, and from that show impact on property values. There is no equivalent circumstance that I could find. Condominium development has always been on the edge of new development on major roads, or surrounded by commercial or park land. But, one can look at property values in the most similar case. I compared the Whispering Lane neighborhood to the Lyn Way neighborhood where there is recent condominium development. . In the case ofLyn Way, the most recent condo development is about 2 blocks from established houses; with the Whispering Lane development, it is immediately adjacent. I researched property values through Dakota County Tax Accessor records. I developed maps and spreadsheets which show the affected properties. The first map shows the homes and values nearest to the 800 Lyn Way condos, the nearest new construction. The second map shows the 800 Lyn Way condos and their value (value is the appraised value or last sale price). The third map similarly shows the prqperties adjacent to the proposed Whispering Lane development. The average home price on Lyn Way is $182,281. The average condo price at 880 Lyn Way is $125,655. The condo is priced at 69% of a single family home in the neighborhood. The average home price in the Whispering Lane neighborhood is $248,375, including toWQhouses. At 875 Bahls Drive is a condo which is substantially similar to the Whispering Lane proposal; these units are priced from $129,900 (but there is little variation in price). This represents 52% of a nearby home. To reach price equivalence the condos would have to be priced at $171,396, a difference of$41,496. I believe that a price significantly lower than this would depress property values in the neighborhood (separating this from all of the other issues and objections raised). Substantial upgrades to these condominiums are necessary to reflect any semblance of fitting in with the established neighborhood. Meeting minimum standards is not acceptable in this case. I believe that the current design is at variance with surrounding structures and can be refused based on the Planning Commission's duties as the Board of Design Control (sec 205, subv. 5). ".. .'- )f QDJ" r;/Jfflaj r. LfJ.- Adl " '"