WA9401-AL 941201APPRAZ SAr,
CONSUZ, fZN;
C.S. (CHUCK.) MULLINAX, MAI
15775 HILLCREST ROAD, #508
DALLAS, TEXAS 75248-4199
APPRAISAL & ENHANCF, MENT ANALYSIS
OF
A 43.78 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND
LOCATED ON Tr-m', SOUTH SIDE OF BELT ~ ROAD
1,621 FEET EAST OF MACARTHUR BOULEVARD
(TRACT 4.26,ABSTRACT 1493)
1N
COPPEL~ D~4r, T,48 COUNTY, TEXAS
PREPARED FOR
THE CITY OF COPPELL
ASOF
DECEMBER 1,199,1
REAL ESTATE APPRAISALS . PHONE
(214)692-9950 · FAX (214)
380 -0105
't I I V !
APPRAISAL
BROKERAGE &
CONSULTING
C.S. (CHUCK) MULLINAY~ MAI
15775 FuJICREST ROAD, #508
DALLAS, TEXAS 75248-4199
December 1, 1994
City of Coppen
P.O. Box 478
Coppel], Texas 75019
Attention: Kenneth M. Griffin P.E., Assistant City Manager
Appraisal: 43.78 Acre Tract
South Side of Belt Line, 1,621' East of MacArthur Boulevard.
Coppell, Dallas County, Texas
Dear Mr. Griffin;
Pursuant to your letter of authorization, we have conducted the required investigation, gathered the
necessary data and made certain analyses that have enabled us to form an opinion of market value for the
above-captioned property. Our report will set forth Market Values befon~ and a~zr inst_~an-tion of the
water ma{,~ along Belt Line in order to determine whether the ins~_~nation resul~ in pnhane~m~nt to the
value of the subject property. An attached appraisal report sets forth our findings and conclusions derived
therefrom, together with exhibits and photographs that are considered essential to explain the proceses
followed in completing the assignment.
Traditional valuation methodologies were applied. All analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed
and the report has been prepared in conformity with the Federal Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery,
and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA). Completion is also in accordance with generally acceptable
appraisal standards promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation (more
COmmOnly referred to as the "USPAP").
Subject to the Assumptions and l,~m~ting Conditions included in the body of this report, our final estimate
of "market values" for the "fee simple" interest in the subject property and resulting estimate of
"enhancement" as of the December 1, 1994 date of this report are:
VALUE PRIOR TO INST, AIJJATION: $2.517.000
VALUE AFTER INST~IJATION: $2.517.000
ENHANCEMENT: $0.00
Respectfully submitted,
AP~~M~SAL, BROKERA,GE & CONSULTING CO., INC.
President
CSM/ae
L-109424-I-D11B-C
REAL ESTATE APPRAISALS . PHONE
!
(214) 692-9950
! ]'
(214)
380-0105
ASSUMPTIONS AND l.nkqTING CONDITIONS
For the purposes of this appraisal, the following Assumptions and Limiting Conditions are made a part
hereof:
1. That the title to the individual property shall be good and merchantable and that
title is in fee simple.
No responsibility is assumed for matters legal or chance, nor is any opinion
rendered as to the title to the property which is assumed to be good. The possible
existence of any liens or encumbrsnces have been disregarded, and the property
is appraised as though free and clear under responsible ownership and
management.
No survey of the property has been made by the appraiser and no responsibility
is assumed in connection with such matter as may be disclosed by a property
The allocations of value between land and improvements are applied only under
the current program of utilization, and must not be used in conjunction with any
other appraisal and are invalid if so used.
All information contained in this report, if confidential, is submitted strictly for the
sole use of the owner of the report. Possession of this report or any copy thereof
does not carry with it the right of publication or use. The appraiser will not be
required to give any testimony or attendance in court by reason of this appraisal
without the prior approval of the appraiser.
All information and comments pertaining to this and other properties are the
personal opinions of the appraiser formed after e~ramination and study of the
subject property. While it is believed the information estimates and analyses
herein are correct, the appraiser does not guarantee them, and assumes no
liability for errors in fact, analysis, or judgment.
7. Disclosure for the contents of this appraisal report is governed by the By-Laws
and Regulations of the Appraisal Institute.
Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions
Of value, the identity of the appraiser or the fwm with which he is connected, or
any reference to the Appraisal Institute or to the MAI or R1Vi designation) shall
be disseminated to the public through advertising merlls-, public relations mediA~
news, media, sales mecli~; or any other public means of communication without the
prior written consent and approval of the appraiser.
II
!
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
17.
It is assumed ttmt there are no hidden or uuapparent conditions of the property,
subsoil, or structures which would render it more or less val,,able. No
responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for enSineerin~ which my be
required to discover them.
No environmental impact studies were either requested or made in conjunction
with this appraisal, and the appraiser hereby reserves the right to alter, mend,
revise, or rescind any of the value opinions based upon any subsequent
environmental impact studies, research, or investigation.
The value is estimated under the assumption that there will be no international
nor domestic political, economic, nor military actions that will seriously affect real
estate values throughout the country.
Real estate values are influenced by a large number of external factors. The data
contained herein is all of the data we consider necessary to suppert the value-
estimate. We have not knowingly withheld any pertinent facts, but we do not
guarantee that we have knowledge of all factors which might influence the value
of the Subject Property.
Due to rapid changes in the external factors, the Value Estimate is considered
reliable only as of the date of the appraisal.
On all appraisals, subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alterations, the
appraisal report and value conclusions are contingent upon completion of the
improvements in a workmanlike manner and in a responsible period of time.
The Value Estimate assumes responsible ownership and competent management.
This appraisal was prepared by AvpraisaL Brokerage & Consulting Company, Inc..
and consists of trade secrets and commercial or financial information which is
privileged and confidential and exempted from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552 (b),
(4). Please notify AvvraisaL Brokerage & Consulting Comvanv, Inc. of any
request of reproduction of this appraisal.
No current title policy nor title search was available or prepared in compiling this
report. Therefore, all assumptions and observations affected by such items are
subject to verification and not guaranteed.
Snecific Assumntions and Conditions
18.
19.
20.
Quantity est{mAtes and measurements utilized throughout this report are not
guarantee& They were based upon the appraisers computations, an on-site
inspection, tax records and reports by "others". It is specifically assumed that the
site contains 43.78 acres net of the street dedication.
Based upon research completed by Appraissl, Brokerage & Consulting Company,
Inc., it is specifically assumed that the subject does not have significant natural,
cultural, recreational or scientific value.
The appraisers are not q.A.rxed to offer a professional opinion regarding possible
environmental hazards. In the process of completing this assignment though, we
have become quite familiar with the subject, surroundings/competing properties
and the neighborhood. We assume that there is no environmental influence or
condition that would negatively affect the subject, its marketability or future
potential.
!
Value P--: ;,,,~,ed:
E~=*im~,es of Value:
SUMM~ OF S,~T,IRNT FACTS
December 1,1994
December 1, 1994
Market Value Before and After Water Line Ins~!htion
"Fee 8irapie Interest
A 43.78 acre parcel of land located on the south side of Bolt
Line Road 1,621' east of M~Arthur Boulevard, Coppell, Dallas
County, Tens.
"LF Light Industrial District
Raw undeveloped acreage.
"As Currently Exists" - Hold for future' development.
Market Appreee. h Prior to Wafer T.In. Tr,-+~,m,~on ............. $2,517,000
Mm'ket Approach After Water Line Tn~,!b,fion ............... $2.517.000
Cost Apprn~h: ........................................ NA
Final F, selnuate of gnlmnt~m~nt in Value: ......................... $0.00
V
! T
TAltI~ OF CO~
Transmittal Letter
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
S,,mma~J of Salient Facts
Table of Contents
Purpose of the Report
Definition of Market Value
Property Rights Appraised
Function of the Appraisal
Scope of the Assignment
Identification of the Property
Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex Data
City of Carrollton
Neighborhood Data
Subject Property
I
H
V
VI
1
1
2
2
2
4
6
20
26
30
THE APPRAISAL PROCESS
The Industrial and Office Building Marketplaces
Highest and Best Use-Zoning (Feasibility)
Market Approach to Value
49
57
61
Reconciliation
Certificate
75
78
Letter of Authorization
Zoning Ordinance
Abbreviations and Other Appraisal Terminology
Q,,alifications
PURPOSE OF ~ REPORT
The purpose of this appraisal report is to determine market values for the subject parcel befere and after
installation of the water line for the "fee simple" interest in the subject property on an "as is" basis per the
December 1, 1994 date of this report.
DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE
Market Value is defmed by Title XI of the 'Federal Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and
Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) as follows:
"The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open
market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting,
prudently, knowledgeably and asS, mlrlg the price is not affected by undue stimulus.
Implicit in this definition is the cons-mmAtion of a sale as of a specified date and the
passing of rifle from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated;
2. Both parties are well-informed and well-advised, and each acting in what he con-
siders his own best interest;
3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
4. Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arran-
gements comparable thereto; and
5. The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by
special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with
the sale."
PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED
Property rights bein~ appraised ere for the 'fee simple' interest in the subject property. A 'fee simple'
estate is defined as being absolute ownership unenctunbered by any other interest or estate, subject only
to limitations of eminent domain, escheat, police power and taxation.
FUNCTION OF THE APPRAISAL
The function of this appraisal report is to assist the client in determining whether there is a measurable
increase in market value for the "fee simple' interest in the subject property resulting from the insf~llation
of the water line. Our objective is to communicate the data and reasoning leading to a supportable opinion
SCOPE OF THE, ASSIGNMENT
Mr. Kenneth M. Griffin, P. E. of the City of Coppell has authorized Appraisal, Brokerage & Consulting
Company, Inc. to complete a narrative appraisal report for the subject property. Traditional valuation
techniques will be applied and thoroughly discussed. Support and general data sections will provide an
analysis for the region, neighborhood, local real estate marketplace and the property being appraised. An
appraisal involves a systematic process of data accumulation, classification and analysis. Sources for data
included buyers, sellers, real estate brokers, appraisers, the lending community, multiple listing services,
Roddy Reports, tax records, city officials, various cost estimating guides and our office ~es. All opinions
and conclusions were developed in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice of the Appraisal Foundation and the Appraisal Institute.
Flower
Property Location Map ]:
Garlc
IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPEETY
The subject of this report is a 43.78 acre tract on the south side of Belt Line Road 1,621' east of
Meo_Arthur Boulevard i the city of Coppell, DAllA-~ County, Texas. This section of Belt Line is less developed
than portions to the esst and west of this section. Visibility and access to the subject site at this time is
considered to be good. The subject is an irrep~lArly shaped parcel of 43.78 ac~es affected by a 'LF zoning
designation. Hi~est and best use is determined to be to hold for future development. A brief
description is now presented as follows.
Being Tract 4.26, of Abstract 1493, City of Coppell, D,~ilA~ County, Texas.
4
D,ALT-a,8/FORT WORTH Td'I~pTJ~ DATA
LOCATION
The Dnlln~ and Fort Worth Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas were combined in 1983 formlr~ an
area referred to as the Dslls.s/Fort Worth Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (C.M.S.A.) consistin~
of Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufinan, Parker, Rockwall and Tarrant Counties. This
'Metroplex' is located in North Central Texas in the rollin~ billm that form the upper limit of the Gulf
Coastal Plains approximately 250 miles iDland from the Gulf of Mexico. This rapidly growin~ metropolitan
complex is at the appro~mRte crossroads between the four largest centers of population in North and
Central America - New York on the east, Los Angeles on the west, Chica~ on the north and Mexico City
on the south. This nine-county area is appro~mRtely 30 miles south of the Texas/OirlahOms border;
183 miles east of the Texas/Arkansas and Texas/Louisiana border; 241 miles northwest of the City of
Houston, Texas; 282 miles northeast of the City of San Antonio, Texas; and 647 miles northeast ofthe City
of E1 Paso, Texas. This North Texas re~ion is located in the south central portion of the United States
and is typically referred to as the "Sunbelt" re~ion of the United States.
Social characteristics that influence the metroplex area in either a positive or negative way include
population density, educational levels and q. Allty Of education avAHable, age levels, employment types and
rates as well as q. Allty of medical, social, recreational and cultural services.
P~
Population growth is a key indicator of an area's success and economic viability. The C.M.S..~, as a whole,
hss grown very rapidly since 1960. The following chart reflects the growth of the CMSA since 1960 with
annual compound growth rates calculated for each period.
CMSA x Final Final Firml Final Estimated Numerical
Census Census Census Census Population Change
1960 1970 1980 1990 1993 1990-1/1/93
Population 1,715,905 2,352,300 2,930,500 3,885,400 4,012,450 127,050
Annual Growth 3.5% 1.95% 2.90% 1.09% 3.27%
x 1993 Current Povulation Estimates:
ULI Market Prof~es 1993 by M/PF Research, Inc. H-5.
North Central Texas Council of Governments.
5
As reflected by the statistics, the population has grown at a compound rate of appro~mAtely 2.75% for the
past 10 years. The charts do not reflect the wide surge during the 1980's because the rapid growth of the
fwst half of that decade is averaged down by the slow growth after the energy and financial crunch of 1985-
1986. The economy as pointed out later is into recovery and even broader diversification in spite of the
national recession of 1992. Statisticians forecast a population in excess of 5,000,000 by the year 2010. This
would then assume a slower growth rate of approximAtely 1.25% over the next 18 years which is definitely
a healthy growth rate considering national trends.
The education level of the occupants of a region or city is an important catalyst for attracting large
employers through relocations as well as expansion of existing firms.
The Dallas/Fort Worth C.M.S.A. has a large number of persons with high school and college educations.
This is felt to be one of the prime reasons for the growth of the technological and financial industries
within the metropolitan area According to 1980 Census information, there were 514,291 people over
25 years of age with four years of high school education. 343,995 people in this age bracket l~__d four or
more years of college education,
The quality of education and the physical number of educational facih'ties within the Dallas/Fort Worth
area has been a prime motivator for the highly educated society the C.M.S.A. possesses.
The stability of an area's labor force can be measured by the quantity of persons in the age bracket for
part-time and full-time employment. In the Dallas/Fort Worth C.M.S..~ the largest segment of the
population is between the ages of 15 and 59. Per the 1980 Census figures, some 767,732 white mAleS and
780,157 white females fall in this age range. This represents 32.2% and 32.8%, respectively, of the total
white population. Combined, they represent over 65% of the white population in the area All races
surveyed presented slmila~' f~ures. The next largest age bracket are persons from the ages of 5 to 14, or
those that will enter the work force in a maximum of ten years. This availability of a large labor force is
felt to have a positive effect on the economy of the DAllAs/Fort Worth metroplex. Typically, the ~e group
in the labor force, or those of working age, creates the largest demand for goods and services and has a
stimulating effect on the area's economy. Housing needs, consumer products, financial services, medical
services, etc., are supported a great deal by this {15-years old to 59-years old) age bracket. The average
age in the metroplex was 31.7 years as of year end 1992.
Employment
The mild climate, large avRilAble labor force, low cost of living and quality city amenities have attracted
a large number of major national companies to the D~ll~L,~fFort Worth area, The Metroplex, and
particularly Dsll~q, has been the leadin~ financial center for many years in the Southwest. A very healthy
economic base with wide diversity has developed over the years in spite of the absence of heavy
manufacturing and heavy industry. "Clean industries", or those of ~ technology (i.e., computer design,
research, communications, medical research, etc.), have flourished in the metropolitan area Year end 1991
unemployment rates for the metroplex were at 6% versus 6.6% for the state and 6.7% for the nation.
Industries that account for a large percentage of the labor force include durable pods, retail trade, finance,
insurance, real estate, construction and manufacturh~. Occupations that employ a large sector of the
population include executive, administrative and marn~eria~ technical, sales, administrative support,
precision production, craft and repair operators. No one industry or occupational sector dominates the
economy within the Metroplex and, for this reason, the area felt little impact durin~ the 1980-1982
recession years compared with mauy other cities in and out of Texas. The Dallas PMSA reported one of
the most diverse economies in the nation in 1991 accordin~ to.Data Resources, Inc. Area employment by
sector is as follows: wholesale/retail trade (25.7%), services (26.8%) manufactttrin~ (15.5%), government
(11.9%), fmance/insurance/real estate (9.3%), trans~rtation/utilities (6.1%), construction(3.3%), andminin~
(1.3%).
This continued diverse employment base is considered one of the Metroplex's greatest assets. Wage levels
are good in the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth and unionization is scarce - another major drawin~ point
for relocating companies. However, with the announcement by the Defense Department that Carswell AFB
will be closed, Fort Worth stands to lose many thousands of jobs, not only those directly connected with
the base but also many in other defense related companies and those companies in the service industry
in the Carswell area The following chart depicts employment by major industry in the Dallas/Fort Worth
C.M.S.A. per the Texas Employment Commission versus the same period in 1991.
3/91 3/92* 3/93 Chan~
Avera2e Avera2e Avers2e 1992/1993
Total Employment 1,959,500 1,959,000 2,007,800 + 48,800
Manufacturin~ 322,700 304,900 310,000 + 5,100
Mining 22,500 22,000 21,100 900
Construction 69,400 65,600 69,400 + 3,800
Transportation, Communication
& Utilities 138,900 144,200 149,400 + 5,200
Trade 500,800 495,600 503,800 + 8,200
Finance, Insurance &
Real Estate 150,600 151,700 148,200 3,500
Service, Miscellaneous 511,600 523,200 548,400 + 25,200
Government 243,000 251,800 257,500 + 5,700
*TEC statistics changed between 3/91 and 3/92 distorting figures slightly.
It is thus concluded that most sectors or types of employment are basically stable with mining and finance
declining while others increased. The major shift was toward service industries. There was a positive net
gain of 48,800 jobs during the year.
In addition to the relatively healthy business PilmAte of the D/FW Metroplex, the amenities of the region
provide an appealing q. slity Of life for its residents. W~thin 100 miles of the Metroplex are 31 lakes with
over 300,000 surface acres of water, over 50 golf courses and over 100 riding clubs for horseback riding.
Amusement centers include the famous "Six Flags Over Texas" park that has over two million visitors
ann-Ally and the State Fair of Texas which attracts an armual attendance of over three million visitors.
For sports enthusiasts, the Metroplex includes professional sports with the Dallas Cowboys football testa,
the Texas Rangers baseball team; the Dallas Mavericks basketball team and the Dallas Sidekicks soccer
team. University level sports of all types are provided by Southern Methodist University of Dallas, Texas
Christian University of Fort Worth and University of North Texas in Denton. ChAmpionship golf is also
played in the Metroplex with P.G..~, Colonial National and the Byron Nelson golf tournaments.
The DAlb~A area has become known as a major medical treatment and research center. More than 18,261
beds can be found in some 66 hospitals ranging from SmAll private hospitals to giant medical centers. The
largest of these is Baylor University Medical Center in DAllaA. Other major Dallas hospitals include
Parkland Memorial Hospital, a teaching college for UT Southwestern Medical Center-DallAA~ Presbyterian
Hospital of Dalla.% the Veterans Administration Medical Center, St. Paul Medical Center, Medical City
DallA.~/Humana Hospital and Methodist Hospital Medical Center. The three major Tarrant County
hospitals are Harris, John Peter Smith and All Saints Hospital complimented by 18 smaller hospitals.
A blend of varying cultural activities are avsilAble including opera, theatre, symphonies, museum~ and art
centers.
ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
Economic considerations involve the financial strengths or weaknesses of a given area Economic forces
interact with social, governmental and physical forces and each is a product of the other by close
relationship. Economic forces which have an impact on real estate values in the Dallas/Fort Worth area
include income levels, property value levels, development and construction, rent levels and vacancy rates
for real property.
Income Levels
The medlnn 1992 household income in the Dallas/Fort Worth C.M.S.A. was $39,000, up by a compounded
rate of 6.13% from the 1980 level. In the DnllA.~ P.M.S.A~ (Dallas, Coilin, Denton, Ellis, Ka, fmAn and
Rockwall Counties), the median household income in 1984 was $26,519 and in 1986 was $28,110. The 1988
per capita income was $18,580 for Dallas and $16,551 for the Fort Worth/Arlington area. The typical
household income for 1989 was estimated at $60,846 for Dallas accordLug to the 1989 edition of Places
Rated Almanac. These f'~Ares indicate an increasingly affluent society with greater disposable incomes.
Given the predominant age level of the population in the Metroplex, this disposable income has created
an extremely healthy amount of retail trade and has created demand in the retail sector of the economy
as a whole. This, in turn, has positively benefitted all other real estate sectors - industrial, commercial and
residential. However, due to the overbuilding, several years may pass before the current retail space
vacancy problem is resolved.
Pronertv Value Levels
Real estate values in the Metroplex have historically been on an upward trend in most areas. The high
inflation years of the late 1970's and early 1980's proved to be banner years of real estate value escalatiorL
This inflation, along with large demand in most sectors of the real estate ms,'ket, created rapid property
value escalation. In 1988, Dallas/Fort Worth was at the bottom of an economic slowdowr~ The Metroplex
is experiencing the secondary results of lower oil prices. In addition, the Metroplex is faced with a very
overbuilt real estate industry. This situation has resulted in a market where "deflation" of real estate
prices and rents has occurred. The expectation is that demand will event, rally catch up with supply due
to dlmlrdshed construction activity and property values will again appreciate. Multifamily occupancies and
values have recovered and are experiencing new construction. Retail power centers have come on strong
but overall retail and office values remain down due to the excess supply.
Develonment and Construction. Rent Levels and Vacancy
In about 1981 or 1982, the nation as a whole showed very slow economic growth reflecting a recession that
the country experienced for an approximate two-year time period. This recession did not affect the
Dallas/Fort Worth area as drastically as it did the majority of the country. In spite of this national
recession, the DAllAsf Fort Worth economy had maintained moderate growth in specific sectors of the
economy. In other sectors, the DallAs/Fort Worth area even managed to prosper during that time of
national economic woes.
Construction in the year 1983 was astounding. In September of 1983, reflecting a year-to-date f~,ure from
January 1, residential permits totalled 60,284 in the C.M.S.A. This was up approximately 147% over the
September 1982 f~ures. Dollar valuations for all permits issued in 1983 was $1,792,111,698 for the City
of DAllAs. The dollar value of permits dropped in 1984 to $1,787,000,000+ while the total number of
permits issued rose slightly. The total number of permits issued in 1985 dropped 7%; however, the dollar
value of the permits rose to $2,054,000,000 +_. For 1986 the total dollar value of building permits was
$1,160,100,000. The 1987 commercial permits (including apartments and industrial) was down again to
a total of $676,000,000. The buffdinE permits for 1988 totalled approximately $595,000,000. DAllA~s and
Fort Worth combined for a total of $295,956,000 in permits issued in 1990.
There is typically always an hnbal~uce in supply and demand in the real estate market due to the lag time
of construction and the accuracy of measuring pepulation growth, etc. As mentioned previously, much
demand existed in the early 1980's in all sectors of the real estate market. The 1981-82 recession created
a "tight" money supply; therefore, supply could not meet demand. When funds became available,
construction began at a rapid pace, partic~,lsrly in the apartment and residential sectors. Oversupply
quickly occurred in the years to follow and other real estate markets were entered into by developers.
Retail and office development occurred rapidly. A large demand for industrial space did not appear
apparent in the 1983 to 1985 time frame; therefore, a large amount of new industrial construction has not
occurred compared to other real estate sectors.
As of September 1986 real estate construction was in a serious downtura Residential, retail, hotel, ofFme
and, to a more limited extent, industrial space were overbuilt ir~ the C.M.S.A. At this time there was an
average of 31.8 square feet per person of lea _~__ble retail space in Fort Worth. Arlington and Dallas had
33.2 square feet per person. The national average was 14.3 square feet. Retail vacancy rates had-
exceeded 20% in haft the retail submarkets in the Dslls~ area with an overall average of 16% at the end
of June 1986. Arlington had a 20% retail vacancy rate at this time. Some shopping centers maintained
full occupancy due to location, length of operation, etc., while others had attained no more than 50%
occupancy after twelve to twenty-four months of operation.
Also as of September 1986, the office space market was glutted. There was a reported 38 million square
feet of vacant office space available in Dallp-q. Based on leasing volume at that time, it was projected that
it would take over seven years to fill this space. At the end of 1985, Tarrant County had over .4 million
square feet of vacant office space.
The Metroplex is grad-ally working its way out of the slump. The following charts reflect data on the
various markets in the metroplex and were prepared by M/PF Research showing projections into 1992
which were not final at the time of preparation.
The following trends and forecasts are also courtesy of M/PF.
10
Total HOn~aphOId~
Ho,,~E Inventor~
Total Units
Single-Fsmily
Apartments
Owner-Occupied
Renter-Occupied
~innq~l ~lilBi~11~iOll
Total Units 42,856
Detached Single-Fsmily 19,679
Attached Single-Fnmily 6,158
Multifsmily 17,019
Vacan~ Rate 7%
New Units Sold 17,200
Existing Units Sold 35,916
Standm~l New-Unit Sale Prices
Detached Single-Family 77,300
Townhouses 85,000
Standard Rents
One-Bedroom 288
Two-Bedroom 355
Singl~Family Lot
1 _ 1992 Pro~ections
HOUSING MARKET
1980 19~ 1990
1,060,127 1,485,400 1,503,700
1,152,513
867,600
204,806
657,490
402,637
14,235
12,903
1,288
10%
18,798
13,615
15
5,168
9%
13,139
24,074
13,281
27,435
111,280
73,600
121,255
85,000
362
477
392
513
13,400-
14,250
1991
1,517,900
18,474
14,378
34
4,062
11%
13,050
25,799
121,690
70,000
394
522
1,537,630
1,686,646
1,118,921
403,087
953,312
564,288
20,800
17,700
100
3,000
8%
15,200
24,400
133,600
95,000
404
631
20,000-
35,000
11
( ,Millions )
Ee~ Ssle~ ( $Millions )
Annual New Construction SF
Eehabilitation of Existing
Centers (
Nun2ber of Centers
Vacancy Rate
Annual New Construction
Rahab~tation of Existing
Centers. (
Number of Centers
Vacancy Rate
8HOPPING CENTER ~
1980 1988 1990
1991
28,100 59,300 66,700 68,445 71j~00
21,800 24,200 37,200 88,820 40,760
780,000 778,135 856,700 270,000 72,000
0 2,950,929 2,020,302 1,200,135
21 25 26 26
9% 8% 10% 12%
1,073,400
2,543,900 588,300 751,300
0
26
10%
946,800
357,747 2,638,676 2,313,689 1,156,401 1,679,446
698 1,391 1,391 1,387 1,387
24% 25% 24% 23% 22%
~8nda!'dLe~sePiate8 (per SF per Year)
EeSional Centers
$8.00 -
Women's Eeady-to-Wear $10.00
$10.00 -
$14.00
MeWs Wear/Family Shoes
Smaller Centers
$18.00- $15.00 - $18.00 - $15.00 -
$40.00 $35.00 $35.00 $40.00
$18.00 - $15.00 - $18.00 - $15.00-
$40.OO $35.00 $35.00 $4O.OO
$4.00- $6.00- $4.00- $5.00- $5.00-
Supermarket $6.00 $10.00 $8.00 $10.00 $10.00
$6.00- $5.00- $5.OO- $5.OO -
$22.00 $18.00 $20.00 $20.00
$6.00 -
Cleaners $11. O0
i
- 1992 Projections
12
Ofrn.-Related
Em,nln~neut
Service and FIRE
Government
Office Inventory ~sx.~
Anmml Canstnielien (sF)
High-Density
Low-Density
~-nu~ ~ ( sF )
~80 1989 ~90
541,300
362,400
178,900
50,012,100
6,590,900
2,054,800
4,685,500
17%
907,600
666,700
240,900
132,782,200
922,600
132,782,200
529,600 0 0 0
0 25,600 0 0
4,504,600 1,649,700 (476,500) 0
27% 26% 26% 26%
Standard Spece Lease Pa~ (Per SF per Year)b
Downtownc $11.35 $19.28 $19.31 $18.25 $17.28
Suburban High-Rised $11.76 $13.16 $13.48 $13.43 $13.33
Office Park* SILO0 $10.06 $10.21 $10.18 $10.10
- 1992 Projections
aTotal Active space in single- and multitenant buildings offered by owner minus total
occupied space.
hAverage full-service rent.
cFor all office space in Dallas's or Fort Worth's CBD.
dFor all space in midrise office buildings outside the CBD.
eFor all space in garden office buildings outside the CBD.
13
]ND~TAL
1980 1980
317,500
195,766,500
~nnml ~
Industrial Space
,Annml Absorption ( s~ )
Industrial Space 16,522,600
Vmmey Rate 17%
Stl!lek~ Spelee Leelie ]]ate8 (Per SF per Year)
High-Tech/RiD $4.00
Warehouse $2.00
1
- 1992 Projections
812,800
297,155,500
1,898,200
8,595,400 12, 169,200 3,282,800 7,225,200
18% 15% 14% 12%
$6.41 $6.24 $6.22 $6.12
$3.19 $3.11 $3.10 $3.08
14
"No new multitenant off.me space will enter the D/FW market durinS 1993. Space vacated by J. C. Penney,
Electronic Data Systems, and other companies, which moved to build-to-suit space, will provide large blocks
of high q,slity off~ce space, perhaps an enticement for additional corporations to relocate. Otherwise,
growth in office jobs will hinge on when the U. S. economy begins to grow again, parti~dArly for the weak
fire sector. Thus, recovery is expected to be gradual with class A space and selected suburban submarkets
leading the way."
~The improving demand for retail space in 1992 bodes well for the D/FW market, and occupancy rates will
likely continue to improve. With the large inventory of 21.2 million square feet of vacant space, however,
existing stocks could satisfy demand for potentially another eight to ten years. While well-designed and
weB-located centers will continue to lease space successfully, much of today's ve__~_nt inventory was poorly
conceived and thus may never be absorbed for conventional retail use. Most new developments are likely
to be variations of power centers and signlt%sntly preleased, as well as build-to-suit projects.'
"D/FW's position as the prlms~y distribution center for the south central United States and prexhniW to
Mexico should ensure a continuing healthy demand for the warehouse/distribution space. Competitive
rental rates and low costs of labor and construction also should attract corporate users. New speculative
construction seems likely to renmln m]nirnsl irl the near future, enabling demand to fill more of today's
vacant industrial space. As the msrket continues to in-m, rental rates are likely to improve.~
"New construction and sales of detached houses in the D/FW ares should continue to improve through 1993
as the U.S. economy revives and local job growth strengthens. Sales of attached units and condornlni, m~,
however, are unlikely to improve in the near future. Despite large backlogs of lots in general, further
development should continue in hot submarkets, although everdevelopment has begun to surface in
selected niches. Economic recovery also should extend the recovery in the apartment market, renewing
upward pressure on rents and occupancy. Opportunities for further apartment construction now appear
to exist in PIano, North D~II~.~, Las ColirmsNalley Ranch and Arlington."
The continued growth and orderly development within a city is as much a part of the governing policies
as of any other economic and social consideration. Without local, state and federal government support
and cooperation, growth can be stagnate& The city and county governing bodies that make up the D/FW
C.M.S.A- on a whole have been pro business and pro growth. With the exception of a few communities
in this area, development is encouraged but in an orderly and well-planned manner. Local building codes
and zoning requirements are strict but serve to create a q~ality end product without creating unjust
obstacles for developers.
The City of Dallas provides excellent city services with six full-service police stations and 13 storefront
stations. There are 2,804 police officers. The City has fifty-four fire stations and 1,576 firemen. Each
incorporated city within the C.M.S.A. also has sufficient police and fire protection and is governed in a
slrniln~' manner as Dnllns with a council/mnnager form of government.
15
City taxes vary depending on the individual community; however, no taxes are so excessive as to have
detrimental effect on future growtim The tax burden is relatively insi~ifi~ant compared with the qnA!ity
of services provided. The C.M.S.A., and the City of DallAs as a whole, is felt to positively benefit from the
local governments.
The DallAs/FoR Worth Metroplex possesses, many quality physical features and chanicteri~es. The
general terrain in this region is typified as rolling hills at elevations from about 450' to 550' above sea level
Vegetation is varied depending on the area Grsssland prairies, wooded acreage, agricultural land, etc.,
can be found within the area Over 300,000 surface acres of lakes are located within a 100-mile radius of
the Metroplex.
The ~-llmate is considered one of the most positive physical attributes of the area The Metroplex ties
within the humid subtropical belt that extends northward from the Gulf d Mexico. A ellmatological
snmmary of the C.M.SA provided by the National Climatic Data Center and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Admiuistration follows:
Daily Mean Temperature
Annual Average ........................................................... 66.0°F
Hottest Month (July) ........................... ' ............................ 86-3°F
Coldest. Month (January) .................... , ............................... 44.0°F
Record Temperatures
Highest (June 1980) ....................................................... 113.0°F
Lowest (February 1899) ..................................................... -8.0°F
Days with Freezing Weather ..................................................... 41
Precipitation
Annual Total ................. ; ...................................... 29.46 Inches
Snow and Ice ......................................................... 3.2 Inches
Days with 0.01 Inch or More of Rain .............................................. 78
Relative Humidity
January, 12:00 P.M .......................................................... 61%
July, 12:00 P.M ............................................................. 49%
The Metroplex generally enjoys clear skies and moderate to tropical weather throughout the year. The
1990 Environmental Protection Agency rated DAlla-~ as having poor air qnAl~ty on five days and Tarrant
County for four days. They rated both as having moderate pollution 75 to 80 days a year and the
remainder as "good". Due to its location the Metroplex has a much higher rating due to airborne natural
pollutants such as pollen. Therefore, people with allergies are more subject to problems.
Access and transportation are also a major amenity in the area The Metroplex is located at the hub of
seven interstate highway systems and fourteen state and federal highway systems. Access within the
16
Metroplex is provided by q,,allty thoroughfares that are generally malnmined in an above average
condition. Other means of transportation are provided by six railroads and four off-line and two short-line
carriers. Approximately 72 common motor freight carriers and 212 couriers operate in the area
The DAllaafFort Worth Intentional Airport has had a major impact on the economy of the Metroplex.
The Dallas/Fort Worth Regional (Intentional) Airport began operations in January of 1974 and
immediately made the Metroplex a nmjor air transportation center. This mA,t.~ve facility of some
17,000 acres is approximately nine miles long and eight miles wide at its extremities. An average of
132,411 + aaily arrivals and departures makes the D/FW Intentional Airport the second busiest airport
in the world in air carrier operations. Approximately 181 (145 domestic; 36 intentional) titles have direct
service from D/FW and 126 (111 domestic; 15 intentional) have non-stop service. The airport employs
over 30,000 people and is one of the six major hubs in the United States and the largest airport (size) in
the nation. This facih'ty handled over 32,000,000 passengers in 1984, 39,945,000 in 1986 and 44,271,000
in 1987. 48,198,208 passengers passed through this airport in 1991 maidng it the second busiest airport
in the nation and current plans call for expansion of its radiities in the near future. In addition to this
major air facility, Dallas also utilizes Love Field Airport prlma~ as a commuter airport facih'ty. Currently,
Southwest Airlines makes daily arrivals and departures at an astounding rate, ~ily to cities within
Texas and adjo'ming states. Love Field handled 5,582,533 passengers in 1991. Fort Worth is served by
Meacham Field, the city-owned facility that has prlma~i]y served the private sector. ,Alliance Airport is now
completed in North Tarrant County and will serve as the repair and maintenance base for American
Airlines.
The City of Dallas recently implemented a mass transit program known as Dallas Area Rapid Transit
(DART). Service at present is in the form of bus transportation; however, plans are to provide state of
the art commuter transportation facilities by the year 2010. The current widening of U. S. 75 will greatly
facilitate traffic flow through that corridor upon its completion.
Utilities are adequately provided by most cities in the Metrople~ Major utility suppliers include Lone Star
Gas Company, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, General Telephone of the Southwest and Texas
Utilities Electric Company. Individual cities provide water and sanitary sewer services. The City of Dallas
has water rights to 318.4 million gallons per day in reservoirs and contracts for 10 million gallons per day
from the North Texas Municipal Water District. Future water needs have been well planned and several
reservoirs are planned or under construction at present in the North Texas region,
Dallas possesses 40,000+ hotel rooms and f~nxres for the 1990/91 convention year included 2,577
conventions with delegate expenditures of $1,854,881,000.
Educational facilities are numerous in the area and curriculum of any type can be readily sought. Over
forty-five colleges, community colleges and universities exist within a 100-mile radius of the Metroplex.
In addition, over seventy-five vocational schools are located in the DallA.~fFort Worth area
Recreational facilities are provided in ample quantity throughout the Metroplex. The City of Dallas alone
has over 47,469 acres of parks and open space including land and water, five 18-hole golf courses, 223
tennis courts and 106 swimming pools. The physical amenities of the Metroplex further add to the
17
economic strength of the area in providing a quality oflife that cannot be experienced in many major urban
centers.
CONCLUSION
The preceding data has been presented to establish the present and future outlook for the Metroplex in
the categories of social, economic, governmental and physical characteristics and how these factors may
affect real estate values. Through this analysis, it is concluded that the Metroplex is one of the nation's
most dynamic and growth-oriented urban centers. When compared to 333 other metropolitan areas in the
United States for cost of living, jobs, crime, health care and environment, transportation, education, arts,
recreation, and climate, to determine a quality of life standard, Dallas ranked ~40 or in the top 12% for
desirability.
The social and economic stability of the area offers excellent job and b,,alness opportunities as can be
evidenced by the high per capita income. Quality transportation fac~ities, housing, cultural opportunities,
recreational facilities and local government support have created orderly growth. Abundant shopping
facilities, schools, religions facih'ties, hospitals, civic organizations and city services have also contributed
greatly to this growth, The economy and growth have slowed over the past five years but is recovering
nicely. We addressed previously the projected growth of the Metroplex to 5,000,000 by the year 2010.
The strongest growth areas will continue to be in the areas between Dallp-q and Fort Worth and north of
D/FW International Airport in Coilin, Denton and Tarrant Counties. Time and continued economic growth
· will cure the vacancy problems of the area over the next two to four years and the Metroplex will continue
to stand out as one of the most dynamic and desirable regions of the country for investment or residency.
(9/93)
18
! I
CITY OF COPPET I.
THE City of Coppell encompasses approximately 17 square miles of land located in the northwest comer
of Dslls-~ County five miles north west of Dsllss and 15 miles northwest of the Central Business District
of Dallas. It is bordered on the north by Lewisville, east by Carrollton, south by ~ and the west by
D FW International Airport. It originated as a farmin~ community in 1870 and was named Coppell in 1895.
The city planners envisioned a city eqnslly divided between recreational areas and greenbelts (1)
residential areas (2) and commercial and industrial developments (3). The community remained a sleepy
bedroom community until the development of the airport and bel~an to ~ow dynsmi~slly from that point
forward. The population was 1,728 in 1970 and has ~rown to 3,826 and 16,881 respectively in 1980 and'
1990. The community is now estlmsted to have 22,000 residents and is one of the fastest l!~rowin~
communities in the state. The community has rapid access to the entire metroplex via I.H.635 which is its
southern border and is a m~or loop artery of D,!lss, It also has easy access to other points in the state
via I.H.35 located just five miles to the east.
Municipal services offered by the community are more than adequate. The City f~lll under a
council/manager system of government. A mayor is elected by pop~lnr vote, as well as seven city
councilmen. A city mnnager and his staff then oversees the r!~ily business administration for the
community in a ~ln~ied position. The community also employs an assistant city manager. Police
protection is provided by 30 peace officers. Two (2) fire stations are also located in strategic lecatious
throughout the community served by 39 fire fighters and a support staff.
19
Utility service for the City is most adequate. Lone Star Gas Company provides ~ service to the
community. The City of Coppell provides water service. Sewer service is also provided by the City.
Electrical service is provided by TU Electric. The source for telephone service is provided by General
Telephone Company of the Southwest.
Coppell Independent School District is considered superior and provides education through 7 elementary
schools, 2 middle schools, and 1 high school They also own sites for four additional school campuses. Four
branches of the DAllaa County Community College District are situated within a 30-mile radius, including
Brookhaven College which is located to the east in Farmers Branch; Southern Methodist University located
in North Central Dallas within a 25-minute drive of the cOmmXlrdty; The University of Texas at Dallas in
the Richardson community within a 20-minute drive of the City. The University of North Texas, Texas
Women's University, University of Texas - Arlington, University of Dallas and Dallas Baptist College are
all within a 30-minute drive of Coppell.
Community services and amenities are adequate for a city of Coppell's size. The City is dependent on
surrounding larger cities for hospital and motel accommodations. The city does have 15 doctors who reside
in the community and serve the residents. The retail community is well represented in Coppell by
numerous neighborhood shopping centers. Vista Ridge Mall in Lewisville is within a five minute drive of
most of the city. The Dallas Galleria and Valley View Mall; are located along LBJ Freeway (I.H. 635), a
minimal distance to the east of Coppell. Both of these projects are of a regional nature, and allow for such
notable anchor department stores as Lord & Taylor, Saks Fifth Avenue, Marshall Fields, Sears, Dillsrd's
and Bloomingdales.
2O
! .... ! ! I
The recreational outlets abound in the area The City enjoys the service of public parks with tennis courts.
There is a Golf Club at Riverchase and the community boasts one of the few fron tennis courts in the
state. The area has easy access to three area lakes and shares it relative access to others in the metroplex.
A wide diversity of industry including many high technological applications are major reasons the
Community has been able to grow and tax abatements and a friendly city government as well as the
pro~mlty to the airport have aided in the attraction of good clean industries. Ma~or employers in the area
are: Postal Distribution Center (1,350 employees), Minyard Grocery Distribution (572), Coppell ISD (556),
Four Seasons Auto Air Conditioning (425). M. J. Designs has recently announced the construction of a
458,000 square foot facility in Coppell and Lone Star Plywood and Door has announced its relocation to
the community.
While the beginning year, of Coppell's rapid growth were attributable primarily to its development as a
satellite or '*bedroom" community for workers commuting to and from Dallas, City leaders recognized the
desirability of attracting business and industry to the town itself. This scheme has been successfully
accomplished in a stable manner. The City still responds a great deal to the changes and dynamics of the
economy for DaIIR.% but Coppell has rapidly expanded its own employment base while continuing to offer
a highly desirable residential community as an attraction for new residents. It is expected that the stable
growth and environment of the past will continue to be experienced in the foreseeable future.
Taxing entities for Coppell include Dallaa County, Coppell City Taxes, and the Coppell Independent School
District. The 1994 tax rates for those agencies is as follows:
D~11~.q County ................................... $0.46785
City of Coppeli ....................................... 6695
Independent School D ................................ 1.5450
Combined Total Rate ............................... $2.6824
21
I"! I ! I
NEIGB]~ORHOOD DATA
The subject neighborhood is defined as the southeastern portion of the community bounded on the north
by Sandy Lake Road, on the west by M~¢_~'-thur Boulevard, on the east by the Elm Fork of the Trinity
River and Irving and on the south by Grapevine Creek and the Valley Ranch portion of Irving. The area
between Sandy Lake, MacArthur, and Beltline contains four residential subdivisions, and the Riverchase
Golf Course. Those subdivisions offer new homes ranging from the low $100,000 range to $250,000. They
are Eagle Point Village, Fairways at Riverchase,River Ridge Addition and Riverchsse Estates. They are
all building and offering homes at this time.
Major arteries in the area are Belt Line running east and west and MacArthur running north and south.
There are retail centers at the major intersections to serve the area The pro~imlty to the river and the
creek result in some low areas which will never be used for building therefore resulting in greenbolts.
On the east portion of Belt Line adjacent to the river are two C & W Clubs vsrned the Lone Star and the
Long Branch which also afford entertainment and s-miner sports in the form of volley ball. They both
appear to be in the flood plain and were pre-existing facilities annexed into the city.
Due South of the neighborhood is the Valley Ranch section of Irving containing the Cowboys Football
training facility and numerous upscale subdivisions and apartment complexes.
22
PHIl I IP(1
HfH10
· Ill IMP. IN ' I
AI;cNnAI I:
tlLVD
C
. ~.ESTVlE
pc,__lJr..AN
'qe~;lll!]!!ll!ll----~.: ...........
~ ..... ...
i
6LANCA PASS
TR
RR
I
~,T~NI; LM
Neighborhood Map I
'1 '! T i :
The subject is a vacant tract of kind situated ~n the 1700 block of East Belt Line on the south side of the
street. A complete description of the various features and aspects of the tract are presented as follows.
Site Analysis
Size
The parcel contains 1,907,057+ SF or 43.78 acres of land, more or less.
Shape
The site is irregular in shape with appro~t~Iy 1,500' fronting the south side of Belt Line Road and
running perpendicular to that frontage on the west end appro.,dmately 880'. The southern boundary line
follows the north line of Grapevine Creek in a meandering course to the east appro~m,~tely 2,300'
(estimated). The site follows a curving line back to the north 175.08' and then follows a curving line back
to the frontage a distance of 1,236.79' (according to abstracts). The reader's attention is directed to the
enclosed exhibits to better understand the shape of the subject. The property has good width to depth
ratio but the depth exceeding 800' is considered excessive for most potential retail uses.
Roadway Frontage and Status
The subject as mentioned has frontage only on the south side of Belt Line Road for a distance of
approximately 1,500'. Belt Line is a 200' right of way accommodating a six lane median divided boulevard
with concrete paving and curb and gutter and allowing three lanes of traffic in both directions. The readers
24
I "; i ! I
attention is directed to the reduced copy of the engineering drawings included as an exhibit to clearly
understand the frontage situation.
AccessibilitvNisibilitv
The subject lot is an interior lot on the south side of Belt Line Road with access only from Beltline.
Fairway Drive is proposed to run north from Belt lane across from the subject to a connecting point with
Riverchase to the north. The most recent traffic count in the area was prepared in January 1994 and
reflected 16,692 vehicles pass the site each day. The subject site is considered to have average to good
access and visibility.
Tonogranhv/Drainsge
The subject parcel drops away from the grade with the curb top of Belt Line appro~mAtely four to five
feet and is basically level until it reaches the rear of the property and the property south of this parcel
then fans away to Grapevine Creek. It also appears to decline slightly toward the east. The subject tract
Flood Hazard Status
Based upon Federal Emergency Management Agency Maps, Community Panel Number 480170 0010 E
revised in April 1994, the subject lies in Zone X which is described as follows:
"Areas determined to be outside the 500 year flood plain."
25
Zoning
A "LI" CLight Industrial) zoning designation is indicated for the site. A copy of this zoning ordinance is
included in the Addendure of this report. A detailed discussion of the zoning and allowable uses will be
provided in the "Highest & Best Use" section of this report.
Soil Conditions
A soil survey was not available for the site. Physical inspection of the area did not reveal any apparent
clAms~e due to unstable conditions. Those prevalent for the neighborhood appear to be adequate for mid
to high density industrial/commercial development. The soils appear to be a mix of Houston Wilson Black
Clay and Sandy Loam.
Utility Status/Avsilsbilitv
The site is currently served by Texas Utilities, GTE Telephone Company, Lone Star Gas and the City of
Coppell (water and sewer). The site does not currently have city water available across the frontage of
the site but it is available at the northwest comer in front of the nursery, but the city proposes to extend
water across the front of the site. Sanitary sewer is currently available at the adjoining property to the
northwest of the subject at Belt Line Road.
EasementsfReservations/Encroachments
There was not a current survey available for the subject property therefore the appraiser was dependent
upon visual inspection of the property to determine the existence of easements on the property. There
were no adverse easements noted on the property.
26
Deed Restrictions
The appraiser is not aware of any deed restriction that would adversely affect the subject property and
its potential development.
Adjacent Development
Properties in the immediate area are developed as follows:
West from subject on the south side of Belt Line: Bloornl,~ Colors Nursery;, Valley Ranch Serf
Storage; Valley Ranch Baptist Church; & Valley Ranch Center at the southeast corner of Belt Line
& MacArthur. (tents/Tom Thumb, Mobil, Pet Stuff, Pet Hospital, Allstate Insurance, State Farm
Insurance, Tarruing Salon, Cleaners, Travel Agency, Movie & Records Shop, Mail Boxes and nnrnerous
restaurants.
East from subject on south side of Belt Line: Vacant to Ledbetter Road. Southwest corner of that
intersection has a gas transmission station situated upon it and the southeast corner of tlmt
intersection is improved with the Lone Star Club.
West from subject on north side of Belt Line: Vacant land with the St Louis and Southwestern
Railroad. The northeast corner of Belt Line and MacArthur is improved with a shoppin~ center
containing a Nations Bank Branch; Blockbuster; cleaners, Pro Cuts; Prudential Real Estate & travel
agency. Riverchase subdivision is situated in the northeast quadrant of this intersection behind the
center.
27
I "'i I ! I
East from subject on the north side of Belt Line: Vacant with the rail line and Riverchase subdivision
to the north. North of Ledbetter the Long Branch Club and Recreational facih'ty adjoined by a
batching phmt on the west.
History of the Subject Pronertv
According to tax data available, the subject has been owned by NEC Properties Inc. for the past few years
and three parcels have been sold off of the west end of the tract in the plmt three years resulting in the
remaining tract being appraised. The remaining parcel is currently being offered for sale by Hunt
Properties for a price 'of $1.50/SF. The owners recently turned down an offer of $1.25/SF for the entire
site.
· Real Estate Taxes
A copy of the 1992 tax statements was accessed through TRW REDI which is a microriche service to which
we subscribe. The value assessment was $3,716,650 for the original parcel of 56.835 acres or $65,341/ncre.
Allocation of that assessment to the remaln~ng 43.78 acres results in an assessed value of $2,861,000.
Application of the tax rate presented above to that value results in a tax estimate of $76,732.
28
! "~ I ! I
im
im
m
ST LOUIS & SW RAILROAD
I::L
0
Z
,J
O
,._1
0
0
Z
O
0
12" WATER LINE
DCAD ~ 65115256510090800
TR. 4.22, ABST. 1493 1.06 AC.
NORTHWEST DALLAS OUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL
5420 LBJ ~Y
DALLAS, TX. 752 10
DCA]//65149357510
%12,,x8,,
TR. 4.26, ABST. 1493 / 4.78 AC.
NEC PROPERTIES INC.
% HUNT PROPERTE:S 1NC
3235 DOUGLAS AVE. STE. 1300
DALLAS, TX 75225
DCAD ACCT. NO. 65149357510042600
COPPELL
CITY
REDUCER
8" WA
TR. 4.1, ABS'
FRASER GORD(
50 MORI
TORON
CANAl
DCAD ACCT. NO
IN a~er Map
[Flood Plain Map ]
TH1
SF7
R
SF7
SF12
MF2 -':
__
,/ ~ / ).,
: I
SF12
LI
A
32
Zoning
There are three techniques which may be utilized, if applicable, for the valuation of real property. In each
instance, the experience of the appraiser coupled with objective judgment plays a major role in arriving
at conclusions for indicated value. These approaches include the Income Approach, Market Approach and
the Cost Approach.
The "q. Allty" and "quantity" of available data and the applicability of each approach is very important when
comparing the various indications of value and reconciling into a final estimate.
The "Income Approach to Value" is that procedure in appraisal analysis which converts anticipated benefits
(dollar income/value or amenities) to be derived from the ownership of property into a value estlmste. It
allows for a comparison of income stresm~ between the subject property and competing marketplace
properties. Net income is capit~!i~-ed at a rate which is commensurate with the rates expressed in the
marketplace by investors for simils_~' properties. Completion of the process suggests an income estlmAt. e
of value.
The "Market Approach" is traditionally an appraisal procedure for estimating value based units of
comparison derived from sales of similar properties in the marketplace. Those units of comparison are
then applied to the subject property in order to derive a range of value, and in this instance, a conclusive
or final estimate for the subject property. The reliability of this technique is dependent upon the
availability of comparable sales data, the appraiser's ability to accurately verify all particulars behind a
38
specific sale, the degree of comparability or extent of adjustment necessary and the absence of non-typical
conditions that might affect sale prices.
The "Cost Approach" is that technique in appraisal analysis which is based upon the proposition that the
informed purchaser would pay no more than the cost of reproducing a substitute property, with the same
utility as the subject. The principle of substitution suggesting that reproduction cost should limit the
"upper side" of value. In this approach to value, the appraiser is charged with establishing mm'ket ~llue
for the site, determining reproduction cost for the improvements and the very subjective estimation of
depreciation or obsolescence inherent within the property. Market value for the "required" land parcel,
when combined with depreciated reproduction cost for the improvements, suggests an estimate of value
per the Cost Approach methodology. In the instance of the subject, we also have an "excess" land
· component. It will be valued in this section of the report. However, its impact upon final or total value
will not be addressed until the final section of this report (Reconciliation).
The three traditional valuation techniques will not be employed in this report. When the appraisal problem
involves a raw land tract, the Income and Cost Approaches are obviously not applicable. Other forms of
valuation of raw land are sometimes applicable including "abstraction" and 'anticipated use". These
procedures are applicable when there is little or no market data available to rely on in the valuation
process. They are not applicable in this case.
A "Reconciliation" section will weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the various techniques. The
appraiser will determine which application supports the most reliable estlmste of m_~rket value for the
39
subject property. Any necessary value penalty will be discussed and applied in this section of the report.
Final conclusions will then be sz~mmar~zecL
Value for real estate is generally influenced by, and a direct function of, current marketplace conditions.
M/PF Research, Inc is a market research firm speciAli~.ing in the analysis of real estate markets prlm,~rily
in the Southwestern and Southeastern United States. Based in DRllAA, M/PF works for builders,
developers and investors in evaluating opportunities for development and acquisition of housing,
commercial and mixed-use properties. Appraisal, Brokerage and Consulting Co., Inc. hA~ been receiving
M/PF publications over the years. We have obtained their most current publication for the industrial
mArketplaces. M/PF delineation suggests that.the subject property would be found in the '~alwood"
mm'ket (Sector 17) for industrial properties. Conditions in the subject's submn~ket will be analyzed along
with the Dallas are--
The following data in this section of the report is reprinted from M/PF Reports. The Year-End 1992
publication is most current for all sectors. Independent analyses will be presented for industrial properties
in this submarket followed by current statistical data for the D,~II~ are-- An "overview" from the most
current M/PF Report will then serve as an appropriate conclusion for each categorical analysis.
41
The Industrhl Marketplace
Sulmmrket
17
VALWOOD
DA!1,~ Area
l:I18TO]iI:CAL INDUSTRIAL DATA BY SU!~/A~
Period
I)alhs/Fst Worth Area
Mid-yesr 1991 - Yem--End 1992
1991/06 88% 68% $3.56 $6.14 -20.6 28.6
1991/12 86% 62% 3.51 6.28 -285.2 - -58.9
1992/06 87% 65% 3.49 5.84 Jj~ 100.6
1992/12 88% 70% 3.59 5.97 191.7 189.8
1991/06 87% 79% $3.13 $6.30 1,068.6 287.1
1991/12 88% 78% 3.17 6.29 754.7 -97.7
1992/06 89% 79% 3.14 6.22 2,680.1 328.8
1992/12 89% 82% 3.12 6.14 -307.9 883.1
D/FW Warehouse Activity Slows; Flex Properties ImProve
"Derrmr~d for Dallas/Fart Worth werehouse slmee slacked off durin~ 2nd Half 1992, with the Dallss metro
actns~y suffering net tenant move-outs. Warehouse occupancy held steady in the Dallas metro while
jumping 2 points in Tarrant County.
In contrast, the Dalhs/Fert Wta'th flex nm-ket reported its strongest demand in 2 years, with the DAlln-~
metro leading the way in this product category. Occupancy levels among flex properties rose in both
metros.
However, both warehouse and flex rental rates continued to edge down over the past year, as stocks of
industrial space remained excessive.
Warehouse Market
lhllas~ert Werth warehouse c~cupaney~ 1 ~ dm-i~B'-s'1992 to 8~ atYesr-End 1992,
its hi~est level since M/PF began monitorix~ the industrial market in 1989. Metroplex warehouse
occupancy has risen 2 points over the past year. Since bottominIJ out in late 1989, warehouse occupancy
has climbed 6 points.
Occupancy in D-a~- Area werehouses held stead~ at 8~ throuSh YesrEnd 1992, although occupancy
remained 1 point over its year-a~o level Ternrot C, eunty warehouse cec~f-.-;y rese 1 point to
between Mid-Year and Year-End 1992 and has surpd 3 points throughout the year.
DnilA~/Fort Worth Area warehouse absorption slowed n~rkedly in 2nd Halt 1992, with moderate demand
in Tarrant County partially offset by net tenant move-outs in the DAlls~ metro. While much of the Fort
Worth Area's absorption occurred in new construction, the Dallas Area was bamstrun~ by several large
blocks of warehouse space re-entering the market. Dallas/Felt Worth warehouses absorbed a scant
564,900 SF of speee in 2nd I-hlf 1992, only one-quarter of the space absorbed in 2nd Half 1991. However,
coupled with strong demand in the 1st Half, annual warehouse demand surged 45~ in 1992 to 4.9
DAllas Area warehouse demand turned negative in 2nd Half 1992, ~h net ~ move-outs of ~907,900
sq. fL, mostly the result of downsizin~ of some local industrial users. This marks the first time the DAllAA
Area has posted negative absorption since M/PF began trackin~ the market. Propped up by a strong 1st
Half, Ihllas Area warehouses stffi absorbed a net 2.4 m~'lllnn q. ft. of space for all of 1992, up 30% from
the previous year.
Fort Worth Area warehouse demand fell off sharply in the 2rid HAlf and was mostly concentrated in newly
constructed single-tenant buildings. Tarrant County warehouse tenants absorbed 862,800 SF in late 19{}2,
about one-half the demand of 2nd Half 1991. However, due to a strong 1st HaW, annual werehouse
abserptien ~m.ned 62% from 1991 to 2.5 ma!~m sq./L in 1992.
Ro~_ehly 1.4 milllea sq. ft. of new industrial space was completed in the Dallas/Fort Worth Area in 1992,
including 1.1 million sq. ft. of space fmished in 2nd Half 1992. Thus, 1992,'s absorption predominately
occurred in existing space. New construction slowed by more than 50% from the pace set between 1989
and 1991, when roughly 3 million sq. ft. of new space was constructed annually. Single-tenant warehouses
accounted for practically all the space completed over the year, with only one modest multitent project
finished. The DAllas Area reported 668,700 SF of completions for 1992, and the Fort Worth Area posted
731,600 SF of new space.
New space completions are expected to slow in the DAll~-~ Area through 1st Half 1993, but should pick up
in the Fort Worth Ares. Currently, 589,000 SF of warehouse space is ahted fer completion in the Dallas
Area over the next 6 months. In Tarrant County, nelrly 1.6 mmlqn sq. f~ of warehouse space is unde~
way with completion dates set by Mid-Year 1993. Nearly two-thirds of the space under construction in the
Fort Worth Area is found in the addition to Food Lion's distribution center and the construction of a new
distribution center for Nestle. In both metros, single tenant projects account for all the space now being
built, although several developers have announced plans to start multitenant projects in 1993.
Dallas/Fort Worth warehouse rents continued to ease through Year-End 1992. Metroplex wm~eheuse rents
averaged $3.04/SF at 1992's close, down 1% from Mid-Year 1992 and 2% from a year ago. In the Dallas
Area, warehouse rents fell 2~ over the past year to $~.12/SF. Tarrant County warehouse rents also
dropped 2~ to $2.83/SF fremayeer earlier.
With the U.S. and local economies gaining ground, demand for warehouse space should improve through
Mid-Year 1993. M/PF Research forecasts that DnllA~ Area warehouse absorption will turn around from
its net loss of tents in the current reporting period and to reeeh 2.2 rn~!inn sq. IL in 1st Half I
Tarrant County warehouse abserptien should total 2.4 nn~inn; with about two-thirds of the absorption
occurring in newly constructed single-tenant buildings. This demand represents a 50% increase from
absorption levels of 1st Haft 1992.
Based on these absorption forecasts, occupancy in both metros should improve through Mid-Year 1993.
Dnlln,~ Area warehouse occupancy is forecast to rise 1 peint to 90%. Tarrant County warehouse occupancy
45
Flex Market
Boosted by an increase in DAllAs Area den~ud, M~ f~ ~ ~nnped 2 p~nts to 82~ ~n the
2nd Half and stood 3 points hi~er than its level at the close of 1991. As with warehouses, flex occupancy
now stands at its hi~est level in more than 4 years. DAllAsf Fort Worth flex occupancy has rallied 7 points
since fsll~ to its nadir at Year-End 1989.
Occupancy in D~- Area ~ex properties jumped 3 points in the 2nd l~aw te end l992 at 82%. Occupancy
has climbed 4 points over the past year among Dalls~ Area flex properties. Tarrant County oc~q~ncy ~eee
1 point to 84% in the 2nd I-IaW and now stands 2 points ahead of a year earlier.
For D/FW flex properties, rl~m~n,1 hit a 2~jrear h~ of 904,700 SF in 2nd Half 1992, with most of the
activity occurring in the Dallas Area Ds!ls~fFort Worth flex buildings absorbed nearly 1.2 million sq. ft.
for all of 1992, an 11-fold increase from 1991.
Absorption in Dalls.~ Area flex properties showed surprising strength in the 2rid Half, accounting for the
surge in occupancy in this metro. Flex tenants leased an srld~ensl 883,100 sq. fL in 2rid Half 1992,
compared to the negative absorption reported in the same period in 1991. Second Half demand was the
strongest posted for a semlarmual reporting period in 2 years. For all of 1992, ~ Area flex bu~aln~
absorbed L2 ranlion sq. ft. of simce, more than a five-fold increase from the previous year.
The Fort Worth metro's flex properties posted positive demand for the first time in more than a year in
2nd I-Ialf 1992, although the gains were rather meager. Tarrant County flex properties posted a net gain
46
of 21,600 SF in the 2nd Half. Earlier losses still caused the metro to post negative annual absorption of -
52,400 SF in 1992.
Reflecting the generally overbuilt market for flex properties, only a single, 12,000 SF flex building was
constructed in the Dal]ss Area during 1992. No flex properties are currently under way in the Metroplex.
Rental rates in Metroplex flex buildings averaged $6.04]SF, down 3~ in the past year. Rents in the flex
category are now at their lowest levels since M/PF began tracking the market in 1989. Among Dallas flex
properties, rents fell 2q~ to $~14/SF from a year ago. Tarrant County rental rates for flex space declined
more precipitously in 1992. The metro's rates dropped 6~ to $5.57/SF, their lowest level in nearly 4 years.
M/PF forecasts tlmt the demand for flex space should moderate through Mid-Year 1993, but will be
sufficient to raise occupancy rates further. Demnrxd for Dallas Area flex space should slow to a still
relatively healthy 560,000 SF in 1st Half 1993, and Tarrant County flex properties are expected to absm. b
a modest 60,000 SF.
Dallas Area flex occupancy is forecast to rllmh 1 point to 83%, and Tarrant County flex occupancy w~l
htely rise 1 point to 85%*.
Preliminary f~ares for 1993 indicate that the Valwood area absorbed 296,200 SF of warehouse space and
lost 36,600 Sf of flex apace in the first three months of 1993. Occupancies were at 89% and 70% for
47
warehouse and flex space respectively for the sprite. Rentals for ttmt period were at $3.61 and $6.01
respectively.
Industrial Uvdate
The most recent data available for industrial rates and absorption reflect midyear 1998 fi~ures for the area
for warehouse space leasin~ at 23.54/SF sliF, htly lower than the 1992 f~xres above. The occupancy bss
improved slightly with an increase to 91%. At the same time Dal!~ overall improved from 89% to 90% and
rates dropped sliF, htly to $3.10/SF. Flex space in the subject sector improved to 74% occupancy and ra~s
slipped sliF, htly to $5.89/SF while flex space in the total Dallas area rose to 82% occupancy and rates
slipped to $6.07/SF. Absorption in the subject sector was positive at 688,700 SF and 105,000 SF for
warehouse and flex space respectively.
48
HIGHEST AND BEST USE-ZONING
Hi~est and Best Use is defined as:
,
The reasonable and probable use that supports the highest present value of
vacant land or improved property, as defined, as of the date of the appraisal
The reasonably probable and legal use of land or sites as though vacant,
found to be physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible,
and that results in the highest present land value.
The most profitable use.
Implied in these definitions is that the determination of highest and best use takes into account the
contribution of a specific use to the community and community development goals as well as the benefits
of that use to individual property owners. Hence, in certain situations the highest and best use of land
may be for parks, greenbelts, preservations, conservation, wildlife habitats, and the like. (The Dictionary
of Real Estate Avvraisal; American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, Third Printing 1987; Page 152)
The subject is a vacant tract containing 43.78 acres or 1,907,057 SF. Considering a land to building ratio
of 2 or 3 to one, it would be conceivable to physically construct improvements on the site of 636,000 to
954,000 SF. if the economics would support such a project. As we discuss the zoning in this section of this
report, it will become apparent that the cumulative zoning on the site also allows retail and office
development of the site. Therefore, those alternatives as well as industrial must be addressed.
Physically Possible
Intended or current use for a site must be physically possible. The subject parcel is irregn,larly shaped with
good frontage to depth ratios. It enjoys extensive frontage on Belt Line but it also has excessive depth for
typical users. The subject ranges in depth from 871' on the west end to slightly less than 1,300' toward
the eastern side. The character of other immediate uses definitely tends toward retail or service oriented
uses. Those users with a few exceptions prefer that a site not exceed 400'. Therefore for most users the
excessive depth results in unusable or non productive land. Mammoth developments such as power centers
of large multi-screen cinemas or recreational facilities come to mind as users for sites of this depth. The
power centers (Home Depot, Circuit City, Incredible Universe, etc.) as a necessity require sites with much
greater traffic exposure and access than the subject. The nursery and self storage facility to the west are
both unique users for deep sites. All things being considered, the site can ~ be developed fet
numerous uses allowed under the current zoning. Many commercialAight industrial applications would
be physically possible upon this parcel.
Le~llv Permissible
Legally permissible uses pertain to those that are allowed under existing zoning constraints and deed
restrictions. City of Copper zoning maps indicate a "Light Industrial" zoning designation for the entire
tract. The "LI" zoning basically permits developments for retail, COmmerC~ Office and light industrial uses.
A s,,mms~y of the zoning restrictions is provided as follows:
5O
M'm~nUm Lot Area
M'mimum Front Yard
M'mlmum Bide Yard
M'mimum Rear Yard
Msrslnnnn Bm'ldlng Height
Ms=Z,.mn Floor Area Ratio
~ O~ Street. Par~n~
Lot Coverage
LIGHT INDUSTRL~ ZONING CEASS~CATION
Restri~ Subject
5,000 SF 1,907,056 SF
30 feet; 60 feet/parking adequate
10 feet; 50' next to res. adequate
10 feet; 50' next to res. adequate
35' within 150' of res. adequate
2.0 to 1 adequate
According to use adequate
50% adequate
-~ ..........
Conformity
The principle of conformity holds, in part, that conformity in use is a highly desirable adjunct of real
property since it creates and/or maintains maximum value and it is maximum value which affords an owner
maximum returns - the heart of the theory of highest and best use.
Current land ut'dization in the immediate area is of commercial and residential. Although Coppell has
extensive industrial development, the majority of that development is contained in the Business or
Industrial parks on the west side of town. There is no evidence of industrial development in the immediate
51
area other than self storage facilities. Although the retail development along Belt Line reflects good
occupancy, there is a limit to the absorptive cap~ity ofthe area for additional retail The demand is limli~ed
and the subject parcel alone would support more retail space than the market would absorb in many years.
Conformity infers that commercial/retail development is the best use of the site, but demand indicates that
development of that nature will be spread over many years.
Feasibility
Feasible uses for the property are those which would provide the highest net return to the !and. A
financially feasible use of a site indicates an income stream or return e~iual to or re'eater than the amount
needed to satisfy operating expenses, financial obligations or capital amortization.
The recent development of new retail in the area supports the economics of commercial development on
the site, however the demand for additional retail is limited and that process to be economically feasible
will be spread over many future years.
Conclusions
It is therefore the appraiser's conclusion that development of the entire subject site at this time is not
feasible and that the ~righest and Best Use of the subject site at thi~ time is to hold as vmmt t~nd ~s ,m
market d~mnr!_
52
The Market Approach to Value is based upon data provided from recent sales of comparable properties.
A thorough analysis and necessary adjustments will produce an indication of value. The reliability of this
valuation technique depends heavily upon the slmilRrities/differences between the subject property and
the comparables, along with the appraiser's ability to reconcile adjustments. The rationale for the mRrket
comparison approach lies in the principle of substitution; that an informed investor would not pay more
for a property than he would have to pay for a substitute.
A reliable indication of the value of the land is obtained by comparing the land to other tracts that have
sold, are under contract or are offered for sale in the area The Coppeli market has been relatively active
and afforded the appraiser a broad selection of sales comparables. Recent sales of comparable parcels in
the area were investigated and analyzed to establish a basis for estimating the mnrket value of the land
being appraised. Required adjustments are made to compensate for the dissimiln~'ities between the sale
comparables and the subject. The sales utilized in the valuation of the subject parcel are as follows.
53
Tmnc], Bale #1
Terms ~fSale~
Ut~tie~
Frontage:
C.,omment~s:
NWC Royal Lane and Bethel Road, Coppell
Criterion Productions Inc.
Gulf Bearing, Inc.
A-1439, & A-1753, Coppell
9/30/94
94189/36
11.1770 acres
Industrial
Broker, Blaine Cook
$43,560/acre approximately.
$43,560/acre
Cash
All available (16" water line)
Zone X (Outside the 500 year flood plain)
None detrimental
Royal Lane and Bethel Road
Comer parcel with good exposure and access.
SWC Denton Tap Road & Bethel School Road, Coppell
Frnnl~ Bamburg Building Co.
James W. Burch & Etu~
A-301, Pt. Tract 9, Coppell
Dnlln~
6/15/94
94114/4886
5.05 Acres
"LF
Grantor
$130,680/acre
$130,680/acre ($3.00/sf)
Cash
All av~ilnble (16" water line)
None
None detrimental
800' on Denton Tap & 320' on Bethel.
Excellent comer parcel. Hardware store planned for site. Vacant at
inspection date.
55
T~m:t ~ale #3
WC MacArthur and Cowboys Parkway, Irving
Guaranty Federal Bank, FSB.
ATAPCO Properties Inc.
Lot 1, Block A, Valley Ranch Phase IV, 4th Inst., Irving
5/31/94
94103/3811
26.0257 acres
Commercial (RMF2)
Dean Seamarm, Grantor.
$2,925,000 or $112,389/acre
$112,389/acre
Cash to seller
All av~lnble
None
None detrimental
MacArthur Boulevard and Cowboys Parkway
Attractive site will probably end up as apm~cmen~s.
56
Land Sale #4
Lo,~o~:
Gran~.
Grants:
Size:
Ver~_ed:
C-~,~ Fxluivalency:
Terms of Sale:
UtiliZes:
Frontal:
Comments:
WC Parkway Boulevard & High School Access Road, Coppell
Centex Real Estate Corporation
Coppell Independent School District.
A-694 & A-1430, Coppell.
Dallas
4/7/94
94066/7212
14.081 Acres
Residential
'Grantee
$408,000 or $28,975/acre.
$28,975/acre
Consideration for installation of streets and utilities.
All available (16" water line)
90% in flood plain. (Zone AE)
None detrimental
Parkway and High School Access (Cowboy)
This transaction was the culmination between the ~chool District and
Centex in conjunction with the instAllAtion of streets and utilities.
57
T,wmt Bade #5
Comments:
S/S Belt Line 1,521' east of MacArthur BlvcL
NEC Properties
Blooming Colors Nursery & Landscaping Inc.
A-1493, Coppell
3/23/94
94055-5967
2.00 acres
"LF Industrial
Grantee
$130,680 or $65,340/acte
$65,340/acre
Cash to seller
All available (water and sewer at nwc of property)
None
None detrimental
SS of Belt Line 100'
Currently developed as a nursery. 100' frontage and 871' deep.
58
Gzantor:.
Grantee:
S~.e:
VeriSed:
Tenas ~Sales:
U~
C(:n'nTn~11t8:
NWC of Denton Tap Road & Parkway Blvd. Coppell
Centex Real Estate Corporation
94-Parkway LP.
A-1430, Coppell
DAIIA~
8/8/94
94044/5396
4.441 acres
'TC" Town Center
Grantor
$410,000 or $92,321/acre
$92,321/acre
Cash to seller
All available (16' water line in Denton Tap)
None
None detrimental
Denton Tap & Parkway Blvd.
Attractive comer parcel for future development.
59
Tmmt 8ale #?
T 4Cent'Inn-
Size:
V~
Terms ef
Ut~tie~
EaBemeu~:
Commpnf~:
SEC of Riverchase Drive & MacArthur Blvd.,Coppell
R P 13 Estates Limited
Riverchase Plaza, Ltd.
A-1493, Coppen.
Dnlln~
1/21/94
94013/1651
8.5595 Acres
"R' Retail
Broker
$750,000 or $87,622/asre.
$87,622/acre
Cash
ALl avsilnble (water [24"] and sewer avsilsble in MacArthur)
Zone X (500 yr plain or levee protected)
None detrimental
East side of MacArthur and south side of Riverchase.
This site is northwest of subject north of railroad tracks.
LandSale
Grantor:.
Grantee:
Size:
Verified:
Terms of Sales:
Utilities:
Floodpbt';n:
Comments:
S/S Belt Line 1,322' East of MacArthur Blvd.
NEC Properties Inc.
Robert H. Goss & Robert C. Blacketer
A-1493, Coppell
DAI!A-~
12/21/93
93247/2518
3.554 acres
"LI", Industrial
Broker, Keith Green
$232,196 or $65,334/acre.
$65,334/acre
Cash
All available (water and sewer at nwc of site)
None
None detrimental
200' Fronting Belt Line.
Inside parcel due east of subject.
61
Grantor:.
Grantee:
Verified:
Terms ~ Sales:
Uttti~s:
Floo~!ain'
Es~.ml~.nta;
l~'outege:
N/S of Gateway Blvd approximately 3,000' east of Freeport Pkwy.
Park West Commerce Center LLC
Dupey Management Corp.
Lots 1 & 2,Block 2, Park West Commerce Center
Dallas
11/29/93
93230/3706
48 acres
'LI' Industrial
Grantee
$2,880,000 or $60,000/acre (approximately)
$60,000/acre
Cash to seller
All available (12" water line in Southwestern)
None
None detrimental
NS of Gateway (Proposed)
Gateway is proposed to extend through this area. This sale is part of
100 acres purchased for slightly less than $6,000,000 (confumed).
62
Trend Sele #10
Location:
Grantor:.
Grantee:
Size:
Verifi~l:
Terms of Sale:
Utilities:
Prontage:
~Ommfnf~.
N/S Sandy Lake Road, 1,333' East pf Riverchase Drive
RTC for Sunbelt Federal Savings FSB.
Peter Park
A-886, A-698 & A-1152, Coppeil
2/24/93
93037/373
18.859 acres
Grantor
$165,000 or $8,849/acre
$8,849/acre
15% down & note at market for $140,250.
None
Zone AE & X
None detrimental
N/S of Sandy Lake only.
S & L. disposition. Site is low rough and swampy. Sandy Lake is a 2
lane asphalt road at this point.
63
Tamd 8~1e
Granter:.
Grantee:
Size:
Verified:
C-,,~h F.,quiva!~
Terms ~ Sale:
Utjlifi~
COmm~n~:
NS Belt Line Rd.246' West of North Lake
Wm. G. Thompson
Riverside Church of Christ
A-1054. Coppell
D~I1Am
7/16/92
92138/2017
2.7859 acres
Dan Thompson/Grantee
$214,796 or $77,101/acre.
$77,101/acre
Cash to seller
All available (24' water line)
Zone X (not in 500 yr flood plain)
None detrimental
Belt Line
Church also purchased the adjoining 3.716 acres for the same price per
acre at NWC of North Lake at the same time.
NEC Belt Line Rd. & North Lake
4633 HOLDING COMPANY, TRUSTEE (WxxL G. Thompson)
Riverside Church of Chr~
Pt. Block 1, North Lake Business Center Phase I, Addn. Coppell
Dallss
7/16/92
92138/2014
3.716 acres
Dan Thompson/Grantee
$286,508 or $77,101/acre.
$77,101/acre
Cash to seller
All avs~lsl~le (24" water line)
Zone X (not in 500 yr flood plain)
None detrimental
Belt Line and North Lake
Church also purchased the adjoining 2.7859 acres for the same price
per acre simultaneously.
65
Trend 8ale
SS of Belt Line 825' east of MacArthur Blvd., Coppen
NEC Properties
Valley Ranch Baptist Church.
A-1493, CoppelL
D,1IA~
4/13/92
92072/2345
7.5 Ac~es
"LI" Industrial
Grantee (Jeff J,11an)
$568,458 or $75,794/acre.
$75,794/acre
Cash
All avsfisble (water and sewer avsfishle at nwc of site)
None
None detrimental
SS of Belt Line only.
This site is due east of subject adjacent to Valley Ranch Center.
86
DENTON COUNT.Y,
DALLAS COUNTY
I',
1
,,~ ....... ,-"-',IT
C, AUCER CT ,ANrnC~ ,~,:
. :i.;,: · ·
., %
General Comments
Thirteen closed land sale tran_~_~tions were chronologically presented. Coppell has been the center of
activity for new development over the past three years due to its growth and a good selection of land sales
was av~Hsble. Those sales have all been verified, inspected and analyzed by the appraiser. Sales will be
selected from the sales presented which provide the most comparability for valuation of the site in its
current state and also after the installation of the water line to determine change in value or enhancement
resulting from the proposed project. primary emphasis in our selection was bssed upon zoning, location
and date of sale. Comparables presented in this report are believed to be the best available data which
could be verified by this office.
Valuation of the Subiect Site "As Is"
From the above thirteen sales, the following six were selected as most comparable due to location, zoning
and size. The appraiser will analyze each of these sales and adjust each for ~irnil~Pities and cllsmirnilAritieS
in a grid format and then provide a narrative discussion of the logic involved in the process and arrive at
an indication of Market Value on an "as is" basis.
The subject site contains 43.78 acres. Comparables ranged in size from 2.0 acres to 48. acres. Each
comparable was affected by Industrial or Commercial zoning which is similar to the "Industrial" uses
allowed for the subject. An unadjusted price range is indicated from $60,000/acre to $92,321/acre. The
comparables are extremely current, with five of the sales occurring over the past 13 months and the sixth
68
(included due to proximity) occurring 32 months ago.A land sales summary and adjustment grid are now
presented.
Sale 15 Sale ~6 Sale t7 Sale #8 Sale ~9 Sale #lS
Sale Date 3/23/94 3/8/94 1/21/94 12/21/93 11/29/93 4/13/92
Size (Acres) 2.0 4.441 8.559 3.554 48.0 7.5
Zoning L~ TC R LI LI LI
Price/Acre $65,340 $92,321 $87,622 $65,334 $60,000 $75,794
ADJU~ GRID
Price/Acre -$65,340 $92,321 $87,622 $65,334 $60,000 $75,794
Condition of Sale 0 0 0 0 0 0
Time Adjustment 0 0 0 0 0 0
Adjusted Indicator $65,340 $92,321 $87,622 $65,334 $60,000 ' $75,794
Location 0 -10% 0 0 + 10% 0
Size -17% -17% -17% -17% 0 -17%
Developmental Utility 0 -5% -5% 0 0 0
Frontage/Accessibility 0 -20% -10% 0 0 0
Zoning 0 0 0 0 0 0
Acreage Loss 0 0 0 0 0 0
Utilities 0 0 0 0 0 0
Net Adjustment -17% -52% -32% -17% + 10% -17%
Adjusted Indicator $54,232 $44,314 $59,583 $54,227 $66,000 $62,909
| I
The Adjustments
Consideration Adjustment
All of the six cornparables involved private parties. There was not any apparent motivational factor noted
to substantiate a consideration adjustment.
Time Adjustments
The transactions occurred over the past 32 months with the bulk of the sales over the last thirteen
months. There does not appear to be justification in the market data to support a time adjustment.
Therefore, no time adjustments were applied.
Location Adiustment
Lccational adjustments were addressed for each comparable. Sales #5,7,8, & 13 are all within a stones
throw of the subject and in fact were selected because of their proximity to the subject. They share the
same neighborhood influences as the subject and require no locatiorml adjustments. Sale # 6 is located at
the northwest corner of Denton Tap Road and Parkway Boulevard in the "Town Center" section of town
close to City Hall and the bulk of development in the city. It is adjusted downward 10% to compensate for
what is considered a superior location. At the same time, Sale #9 is loc~xted on the proposed extension of
Gateway from Freeport Parkway and close to Southwestern Street. This is adjacent to the stror~
industrial development in the city but from a commercial perspective is considered inferior to the subject
and therefore adjusted upward 10% to reflect that disparity.
7O
Size Adjustment
The "quantity discountin~ theory is recognized for size adjustments. All other factors bein~ slmilsP,
.~maller parcels typically command higher unit prices when compared to their lar~er. counterparts.
Historically our records support an adjustment on small acrea~ tracts that approximates an adjustment
of 10% up or downward as the size increases by 100% or decreases by 50%. However when we addressed
size adjustments from six sales selected, we found a much smaller adjustment supported when we
compared the smaller sales with Sale # 9 which was for 48 acres. Excludin~ Sale # 6 because it had too
many variations, the other smaller sales reflected adjustments of 17%, 17%, 16.5% and 28% respectively
with little logical explanation for the variation. Therefore, 17% adjustments were used across the board
for the smaller parcels.
Develovment Utility
The subject property as mentioned previously has an excessive depth for most development uses. This is
considered to be adverse development utility. However Sales # 5, 8, & 13 share the same or similsr depth
consideration and are not deemed to require adjustment. Sale # 9 is a large tract acquired in conjunction
with another large tract for a large industrial user and it does not require adjustment. Sales # 6 and 7 are
both smaller retail sites are adjusted downward by 5%.
Fronta2e/Accessibilitv
The subject is basically an interior parcel without comer influence. This category addresses more than
anything else the presence of two street frontage or comer influence. An adjustment downward of 20%
71
is made to Sale # 6 which is the corner of two major streets. Sale # 7 is adjusted downward only by 10%
because Riverchase is considered to be a feeder street rather than a nmjor artery.
Zonin~
As mentioned in the "Highest & Best USe" section, the "LF zonin~ is a part of a cumulative system which
allows use as other commercial slid office rises. There is therefore, nojustifmation for adjustments between
the various sales used.
Acreage Loss
The subject nor the Sales comparables are located in a flood prone area There is no reason for an
adjustment in this category.
Utilities
The subject has sewer and water at the northwest corner or in front of the adjo'ming property to the west.
It would be more desirable if beth services were extended across the frontage of the subject but that
responsibility is us. Ally born by the owner/developer. Sales # 5, 8, & 13 were all subject to the exact same
situation at the time of the sales transactions. Sales # 6 and 7 both had ready access to both and Sale #
9 due to its size has access to these utilities at various points. There is no adjustment for proximity of
utilities to the subject.
72
!
Conclusion
The six comparables have produced an adjusted value range from $44,314/acre to $66,000/acre. If the
appraiser was convinced that all adjustments were totally accurate and equal weight placed on all
comparables, then the 'mean" or average of the adjusted indicators ($56,878/acre) should reflect the value
of the subject. In many instances where a statistical analysis is studied, a "modified mean" is appropriate
where the high and low indicator are dropped to eliminate distortions. The result of this calculation is
$57,738/acre. Analysis and calculation of a "mode" results in an indication of $59,585/aere. In appraisal
theory, it is also important to review the amount of adjustment to the various comparables to see which
sales required least adjustments both gross and net in an effort to determine which comparable is most
SimilAr tO the subject. When addressing gross adjustments, Comparables # 9, has the least adiustments
followed by # 5, 8, & 13. The same is true of net adjustments which mirror the gross adjustments. The
two smAll_er comer retail locations require major adjustments compared to the other sales. In this analysis,
it is important to come back to the fact that Sales # 5, 7, 8, & 13 are all in close proximity tO the subject
and suggest a range from $54,227/acre to $62,909/acre with a mean of $57,737.
Based upon our investigation and analysis, I estimate the value of the subject property on an "as is" basis
falls within a range of $57,000/and $58,000/acre. Hence:
43.78 acres X $57,000/acre = $2,495,460
43.78 acres X $58,000/acre = $2,539,240
ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE OF SITE 'AS IS" $2,517,000
73
Valuation of Site After Inst_~11Ation of Water Line
There are different ways of approaching the value of an existing water line across a specific property. A
prospective developer or user of a parcel might analyze the existence or absence of a water line on the
basis of "cost to cure" or simply put the cost of installation of that line across the property to afford easy
access for individual taps. In this instance, the subject parcel has approximately 1,500 lineal feet of frontage
and based upon figures from Marshall Valuation Guide and the size of the proposed water main (12" for
1,200' and 8" for 3009 the appraiser estimates an average cost of $35.00 per lineal foot. That figure could
vary substantially dependent upon the size of the total project, and the work load of the various bidding
contractors. At $35 per foot for 1,500' a total cost might be estimated at $52,500. That figure, would then
represent the top f~rure that a prospective user would pay to have the convenience of water across the
front of the property. The fact is that the subject does have water and sewer at the northwest comer of
the property or in front of the adjo'ming property. It could then be argued that the subject does have
access to both sewer and water at mjDimAJ expense. As a matter of fact, Sales # 5, 8, & 13 used above all
were sold with exactly that same availability. They are all substantially smaller than the subject. On large
parcels, the infrastructure of development is generally born by the developer but there is no set time table
for that development and if the property is held strictly as an investment, that work may not be done
during his ownership. Because of the presence of utilities at the comer and the fact that three of the above
sales had exactly the same situation whereas Sales # 6 & 7, had full utilities and Sale # 9 because of its
size is assumed to have access to full utilities, no adjustment is made for utilities on the above analysis.
It is further noted that extension of water across the site affords easier access only to water. The proposal
does not include extension of the complimentary sewer line across the property. Therefore only that
74
portion of the development cost allocable to the water line is decreased as far as the property owner is
concerned.
A method of determining value enhancement from the proposed project is through analysis of paired sales
which are e~rn~]~r in all other features except for the presence of water. In most situations, but not all,
water and sewer are av~{lsble together. If a site has water, it us,~!ly also has sewer av~{l~bility. That
however is not the case for the subject proposal.
Of the thirteen sales provided earlier, the appraiser sought out sales which did not have water and sewer.
Sale # 10 was the only property which had no sewer or water av~Ahle to ~t. That property, however, is
inferior in so many other areas such as location, topography, street frontage etc. that abstraction of a
mesnin~ul factor was not possible. It was noted however that a comparison could be made between Sales
# 13 and Sales # 11 & 12 as a unit. # 11 & 12 were acquired simultaneously for use as a churck They .
are situated on Belt Line and North Lake, consist of 6.5 acres zoned 'LI~ and are out of the flood plain.
Sale # 13 is a sale of 7.5 acres zoned "LF with utilities at the corner (like the subject) fronting Belt I.~e
on an interior site which is also not in the flood plain. The two tracts sold 3 months apart. Sales # 11 &
12, sold for $77,101/per acre while #13 sold for $75,794/acre. Sales # 11 & 12, do have corner influence
which is always considered superior to an interior tract. The difference between the parcels is simply 1.7%
before addressing the superiority of the corner location. With any adjustment for corner influence, the
parcel at North Lake drops below Sale #13. The conclusion is that (1) the market is definitely imperfect,
(2) there is no measurable difference between access to utilities at the corner of the property and full
frontage access to utilities.
Therefore, the appraiser estlmstes the Market Value of the Subject Parcel 'after ins~s!!stion of the water
line" to be $2,517,000 or $57,492/acre.
76
RECONcFLTATION
The nature of this assjSxnnent and the fact that this appraisal addresses only land value of one site the
Reconcirmtion is sli~htiy different from a typical appra~al. The market approach was the only approach
applied, but the appraiser did analyze the subject to ascertain if there was any measurable enhancement
resulting from the proposed inm~llstion of the water line across the frontage of the property. In fact, the
analFas indicated that there was no measurable enhancement from the proposed project to the subject
property. Therefore, the Conclusions of Value subject to the enclosed assumptions and llm~n~ conditions
as of December 1, 1994 are as follows:
Fa%TX~&TED VALUE OF TRACT 4~6 PRIOR TO INST.~tJ-~TION OF WATER LINE $2~17,000
ESTrM&TED VALUE OF TRACT 4~26 AFTER INSTALLATION OF WATER xJNE
2a~17,0~0
ENHANCEMENT IN VALUE OF TRACT 426 FROM WATER LINE INSTALLATION
December 1, 1994
C. S. M,,mnax,
President
77
The undersigned do hereby certify that, except as otherwise noted in the appraisal report:
The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.
The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions are ilmlted only by the
reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal~
unbiased professional analyses, opinions and conclusions.
I have no present of prospective interest in the property that is the
subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect
to the parties involved.
- My compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from
the analyses, opinions or conclusions .in~ or the use of, this report.
My analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has
been prepared in conformity with the requirements of the Code of
Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Practice of the
Appraisal Institute.
The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal
Institute rehting to review by its duly authorized representatives.
As of the date of this report, I, C. S. l~,!llnAt; have completed the
requirements under the continuing education program of the Appraisal
Institute.
I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of
this report.
No one other than the signors provided significant professional assistance
in the preparation of this report.
The appraisal assignment was not based on a requested mirdmum
President
78
Letter of Authorization
Zonir~ Ordinance
Abbreviations an Other Appr~al Terminolo~
Q-Ali~C~tiOnS
! '!
APPEAISAL
BROKERAGE &
OONSULTING CO.
C. S. (Chuck) Mullinax, MAI
15775 Hillcrest Rd., ~508
r)~!!s~. qPe~as 75248-4199
October 20, 1994
City of CoppeI1
P. O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
Att: Kenneth M. Griffen, P.E.
Assistant City Manager/City Engineer
E. Belt Line Road Proposed Water Line
Appraisal of Four (4) Parcels for Enhancement
Dear Ken;
In conjunction with our conversation earlier this week, please
accept this as a proposal for your acceptance on the four appraisal
assignments referenced above. I will provide complete appraisals
addressing values of the respective parcels before and after the
water line extension resulting in calculations of enhancement for
the individual parcels. My fee for that service will be $1,400 per
appraisal for a total of.$5,600. If we end up going to court on the
cases, my fee for expert witness is based on $100 per hour.
If this proposal is acceptable, please date and sign the acceptance
line on the bottom of this letter and return one copy to me and I
will begin work on the jobs as soon as possible. I am currently
committed for the next two weeks but I should be able to complete
your work within thirty days thereafter.
Thank you for the opportunity to quote on this assignment.
President
CSM/ae
A~NCE
, J/m t ,.. City Manager
Date
Real Estate Appraisals .. Phone (214) 692-9950, Fax (214) 880-0105
26-1
SECTION 26
"LI" LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
General Purpose and Description: The LI Light Industrial District is intended
to provide for commercial and light manufacturing uses.
Use Regulations: The following uses are permitted in the "Lr' District,
provided that such manufacturing or industrial operation shall not disseminate
dust, fumes, gas, noxious odor, smoke, glare, or other atmospheric influence
beyond the boundaries of the property on which such use is located and which
produces no noise exceeding in intensity at the boundary of the property the
average intensity of noise of street traffic at that point and provided that such
use does not create fire hazards on surrounding property.
1. Any use permitted in any of the "O" Office, "R" Retail, and "C'
Commercial Districts.
2. Apparel and other products assembled fi'om finished textiles.
3. Bottling works.
4. Carting, express, hauling or storage yard.
5. Contractor's yard.
6. Cosmetic manufacturer.
7. Drugs and pharmaceutical products manufacturing.
8. Electronic products manufacturing.
9. Fur goods manufacture, but not including tanning or dyeing.
10. Glass products from previously manufactured glass.
11. Household appliance products assembly and manufacture from
prefabricated parts.
12. Industrial and manufacturing plants including the processing or
assembling of parts for production of finished equipment where the
process of manufacturing or treatment of materials is such that only a
nominal amount of dust, odor, gas, smoke or noise is emitted and not
more than twenty (20%) per cent of the lot or tract is used for the
open storage of products, materials, or equipment.
,-. · Revised May 1993, Ord. 91-500-A29 63 AGG03F6E
26-2
26-3
13.
Musical instruments assembly and manufacture.
Plastic products manufacture, but not including the processing of raw
materials.
15. Sporting and athletic equipment manufacture.
16. Testing and research laboratories.
17. Housing prefabrication.
18.
General warehousing activities (including convenience storage or "mini
warehouse").
19. .Veterinarian clinic (outside kennels).
20. Any uses permitted by Special Use Permit, Section 30-12.
Height Re_malations: Office or industrial use - None except limited to thirty-
five (35)feet on any portion of the site within one hundred fifty (150) feet of
property zoned or used for A, SF-ED, SF-18, SF-12, SF-9, SF-7, SF-0, 2F-9,
TH-1, TH-1, MF-1 or MF-2.
Area Regulations:
1. Minimum Size of Yards:
(A)
Front Yard: Thirty (30) feet with no front yard parking. If
front yard parking is utilized then sixty (60) feet front yard
setback shall be observed.
(s)
Side Yard: Ten (10) feet unless adjacent to property in
residential district; then a minimum of fifty (50) feet shall be
observed.
(c)
Rear Yards: Ten (10) feet unless adjacent to property in a
residential district; then a minimum of fifty (50) feet shall be
observed.
(D)
For structures requiring railroad access, setback requirements
from the center line of the Railroad Right-of-way shall be in
accordance with applicable state laws.
Revised May 1993, Ord. 91-500-A29
AGG03F6E
.26-4
2. Minimum Size of Lot:
(A) Lot Area: Five thousand (5,000) square feet.
(B) Lot Width: Fifty (50) feet.
(C) Lot Depth: None.
Lot Coverage: In no case shall more than fifty (50) per cent of the lot
area be covered by the main building and accessory buildings. An
additional ten (10%) per cent coverage is allowed for parking
structures.
Floor Area Ratio: Maximum F.A.R. 2.0 to 1. (See Appendix Illus-
tration No. 15)
Parking regulations: Required off-street parking shall be
accordance with the special uses set forth in Section 31.
provided in
All parking shall be located at least 30 feet behind the from property line and
5 feet from the rear property line. Parking may be allowed 15 feet behind the
front property line provided that a landscape plan has been submitted and
approved by the Planning Commission that dearly indicates the parking from
setback reduction. (Ord. 91-500-A29)*
26-5
Type of Construction: Exterior wall construction in districts permitting non-
residential uses shah be of such material that is required to conform with the
City of Coppell Building Code for the particular non-residential use or
occupancy involved. All structures shall be eighty percent (80%) masonry
exterior exclusive of doors and windows. Glass may be counted in place of
masonry. (Ord. 91-500-A29)*
26-6
26-7
Landscape Requirements: Landscape areas shall be provided according to
Section 34.
Areas used for open storage shall be screened according to Section 33-1, 5.
Open storage areas shall be confined to the rear 2/3 (two thirds) of the lot.
· Revised May 1993, Offi. 91-500-A29 65 AOC~3F6E
ABBREVIATIONS AND OTHER APPRAISAL TERlmNOLO GY
AC = acre (43,560 SF) PCF =- per cubic feet
SF = square feet RR = railroad
FF = front feet /AC = per acre
LF = linear feet YR = per year
CF = cubic feet GI = gross income
ROW = right of way NIBR = net imx, ne befc,~
PSF = per square foot recapture
PLF = per linear foot GIM = gross income
NRA = net rentable area multiplier
PFF -- per front foot GLA = gross ]ramble area
DCR = debt coverage ratio NOI = Net operating
income
SH = State Highway St = Street
FM = Farm to Market Road Ln = Lane
US = United States Hwy Ave = Avenue
IH = Interstate Highway Blvd = Boulevard
Frwy -- Freeway Cir = Circle
Expwy = Expressway Ct = Court
N = North Dr = Drive
E. = East Pkwy = Parkway
S = South PI = Place
W = West Rd = Road
C = Comer No. = Nunxber
/S = Side Hwy = Highway
3. Appr-i-,d Vakmfion Term~.
Assessed Value: In ad valorera taxation, the value of a property according to the tax rolls.
E~-lmnge Value: The value, in terms of money, of real estate in a typical market.
Going concern Value.. The value created by a proven property operation; considered a separate
entity to be valued in an established business.
Investment Vah~. The value of an investment to a partic-dAr investor, based on his or her
investment requirements; as distinguished from market value, which is impersonal and detached.
Net Present Value: The difference, if any, between the present value of expected benefits, or
positive cash flows, and the present value of capital outlays, or negative cash flows.
Net Re-li,~hle Value. Market Value less the cost of disposition.
Retal Lot Sales: The sale of lots to ultimate owners on a volume basis; as distinguished from the
sale of individual lost to an intermediate owner, e.g., a merchant builder.
Sale Price: The amount of a partic,,lsr purchaser agrees to pay and a partic,,lar seller agrees to
accept under the circumstances surrounding their transaction.
Value in Use: The value of a partic~l_-~' propert~ for a specirxc use.
Value in Place. The mount s prudent purchaser would pay for an item, e.g., equipment or fixtures
in place; determined by the use it contributes to the whole.
4. OUaer App~--~ Ter~e~.
Grantee: A person to whom property is transferred by deed or to whom property rights are 8ranted
by a trust instrument or other document.
Gran~. a person who transfers property by deed or grants property rights through a trust
instnnnent or other docmnent.
Ground Lease: A lease that 8rants the right to use and occupy land.
Leased Fee Estate: An ownership interest held by a landlord with the right of use and occupancy
conveyed by lease to others; usually consists of the right to receive rent and the right to
repossession at the termination of the lease.
1 ~.~hoid Estafe: The right to use and occupy real estate for a stated term and under certain
conditions conveyed by a lease.
Lessee: One who has the right to use or occupy a property under a lease agreement; a tenant.
Lessor. One who hold property title and conveys the right to use and occupy the property under
a lease agreement; a landlord.
Partial Interest: Divided or undivided rights in real estate that are less than whole.
Valuatioa/E~J-stio-: Related subjects means those consisting primarily of direct application of
appraisal theory and technique in the appraisal process, methodology and theory application in
solving appraisal problems, and obvious in-depth non basis, backbone appraisal applications.
C. S. MU~ J.~NAX, MAI
QU~,Ln~ICATIONS
EDUCATION
B.BA Degree, MidWestern University, 1964
Southern Methodist University, Post Graduate Courses;
Real Estate Fundamentals, Appraisal I and Commercial Construction
Appraisal Institute Courses I, II, VI and VII
Valuation of a Going Concern (1981), Standards of Professional Practice (1982) Litigation (1982), Valuation
of Historic Properties (1964), Subdivision Analysis (1985), Blue Prints & Commercial Construction (1986), Real
Estate Trends (1986), FHLBB R41C (1987), Market Analysis (1987)
Federal Income Tax & Real Estate (1988),Case Studies (1988)
SPP Update (1989)
Reviewing Appraisals (1990)
Standards - (1990); The Appraiser's Legal Liabilities (1992); Condemnation (1992); ADA (1992)
Litigation (1992),Appraisers Liability (1992),Rates, Ratios, Reasonableness (1992)
Fair Lending (1994), ASB Departure/Ijmlted Reports (1994), Effects of EMF's and Power Lines on P~E.
(1994)
Certified through September, 1997-AIREA Continuing Education Program.
Texas State Certified - General Real Estate Appraiser (thru 6/30/95): Certificate No. 1321048-G
North Carolina State Certified- General (thru 6/30/94):Certificate No. A3331
EXPERIENCE
Commercial Loan Officer and Appraiser for Southern Trust and Mortgage Company
Vice President/Real Estate Development, First Texas Financial Corporation
Real Estate Analyst and Commercial Appraiser, B. F. Saul Real Estate Investment Trust
Commerci~l Loan Officer and Appraiser, Southwestern Life Insurance Company
Review Appraiser and Loan Analyst, National Life Insurance Co., Montpelier, Vemont
Part-time Instructor: North Texas State (Appraisal of Real Estate)
Richland Junior College (Residential Appraising)
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Appraisal Institute
North Texas Chapter of AIREA (Director)
Regional Panel Member AIEEA Professional Standards Committee
EXPERIENCE
Includes wide diversity from single-fAmily appraisals to condominiums, high-rise offices, hotels and foreign
time-sharing condominiums
CURRENT STATUS
Owner and President of APPRAISAL, BROKF, RAGE& CONSULTING CO., INC. (Founded July 1976)