Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Appraisal 2013 Burrell
a"RRE�I I�Eil L'ST47E APPRAISERS/IAD CONSUL1742VT9 • 11 d Y 'I'is AN UPDATE APPRAISAL REPORT ESTIMATING THE MARKET VALUE OF AN IMPROVED RESTAURANT FACILITY (d/b/a SHAPIRO'S) Property Address: 918 S. RANGELINE ROAD CARMEL, IN 46032 Property Owner: BJS, LLC & CITY OF CARMEL Effective Valuation Date: MAY 20, 2013 Date of the Report: JUNE 14, 2013 Prepared for: MR. LES OLDS, AIA CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 30 W. MAIN STREET, SUITE 220 CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 Prepared by: BURRELL APPRAISAL SERVICE, INC. 9550 WHITLEY DRIVE, SUITE D INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46240-1352 n.• BURRELL APPRAISAL SERVICE, INC. t 9550 WHITLEY DRIVE, SUITED•INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 16240-1352 (317)574-9843•F:AX(317)57E0559 June 14, 2013 Les Olds, AIA Carmel Redevelopment Commission 30 W. Main Street, Suite 220 Carmel, IN 46032 RE: Update Appraisal—Shapiro's Delicatessen Cafeteria 918 S. Rangeline Road, Carmel,IN 46032 Dear Les: At your request, I have re-inspected the above referenced property to provide you with my opinion of the current market value of the fee simple interest in said property. As you know, my firm appraised the subject real estate on March 16, 2010. The property was re-inspected on May 20,2013, which will also serve as the effective valuation date of this analysis. To avoid duplication,this update appraisal incorporates by reference specified information/analysis from the last appraisal presented in a Summary report format. Therefore, this new report is based upon the extraordinary assumption that the intended users(client)have a copy of the mentioned last appraisal report because it may not be properly understood without it. It is my intention that the attached update appraisal together with the last appraisal are in compliance with the reporting requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice(USPAP) as well as the Supplemental Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute. Based upon my review of the previous appraisal,the more recent inspection of the property,as well as analysis of data available and past experience in real estate valuation, it is my opinion that the current market value of the subject property is fairly represented in the amount of: TWO MILLION THREE.HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,300,000) The value estimate presented within this letter of transmittal is subject to the "Standard and Extraordinary Assumptions and Limiting Conditions"and the"Extraordinary Assumptions and/or Hypothetical Conditions" included herein. This update appraisal report was prepared for your use as our client for assistance in valuing the subject property for internal asset evaluation purposes. • Les Olds,AIA June 14,2013 Re: Update Appraisal—918 S. Rangeline Road,Carmel,IN Page iii Your attention is invited to the following,attached update appraisal report, which, in part,forms the basis of my final value conclusion. Should you have any questions regarding this analysis, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience. Thank you for engaging my firm for this assignment. Respectfully suhmitted I I J\J Reily A.Burrell II,MAI, SRA, SR/WA Indiana Certified General Appraiser License No. CG69100433 TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page Letter of Transmittal ii Table of Contents iii Appraiser's Certification 1 Standard Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 2 Extraordinary Assumptions and/or Hypothetical Conditions 4 Summary of Important Facts and Conclusions 5 Factors Considered in the Update Appraisal 6 Floor Plan 11 Aerial/Plat Map 12 Subject Photographs 13 Highest and Best Use 19 Sales Comparison Approach 19 Income Approach 25 Reconciliation and Final Opinion of Value 34 Estimated Exposure Time 35 Addenda: A: Assessor's Property Record Card B: Comparable Market Data Map C: Appraiser's Qualifications Includes brief description of Market Area and Subject Property Data APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION I certify that,to the best of my knowledge and belief: • The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. • The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. • I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal with respect to the parties involved. • I have performed no services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment. I-Iowever, I appraised the subject property of this report as of March 16,2010. • I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. • My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. • My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. • My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, and the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. • Reily A. Burrell II,MAI, SRA, SR/WA made a personal inspection of the subject property. • No one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the person signing this report • I certify that the use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. • As of the date of this report, Reily A. Burrell H, MM, SRA, SR/WA has completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute and the International Right-of-Way Association. It is my opinion that the market value of the subject property, an improved restaurant facility located at 918 S. Rangeline Road, Cannel, IN 46032, as of May 20,2013 is fairly represented in the amount of: TWO MILLION THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,300,000) SIGNATURE: }3unt,11 Appraisal Service, Inc. DATE: June 14,2013 Reily A. Burrell II, MAI, SRA, SR/WA Indiana Certified General Appraiser License No. CG69100433 1 STANDARD ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS The estimates of value contained herein are based upon and subject to the following standard appraisal assumptions and limiting conditions, to which the addressee shall be deemed to consent by acceptance hereof: 1. No responsibility is assumed for legal description or for matters including legal or title considerations. Title to the property is assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise stated. • 2. The property is appraised free and clear of any or all liens or encumbrances unless othenvise stated. 3. Responsible ownership and competent property management are assumed. 4. The information furnished by others is believed to be reliable. However, no warranty is given for its accuracy. 5. All engineering is assumed to be correct. Any illustrative material in this report is included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property. 6. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for arranging for engineering studies that may be required to discover them. 7. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws unless noncompliance is stated, defined, and considered in the appraisal report. 8. It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless nonconformity has been stated, defined, and considered in the appraisal report. 9. It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national government or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate contained in this report is based. 10. It is assumed that the utilization of the land and improvements is within the boundaries or property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted in the report. 11. All maps, titles and area data furnished by the appraiser or obtained from various city and county departments are assumed to be correct. 12. This appraisal is made subject to a legal description which describes the parcel or parcels mentioned in this report. 13. The distribution, if any, of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements applies only under the stated program of utilization. The separate allocations for land and buildings must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. 2 14. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any persons other than the party to whom it is addressed without the written consent of the appraiser, and in any event only with proper written qualification and only in its entirety. 15. The appraisers herein by reason of this appraisal are not required to give further consultation, testimony, or be in attendance in court with reference to the property in questions unless arrangements have been previously made. 16. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraisers, or the firm with which the appraises are connected) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media without the prior written consent and approval of the appraisers. 17. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous substances, including without limitation asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, petroleum leakage, or agricultural chemicals, or other environmental conditions which may or may not be present within this property, were not represented by ownership. The appraisers are not qualified to evaluate or test for hazardous environmental substances or conditions. If any environmental hazards or conditions are present, they may certainly impact the value of the property, since the values estimated are predicated on the assumption that there are no such conditions or those present remain unspecified as to their extent and remediation cost. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, nor for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. 18. It is assumed that there are no encroachments or easements that would have a negative impact upon the functional utility of the subject parcel. 3 EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS This report and the value conclusions presented herein are also contingent upon and subject to the following special contingencies: 1. To avoid duplication, this update appraisal report incorporates by reference specified information/analysis from the last appraisal presented in a Summary report format, as of March 16, 2010. Therefore, this updated report is based upon the extraordinary assumption that the intended users (client) have a copy of the mentioned last appraisal report because it may not be properly understood without it. 2. A set of building plans, including a site plan prepared by Civil Designs, P.C. and building plans prepared by Rowland Design, Inc. and McComas Engineering; was furnished by the client. In addition, Right-of-Way Exhibits "A" (Legal Description) and "B" (Parcel Sketch) prepared by Donald R. Mosson of Central States Consulting, LLC were also furnished to the appraiser. This together with information found in the legal description, aerial/plat map, Assessor's property record card, and other public documents was reviewed. The subject's site and building dimensions were measured and/or verified by the appraiser based on a physical inspection of the subject property on March 16, 2010. Copies of these documents are reproduced as exhibits within this report, or are retained in the appraiser's file. Any discrepancies revealed by any subsequent survey or engineering study may result in a corresponding change in value, and the appraised value developed in this report is conditioned on there being no major discrepancies. 3. An environmental study verifying that the subject property does not contain any hazardous chemicals and/or materials was not provided to the appraiser. The appraiser is not an environmental expert, and expresses no special knowledge of any environmental matters relating to this property. This report is conditioned on the extraordinary assumptions that the subject site and improvements do not contain any hazardous chemicals and or materials, or if any materials/chemicals are present, they do not pose problems to the existing or future owners, as well as users of the property according to all current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. If additional information regarding such matters is desired, it is recommended that the client request an environmental assessment from a qualified professional environmental consultant. 4. Restaurants are unique properties with specialized equipment and/or trade fixtures. Certain equipment and/or trade fixtures are considered to be an integral part of this type of facility. Many times due to the size and installation of certain equipment and/or trade fixtures, they are not typically removed when this type of property is sold or leased. For the purpose of this report, these items would include the walk-in coolers and freezer, stainless steel sinks and counters, dishwasher equipment, hood ventilation/fire suppression systems, water purification and heating system, etc. It is assumed that these items have been properly installed and are in good working order. This appraisal does not include freestanding appliances, stoves, refrigerators, freezers, ice machines, display cabinets, shelving, counters, racks, furniture, lockers or other personal property or intangible items. 4 SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS Type Property: Improved Restaurant Facility(Shapiro's) Address: 918 S.Rangeline Road,Carmel, IN 46032 Legal Description: Part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 18 North, Range 3 East in Clay Township,Hamilton County, Indiana. Ownership: BJS,LLC 98.6957%& City of Carmel 1.3043% Interest Appraised: Fee Simple Estate Land Area: 0.757±Acre Gross Building Area: 9,260 S.F., plus mezzanine Effective Valuation Date: May 20,2013 Date of Report: June 14, 2013 Zoning: C-1, City Center District Flood Zone: According to FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Map #18057CO209F, dated February 19, 2003, the subject's larger parcel is in Zone X, which is not a designated special flood hazard area. Highest&Best Use: As Vacant: Commercial Retail Oriented Use As Improved: Existing Improvements Estimated Exposure Time: One year or less SUMMARY OF VALUE CONCLUSIONS Cost Approach: N/A Sales Comparison Approach: $2,315,000 Income Approach: $2,245,000 Final Opinion of"As Is"Market Value: $2,300,000 5 FACTORS CONSIDERED IN THE UPDATE APPRAISAL The "Scope of Work," "Purpose and Intended Use of the Appraisal" and definitions of"Property Rights Appraised" and "Market Value" remain unchanged from the original appraisal report. The subject property was re-inspected on May 20, 2013 at which time notes and photographs were taken. In addition, information pertaining to the subject's market area and surrounding development trends was also collected and/or reaffirmed at that time. The"Ownership and Sales History of the Appraised Property" has changed from the original report. On or about June 9, 2010, the ownership changed from BJS, LLC to BJS, LLC 98.6957% and the City of Carmel Redevelopment Commission 1.3043%. The tens of this transfer are unknown. The subject property is within Cannel's City Center, which is a public/private partnership to redevelop some 88 acres essentially creating a new downtown that is located between Rangeline Road and 3"l Avenue South West. It is immediately north of the Cannel Civic Square, a Georgian-Colonial style office complex located adjacent to Cradle Drive. It includes the city's government building, afire station and a police headquarters building, is centered around a large fountain and gazebo just east of the Monon Trail. Much of this land north of the Civic Square up to City Center Drive has been developed and this redevelopment is expected to continue north and eventually connect with the Arts and Design District in Old Town Carmel. This would include revitalizing parts of the Monon Trail, adding green space and cleaning up many of the older or abandoned buildings in between. The City Center, the focal point of this area, is located in the southwest corner of Rangeline and City Center Drive. It includes retail establishments, including restaurants, office suites, a 102 room Boutique Hotel, residential condominiums and apartments and a community center with a museum. The Center for the Performing Arts includes "The Palladium," a 1,600-seat concert hall located just west of the City Center. South and across the Green from the Palladium is the 500-seat proscenium theater named"The Tarkington." This facility is used for drama,musicals, dance, lectures and a variety of presentations. The"Studio Theater" is located in the same building. A new development called the"Metz"was recently started just south of this property. It will consist of two buildings, one facing the Monon and one on 3"d Avenue with access to an existing parking garage. Other developments have occurred in the vicinity of City Center Drive and 3`d Avenue SW. The Cannel Schwinn Cycling and Fitness facility is located in the northeast corner of this intersection. There is a new two-story brick office building in the northwest corner and the Pedcor Square Carmel City Center featuring several office buildings in the southwest corner. Just south of this facility is Veteran's Plaza and Kosenc's Cannel City Center with several buildings housing condominiums and town homes. Just to the west of this area on the south side of City Center Drive is the AMLI Carmel Center Apartment Homes development. New townhouses have also been constructed along the north side of City Center Drive in this area. Several projects have recently been completed or are currently under construction in the "Arts and Design District." There are several fairly new developments that include retail space on the street level with apartments on the upper levels. A similar development in the southeast corer of Rangeline Road and Main Street,Old Town Shops, was completed a couple of years ago. This three-story, 49,000+ SF structure houses The Magdalena Gallery of Art and the Art & Soul Gallery. Along the north side of Main Street,just east of l" Avenue Northwest is The Lurie Building. It houses the Evan Lurie Fine Art Gallery on the lower level with luxury town homes on the upper levels. Just south of this main intersection, in the southwest corner of Rangeline Road and 1' Street Southwest, yet another development, the Indiana Design Center, recently opened. This 82,000+square foot building has retail showrooms and studio suites. Another development in the area is Monon & Main, a town home development at the west end of the district along the north side of Main Street and just west of the Monon Trail. Finally, the city block between 1"Avenue Northwest and the Monon Trail along the north side of Main Street was purchased by the Carmel Redevelopment Commission and recently developed with Sophia Square featuring retail on the ground level and luxury apartments above. 6 These completed and ongoing projects in Cannel's City Center and the Arts and Design District have temporarily created an oversupply of retail, office and residential space that will eventually be absorbed eliminating the observed high vacancy rates in and around subject's immediate area. • In conclusion, the future outlook for properties in the City of Cannel appears to be very good. The highway access serving this area is very good, population growth is upward and employment opportunities look favorable. Police and fire protection, and other community amenities such as religious, educational, health care, shopping, recreational facilities, etc. serving the area are considered to be excellent. The future trend appears to be one of continued prosperity. • PROPERTY DATA Land Description: - The subject's larger parcel is an irregular-shaped site located in the northwest corner of S. Rangeline Road and Civic Square Drive. The west property line fronts along Veteran's Way. As described, right- of-way containing 0.043± acre was acquired from the subject's Rangeline Road frontage. The east property line essentially follows the foot print of the east elevation of the subject's building. Effectively, the site has 152.32 feet of frontage on Rangeline Road, 304.39 feet fronting on Civic Square Drive and contains 0.757± acre. The topography is nearly level and below the adjoining road grade. The surface drainage is unknown, although appears to be adequate. According to FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Map #18057CO209F, dated February 19, 2003, the subject's larger parcel is in Zone X, which is not a designated special flood hazard area. All utilities, including municipal water, sanitary sewer, storm sewers, natural gas, electricity and telephone, are reported to be available at this location. Description of Improvements • Type Structure: One-story masonry and frame restaurant building with mezzanine. Foundation/Floor: Poured concrete wall and column footings with steel rebar. Concrete slab floor with wire woven mesh reinforcement over compacted granular fill. Skeletal Frame/ Exterior: Masonry block with structural steel column and I-beam support. Face brick veneer with limestone trim and painted cement board siding. Roof System: Manufactured wood trusses (60" deep and 2' O.C.) with 5/8" plywood decking, tapered insulation and a PVC membrane cover. Perimeter shed roof(8/12 pitch) and decorative dormers with cement board siding. Perimeter roof and dormers have two layers of 15# black felt and composition architectural shingles. Roof is equipped with aluminum gutters and downspouts. Windows: Fixed anodized aluminum Iiame windows with insul-glass panes. Exterior Doors: Heavy duty aluminum frame entry doors with 1/4" tempered glass. Remaining service doors are steel construction. Electrical: 1200 amp. main panel, 240 volt, 3-phase service with three 400 amp. circuit breaker distribution panels. Interior lighting is provided via recessed or mounted fluorescent and incandescent fixtures. 13VAC: Seven Lennox roof mounted heat and air-conditioning units. 8 Plumbing Equip.: There are three common area restrooms on the main level. The women's restroom has three stalls and two sinks. The men's restroom has two urinals and two stalls. These restrooms all have porcelain fixtures and include one privacy stall that is accessible to the physical challenged. There is also a unisex "family" restroom with a sink and stool and a baby changing station. The private and administrative office area on the mezzanine level has a private restroom with stool and sink. In addition, there is a two piece restroom (sink & stool) adjacent to the locker room on the mezzanine level. The kitchen and various food prep and service areas have several sinks, most of which are stainless steel. There is a "water room" on the mezzanine level with a Bryant gas water heater with a large storage tank and a reverse osmosis water purification system. The subject's entire building is equipped with a wet sprinkler system. Interior Layout & Finish: The interior partitioning on the subject's main level consists of either painted masonry block walls or 3 5/8" metal studs with finished gypsum board walls that are either painted or have vinyl wall coverings. The ceilings are typically 2' x 2' acoustic tiles suspended in a metal grid with recessed florescent and incandescent lighting. The floor coverings typically vary from composition vinyl tile with vinyl base in the storeroom, restrooms, locker room and Manager's office to ceramic tile in the cafeteria and dining room areas and Cory tile in the main kitchen area. The storeroom, cafeteria and dining room areas also feature stained and finished wood trim and molding throughout. The storeroom also includes built-in wood shelving and counters with granite tops and some of the walls have a brick or ceramic tile surface. The mezzanine is accessible via a steel stair case. There is a finished office area with painted and finished gypsum board walls, carpet floors with vinyl base and acoustic tile ceilings with recessed florescent lighting. Most of the mechanical and storage rooms have unfinished gypsum board walls and ceilings and exposed concrete floors. Equipment: There are a number of special equipment items and/or trade fixtures that are considered to be an integral part of the subject real estate. These items include walk-in coolers and freezer, stainless steel sinks/counters dishwasher equipment, hood ventilation/fire suppression and water purification systems. Freestanding appliances, stoves, refrigerators, freezers, ice machines, display cabinets, shelving, counters, racks, furniture, lockers or other personal property or intangible items are not included. Age and Condition: The subject's building was reportedly constructed during 2002. It appears to have evidenced a routine maintenance schedule and is in good condition. Gross Building Area: 9,260±S.F. (Plus 1,970±S.F. Mezzanine) 9 Land Improvements: Approximately 16,000 square feet of asphalt paving, concrete patio area, concrete curbing, walks, ramps, parking lot lighting, bollards, and various landscaping. Overall, the land improvements are also considered to be in good condition. Assessment and Taxes According to the Hamilton County Assessor's records,the subject's property is currently assessed as follows: Tax Parcel#: 16-09-36-00-00-001.001 True Tax Value: Land: $ 282,700 Improvements: $1,069,000 Total: $1,351,700 Based on the most recent data available,the subject's tax burden is computed as follows: • 2012 Tax Rate Payable 2013: 2.0251 per$100 of Assessed Value indicated Taxes, Payable 2013 $15,137 x.2.0251 = $30,653.94 Zoning C-I/City Center District 10 FLOOR PLAN (Reduced Copy) 22 000 e 0 E. 0 00 0 I r .a-s > gal-.fi ��f or ° VIOL o OC w_1 ml 5-A. 2 L0 I"OI 1 - - e m - O �6� 071 ! _- I I 0.L i ts � _ �yyyw°-.<4�1h 1 .xms _ d T� i °K' F-.9�/ °2Y �9-.f9 iL0-�6 i, ©. �- 9 — -��n o - a E OI�� O Q —� w 1 ill •- fl m• " - - —r�- . - - 1 -�-.m�>i rtes,i � .'h9s 1 .a.1 I ®VF IIOW i � 1 1. 1 01' i . s,t ct--, pI i I0RI rp© I -__--1— _ OW IA '1_i� _—_ OIV .-_—_ _ • .—i O is 0 0 •w1 ©1 s j °.�Q m 9 a . ,, N P� ®,11 1 E 1 • Ed x. e p O _ _ ■ i P d B I ty, 1 O O }— II O _ . •e-_- �i_,=tr�,I _ --_—_ _---_—_—i_� --- -- -- -__,y '-- _I ._ Ir.t ° • 0 r al • a - a O I , a tm l .721 ; le 2 S 9 A phpii,,©! ® 1 °rz.e ^s. ,f -.+G.' 9- ••— I e.9 '® e� 1 >• Z4• j fa 4I: pp II p4 C „ g It i 0 II i K1 w� I m _ o g6 !'°0 I o k1.9--s - to ■ �1 ��{ ■ • c aC rim i° � . o ° Y pO El 1® 1 b c H '= ¶I N. 6 oc h s6 I O .4. .m-•km-•'� :hL'.II f 40-.81 a (.0.,,..„,-.1,1' . ^ g Y L .m.9 g 6 °.I 2Q 11 U AERIAL/PLAT MAP T N 9 • f . . t• iSI i.f {{' _ , f 1 9 1 �y[yY, .� $ � 7 f? 1 t s . 1.:‘, , ,gar; f � � I ttSJ s n 7._ ` ; 'y 1. P.2.11 ._, 1 � _ 'i �y p ti:411 QTR q:',,,T adt:".. :.,paxf+T_ .-.. ry y. � �II � " � ? ` r( ' y„ �° Yh" ,' .. �� �e 4 ti�; �h � ; ? Nmi ` rq 12 SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS 4, 5® 'K p r ' / „ 1 _ St rr •,, k ♦ a„ w4 11'}'1`' Cr.. v Y`r , ; ,...... 117:1, i _ v yj try I `kr�'., y affM3 s. p ^.1 , *122,'° Y. yn.. :e .c. �I 4Y J„` i..a • 1• r .+ i�•!'t- . '4. r r 6 ,_ to r'-....+2 e',.'rt�e R v'' tr ;0:,:1-% r., - tits” , ,r c;'"z{^ry V i'z..r 1 - s4.`n .,f.. r�y{'.' Tx .C. i' •; id 7 e i ∎7 IL. 4,-°7 i2 ire rr1 �' _., View: Southwest toward the front elevation of subject's building • ral; t�! ':; ';;Wit! r d.P f i AI y �r r .44,•-: ,4 -4 uYJ✓r° .a. � ■ El �4 ,x ii M• pp f ' r, 41 .�L ,L.,,.. �* ,?x tt q%5 ?1.}} lig pq i111:. �. �. A"' A Y tl 4 ,":'y7" �"'r c + : 1 r rrp t f l l -.-1,� t 4-4, t r-'ev1 33 +7 tit 9 1 3iF,. Y — ' ' s, , • 1, l 1� ,siroa y F- , tc., 1. 7G ��cn rJ.b_._.., ''t'it'...':1'. =./end— r; i3' „' Z _ , d t .1 '• r if, c. g.c- y1 ; ��.9F t,:tfrYf. 4 - !e a ,t r , e.Iti. � . Lv.+n--.' ars 5.4.1..4; el.. r xA t-. a".—..rte y .� :"� �.-+. hJ �.f� __.. w°�Ael�. View: Southeast toward the rear elevation of subject's building 13 • GRAPHS SUBJECTwPHOTO . ,„,,.--- 4..:1 4:44;02e,44 :1,„ A-1-1.-e°-%, ,,,:, 4.4„ -v.---- ---- ' i; -,-.4.1 - -• -{ 4.6-',..,......-ft:--'. "41:Z '''''' '1,,?-/Aw<is:47Thit:-#1, -F,. ,T77 :f.T..- ., 1.:!'lLt.'•": , - .7.1.,„ ;:';'1.,.",Scs-----: • .0: .- - '''...4--3,4-: '41.-;•:...,t 4.9,- . , .:) .4Th -. ... -, *tt: re),,,y4.,'?"41: „ .: .."+. .4:43..it. **1- I.'11,423;.?:,,,i- 1,‘ ' ,'id• ., ,: •. ilitA.4. • 1 -, ' V•iit$,:-1/„..._," lc.it .--, " =" I,': '' - I Q -•-iitt::'!:' • 9,1'1 .,. : ,.',',... fl:'`k. 'C, z1/41/4,44r41,.. ift,-57 ' -- t*.■ *27-,. ' . ...,-.'d 7•1/4*-, r...ft: - l• ,j,:, ;; :--e, ' r..,,a*i„., • ! ..:y -1.• • .. . 3.47.7.: k-:- .. —.0p---7=7-----:s7---f-!-: V Attl-1:*....,' 1/4;,, -.- n-c-t4i144 trl ,R..".d -sciagirartiri:1-'• 7%.:4;11et-‘e..71:"' Itl s;iit.1. 41"."''''' ne* 47144■;;*2444ri:4" 11114i1(HIPI Vil 71/41,-k, : ly, :Zr*.* * :1/4.1/4.44,4,41 :7:eWit.`.*:44.44: 41,*,,.. 4 t e.:?Ig.ric.sroLike,c-.14:4L•-ter,.—, ?4:1'.,4,....347,?!414 4.1-,7 :,,, ;_ _ A 1 i 1 'ii;b '41! l'ir-4::±tristr7r. .k.ii,..,i,t,,:c;;cift-':- -4,4,A,;-: •J : )''.;,; .,-!.• i..rn.;-, iittA,..,-).4 4.14):W.P.--'; 18,-Jectirlt:14--Wir4,401.0 Ere, : -„ '.-. , .-',Artftt-,71"5:"r- i T4-044-:..7 -teso,:;,.4"4,..:•--; .-,,\:-. - ;... ..4 .. ..',V4;Zig/ itvW:'•?.?.:Ct-s-, kri;i:VP -4. 4 4 ' (1:7-,; is,,,,:t.,.3,31 ._. ,1:7;78„.,:,,i,,:-,,,zt. -4,.444ry:itiirAt,i 1 4,7;i!; 4itsit,,,sigit;; ;I:s;;;,csir .:::,:c:i•? ,:. ,,,,-;;•, .. m:-...1.ii 1 ,ii,,,,,, ., 7S c(h, ,Ht,v,,.4. ..tp -. "- ' '' --‘," '' - 1, li{:4.7:1?,;‘,' :***.'4.41i,',./. .-,,,..9C:1 'S'fir- ..'Zn-.1.4‘. -e=7.>,..-.C-,r4s4 . '',,441:7!,:I'4":-.-4,\t41/44'cp't 1.• ;‘,:;17. - 1,lttf-tvtly-tift. -3:-:-,:- ,•:::•.4)::.,-;-•:: ; ..:0,AP.,741%i,C.}-,.";: IC' 14-, ; :13.,;"..iii4tfIl's'el; .tri.:. t:_i. , ..„,..... .,...,_,?:, _?, .,... . „ ., . ._ „.., } ., f., , 4tr. 4.: ".'''...C.'.(4,.. - .a‘ -*-tz' k - -:'' v:ii-ccirp,,ni444,..44ie i,&:*ct re-' r' ....,-. v'qfl., .,'..•:,,'11,=1:4 ,..--- ez. •,;.7,,ali.,* - ' -- .._ , .r.,. - . View: Deli l.i.•t.1, Inti.7''.,.41/4cT,t,t-1/41.Th•.t,,,''' -,-..•*.; ,k.i-..&B,a ...,k ie'ke'vtl17r4•y:1Area a.m ''"yfirit:_ f.: 71 .r 'l42taf-C.1'l7..2_4/a 1,-;.',"--'t v' I4X?-•;‘...,t s',i-t fi',t,'...a-l'.,a-'„'Y t l'v ','i , "''...,••■••. . --x- ' ,Arl , .1:5.4tcryTV:.t.2 1/4, ."'... i •-1/4 „1/44-t •,1/4r....4 ,,.:, .,..,..-.424,--,,tc;.;—. -4 „4:,?---.4a ..- -1/4,.:4 4 -. -,44,- .4 . 4,_..,--- F:',1---V, , .11:1, ,,1751I.;;:y-4,t, -,,e; ■ , ; 1 ...C,,`,4 .;:*t‘.;54wil-4;42.1:„..-ar'-'`‘t— ::.".!! I>,4.-- gist 4--L ..- . ------7.-to.',.",-70-'411-rgt.trec, • „..."1/4.„7:,-?";:f tt7. 1,,el, i.1/4 I it., • . • .rs1/4,,, ,i;1/4.71/4;,_....-,i7„21/41/4;,;‘,1/41/4C7411/47-11/4:;? :CT:- ;-‘t-42,.....,--t-S ....,,,,...:_„..-;4•.V4...-1/4 --Nrq.:,,,-*"*.t,' !.14.• * * ...'Zii, l.' 'Ill” v.': 1/4....,k1 24.71,.:1;.:37-t,74.;',-*".41---r- t-1/411•414011311111ba.*::4"4 4 -4 f..!) •r;',1 .4<4 .f. • 14b? I Y1/4:. **: 1'.: ,t1i4 ).%1 ;,,,., .4.4..):. 1:41/4;h:0 .‘,4),* 1/4;7 , tt4:1/4'; II;m4- #22.s.*- . . 41.-4.1 ,44: :1:44te ,,; -7•..1- ,-‘,51,-- 4! 1/4; ' 4 4'2.* ila„F •;1/4 .,dif„triliKtL...a13,34 41/4fli li1/4'4.t-tsg-tc:T; 1 , D-15111 .-------"-'4'111't ''-4 14-&- .- •. Ai.s. h-*24$:7* . +A l',‘ - f.1 (..,),... iti ,. a,., t, P ,. , ii..,-.1..ik:3./.e...,.:4,.,..r, ,es. mit.r ,,,„;::: c,0,1,,, .., .:.,• iLii aito , • ; . w--;;:-4 tr,?'.,.7*, : :. ',. .•= ...,4n; nt4 t--. - -.7,1 r 9 ' 4 fl -iII .2 ., ri -L----- :i t A ,474?...::1,7,... 4 .1\-11:. ,.ii AtalL, )1] cltc„..,“1--rirc._. .ktel . . 1,..,-,:-:4*.- : .- • ,-i..H. 1..-.c-_.'.2..:a. -.i. -. •, ... $ .;.*.' f.:4;,..... , .. . rsi,.....,,t..-t... .--■ b . ....... .fl, ---..„ I ',,:k...-..•E-,*- e--;17 ,;;;;L:-.tr--r •413-, ' ,' ".......1- 1 -C..c.L• 4t. . . 1 c,.. . .„.... ,.........„......7.___.:-.H, rt. -,-,...cta."1- 7--,,,, I ' • .t ,..t.k:! .,e_o. 4"- ': .,) .' 7'.. -.,'•4,-;•,....,7-,t-,-.A.,1: ;...7----r—`;4;;-::: : ':.'f-••4 :, i, • . — 14 View: Cafeteria/Dining Arca SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS J['F \miagrsem- I-; .if��y}� ,�. 1 o 11.0.1141C- r ' e r ,, �-. .,. ft-4 al/ "\r . ,.win °`.`_' 0."i•L AS 1St `AL'. K tw r 'r s , `4n e",in �-�t',tom ^ n yak. x''`> �, t -i ^ _T ��S_ '��n` >4',Sr, • .'o.,,, H �.' i 1 S e I t ia:a- , tr1 ds 1%` ;41 +` Sdx�r> 1 s • IY i. e.:j �' 'u� .., `� c. k r`L 1 a { °� it r 1 �Wa'il t,la .^ 1ssk a( aHt 4 .,_ `� -,r, luJ�f X'3p, '�y� h iY .t" t C ; .. ii - : $ ` ;1.,.71)+,4;:.„,4*1 t-b' ' +, ? '411,;„' C ' 1 a1i � _s. a�o 3� ° I - +.n mt ..;71g,'n 56F"'gn � 1 ;�� t� .1-,yx t " `J.l p #. $ vN 4C` 0„fi �G.. ` ra wl + at r _ _ N i' b, ` F Yee e y-tiI S t ,_ ...,.u. t:n 9itY,: i+J `i n34.S.s`!.x=:a3:.v_E n".1 v: .a..:'! View: Cafeteria Serving Area sr - ,,r , , , t gy,�� 4. - a.9m'•$YS2^iaa °�` Ms fi �� r.t',ti�MX �f . j A � . b sG'- L1 X� i �'r 11E 10414.} l� 4_ F _YI I fHl µ SY J IY._.f� 'Tf d A .y 'Ire lir \I1 1 tjt T>1 t sny 1--IT i I 4 ", .�b te :' 1-1 _ xk I• 1r 1 i k' .1 .ta't, W .3 I 9;.� k� T 1 Q � m+^ `x`e+anero �y ,. t I '"{ 4, it&"-+rsl-�i e 7t7 t "l�ke, >! An I � s 3,1 !, }N:,; 1, rant. �-' 4 t�z t' s it �....'�`' see °a � " =,i.2-o View: Kitchen Area 15 SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS VAr �p3 i F CFAr xi•, r t maw. ,er . a4. �44.4 air /1 _ 72.1-.y{ 1•r i ! ;, 2 x u ri I "� '-'-I � . 'ir h �Gr " + f J r ' q{s...., y '' 7Ef,'v .yrr� ,. ®.r „ '"(aja r,} 9• ri 001:4?-7'.-� rat, " b:,«,r*Y: I. r,. r4�i` S rr,g 1 D iY �a }�{�i -ru�Ay.� pilrr n yshglf� .=* -l '*`LL,L gSE• S' ' x�`4 '� t „r Iwi " r e'te':».� td .te sly ' "*a a 'gi n`'`.`" 1 th ri � t "*;. ;:c. --9:1sc i .' i}kf a 7T i �fvva! h I �fy-.. 1i h' 4;1 Jos ,=.40.1. View: Dishwashing Area -_ F^ ' . ' N ry•3. 1= 1 y c itiVI ® 1 r — '11 r 11 ,, 'I E i' ff J d •" m ` � ipf t3' {� � i 8�}'.,_J.`pri� �'+ef P�"�;;��yy{..i ` � .• /4,- f w r 2 } y I 1; . 'Vale'.. h, m4 i4 . a r ' " s -:471:`,,3--,''y ' x :s Fl`4.ryN . u Al P' e.i dp `g =1 j { fl �nSy, :5 f �` V ' A p kyiki*),,s;;.., .1--e,..,4,,4 t r y I.- t r n View: Private Office on Upper Level 16 SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS ° .pp I 4 4< <7-.44. Ny 1t%I! 1 4ri'r®s # .: .4 7e t , i'J ' ( .- . t `� d r 7 - tI lr;•,..�p C.- ' Y I t-, J Ii; :ill 6_�' l.`+II I I '""i"� r `A ." 't}' ' '- j. 1'- ' ��! '� l 11,` � of ' *,1 „il iid 5,`' —1 1 Q 1 � g 1 c� f i#7;.-7•'''. r -J+ 7 a x a i 4 4 4iI S' l � 1 .:i: , xt,, 4 I . ( , �'j4: 4 Yom', t w ib (! P,.g`ic jJ „. I ,.I• `N w ASK'P�i 1.S.a 4f. 4.�� �r 'yf 1It NUR 8 �I k. n'',4kt{q•k 'Th 1 hp� t .444,40, ,.., F' ,y. I $1Nj M,� ,vyS; M, ..,`: { 1k>,,41"$'$ _1 1' t 4 t:a ll e i LI: h t 1 YpC �'•i4rt 41,"!4' a y�' 71 'nrx,rt4Hc w'R . 9 ist ' mil L� ; View: Employee Lockers &Restroom on Upper Level - "--.; iacr-5.– -,-t,i-xit. A..;-, --0401.--1-It'.'f:–.--.:: Y 4� ST 61 i' ..^N"�' !}Hx(G * Z I k :r4 1 t .rI' �,, f E "? r PO Rf!AN j M a.i -. Y•:q.fi k. 4. r �0VH f1 `"%ci, (: 4 • e Y• 4. i 4 ,V=1\ii (� ' p R k ■ g ., ' _,_,1iI u t• �� t 6 w „ -- - r Y�. J,.. 1 , q'. q ® �� @ i :tl i, 5. y s . t a= ® r t _ RB 4 ,4 s a4a. ..." toy', 1 • I T..1 t i {Ldi. 71 yI t 4 c _ �5s + :1,t- " y ?1 .rt-+ n ._� '" lit®�t� i 1y , p4"' eta 1 ��X. �ti x k'ued J i' < ° s e-. s'�� . it tl' to"....,$,-,,k w s a 7 Xyno] ids' u•,,,,,e ' 0 i lo,., 1• 1°,r�^ m g .k q' `e:y ...w % = .a`.a'S»- tn7 i�'? \9� 8r� t_;i F f;�+ 14 1 r'- , View: Storage Room on Upper Level 17 PART III -- DATA ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS Highest and Best Use - As though Vacant As concluded in the original appraisal of the subject property, the optimum use of the subject's land is for a retail oriented commercial use. Highest and Best Use— "As Improved" As demonstrated in the following sales comparison and income approaches to value, the subject's existing improvements have significant contributory value over and above the value of the land. The subject's building is effectively a somewhat newer structure and has a functional layout for the continued use as a restaurant facility. After considering all those uses that are physically possible, legally permissible, financially feasible, and maximally productive, it is concluded that the highest and best use of the subject property "as improved" would be to continue utilizing the existing improvements as a restaurant facility. COST APPROACH The cost approach is a set of procedures through which a value indication is derived for the fee simple interest in a property by estimating the current cost to construct a reproduction of, or replacement for, the existing improvements plus any profit or incentive; deducting depreciation from the total cost; and adding the estimated land value. (The Appraisal of Real Estate, 12"'Edition,page 349). Due to the age of the subject improvements and the difficulty in estimating accrued depreciation, the cost approach to value is not considered to provide a truly meaningful value indication for the subject property and is not developed. Estimated Value via Cost Approach N/A SALES COMPARISON APPROACH The sales comparison approach is predicated on the principle of substitution, which implies that the value of a property tends to be set by the price that would be paid to acquire a substitute property of similar utility and desirability within a reasonable amount of time(i.e., the market value of a property is directly related to the prices of comparable, competitive properties). The physical comparability between two properties involves adjusting each sale or comparable property with respect to differences in property rights conveyed, financing terms, conditions of sale, market conditions (time), location, physical characteristics (size, construction quality, condition, etc.), economic characteristics (operating expenses, lease provisions, management, tenant mix), use (zoning) and non-realty components of value. In order to estimate the market value of the subject property via this approach, the market was thoroughly searched in an attempt to find the best available information on sales of properties, which are considered to reasonably resemble the subject property. The reader's attention is now invited to the following improved sales utilized in this comparison followed by an adjustment grid, explanation of adjustments and value conclusion. 19 IMPROVED SALE #1 Cr4 r — t® 1 . 'r, c 1, Y ll Apv 1. t^ yM1 2 e'er t,3 S4. tr: a x ^*,.a.zit' :. �4 1 r p g'tf{ lG 7t" e ..nI'SCgC2.'ffiE .t,y+,1�'t. s •-4 ,' t u 7 3 ;`t'•rrY r �P ," 4` .�: war .0 - • y I,. "i, PAC Location: 3815 East 96th Street, Indianapolis, IN 46240 Date of Sale: August 1, 2010 Sales Price: $1,600,000 Financing: Cash Equivalent Agreement Land Size: 1.455±Acres (Land-to-Building Ratio: 7.92:1.00) Improvements: One-story frame constructed restaurant building with a concrete slab floor. The main structure has metal panel roofing and the gazebo additions have cedar shake roofs. It has a face brick veneer exterior with aluminum frame insul-glass windows and aluminum frame and tempered glass entry doors. It contains a gross building area of 3,000± S.F. The interior finish consists of painted gypsum board and wood panel walls and exposed wood and suspended acoustic tile ceilings. The floors are mostly ceramic tile and exposed concrete. The structure reportedly includes all the typical built-in restaurant equipment such as coolers, freezer, sinks, dishwasher, hood ventilation system, sprinkler, etc. The building was reportedly built in 2003 and the overall condition is considered to be above average. Land improvements include asphalt pavement, concrete walks and curbing, decking and good landscaping. Zoning: CS, Commercial Utilities: All municipal available Grantor: GMRI, Inc. Grantee: Cooper's Hawk Indianapolis, LLC Unit Price: $200.00 per SF GBA Additional Information: This sale property is the former Bahama Breeze restaurant facility located on an outlot parcel in the Precedent Business Park, which is between 1-465 and East 96th Street just east of Keystone Avenue. The buyers completely remodeled the building structure and it is currently occupied by Cooper's Hawk Winery & Restaurant. 20 IMPROVED SALE #2•i. . ' ut ata �,y. t av s4 �C .7'3.h"r#'a� elrl vni ' 4 is "1 "' +. +s t .,. . + v� 'llia ary-" 'B+ea'tTM93 .z. .+ t v f . . ^•:v u ciao e e 1 : 0 i IJlL,;:c 'r tlil is Y . iy . :`` v CO 4t ,liL q y S .i K '" v,7' .,'0 )43 ,m r ^fir ,,� 1 ,i 1nr 2 t..,.:it, ''ii rw.. '.'t1 � Ck a '4.5;.1?.:a .1::1, •U ?,� ,.i in!Ylk^L'•11,11 '4"'1:. ..y+AV;,,,t,}_ l ,{ i tAir.'• ,11.W3i_4 , �4J' )"y Location: 4825 E. 82°1 Street, Indianapolis, IN 46250 Date of Sale: May 31,2011 Sales Price: $1,537,000 Financing: Cash Equivalent Land Size: 1.609± Acres (Land-to-Building Ratio: 9.59:1.00) Improvements: One-story masonry and frame constructed restaurant building with a flat built-up membrane roof on a concrete slab floor. It has a face brick veneer exterior with aluminum frame insul- glass windows and aluminum frame and tempered glass entry doors. Gross building area: 7,312± S.F. The interior has typical restaurant grade finish (ceramic tile, gypsum board walls and ceilings). The structure reportedly includes all the standard built-in restaurant equipment such as coolers, freezer, sinks, dishwasher, hood ventilation system, sprinkler, etc. The building was reportedly built in 1999 and the overall condition is considered to be above average. Land improvements include asphalt pavement, concrete walks and curbing and typical landscaping, Zoning: C-4, Commercial Utilities: All municipal available Grantor: CNL Net Lease Funding 2003,LLC Grantee: U-Gas Investments Logan's Roadhouse, LLC Unit Price: $210.20 per SF GBA Additional Information: This sale property is a Logan's Roadhouse restaurant facility located in the Clearwater Springs Shopping Center on the northeast side or Indianapolis. This is a diverse commercial area located between Castleton Square Regional Mall to the east and the Keystone at the Crossing Fashion Mall on the west. 21 IMPROVED SALE #3 r 1". 'v C t — .m.i ,„, a, }t4 �i� x I Y 4e:1'1 fn 2 �4Y{. j rI= '. • y l.! a', ,may ..,y Sr MY , � p n .p j xt Location: 886 S. State Road 135, Greenwood, IN 46142 Date of Sale: October 12, 2011 Sales Price: $1,698,675 Financing: Cash Equivalent Land Size: 1.40±Acres (Land-to-Building Ratio: 11.36:1.00) Improvements: One-story masonry and frame constructed restaurant building with a flat built-up membrane roof on a concrete slab floor. It has a face brick and stone veneer exterior with aluminum frame insul-glass windows and aluminum frame and tempered glass entry doors. Gross building area: 5,368± S.F. The interior has typical restaurant grade finish (ceramic tile, gypsum board walls and ceilings). The structure reportedly includes all the standard built-in restaurant equipment such as coolers, freezer, sinks, dishwasher, hood ventilation system, sprinkler, etc. The building was reportedly built in 2004 and the overall condition is considered to be good. Land improvements include asphalt pavement, concrete walks and curbing and typical landscaping. Zoning: Commercial Utilities: All municipal available Grantor: O'Charley's, Inc. Grantee: Store Master Funding I, LLC Unit Price: $316.44 per SF GBA Additional Information: This property is currently occupied with an O'Charley's Restaurant. It is an outlot to the Village Commons Shopping Center located on the west side of State Road 135 just south of Smith Valley Road. This is a diverse commercial district in Greenwood, Indiana. The shopping center has a Home Depot anchor and there is a Target across the street. 22 Sales Comparison Approach - Adjustment Grid Property i i Sabjeit Improved Sale#1. !Unproved Sale#2 _ Improvetl•Sale#3 Identification 'Shapiro's Deli Coopers Hawk i Logan's Steakhouse OCharlies Restaurant Location: 918 S.Rangeline Rd. 3815 E.96th Street 4825 E.82nd Street 886 S.SR 135 Carmel,IN 46032 Indianapolis,IN 46240 Indianapolis.IN 46250 Greenwood,IN 46142 Sale Price: NA $1,600,000 $1,537,000 $1,698,675 Property Rights Cony: NA Fee Simple 0% Fee Simple 0% Fee Simple • 0% Adjusted Sale Price: $1,600,000 $1,537,000 $1,698,675 Financing: NA Cash Equiv. 0% Cash Equiv. 0% Cash Equiv. 0% Adjusted Sale Price: $1,600,000 $1,537,000 $1,698,675 Condition of Sale: NA Arm's Length 0%Arm's Length 0%Arm's Length 0% Adjusted Sale Price: $1,600,000 $1,537,000 $1,698,675 Date of Sale: 05/20/13 08/01/10 0.0%05/31/11 0.0% 10/12/11 0.0% Adjusted Sale Price: Effectise Date) $1,600,000 $1,537,000 $1.698,675 Adjusted Price/SF: NA $200 $210 $316 Location: Carmel City Center Similar 0%Similar 0% Superior -10% Land-to-Building Ratio: 3.56:1.00 7.92:1.00 -5%9.59:1.00 -5% 11.36:1.00 -10% Construction/Quail : Mason Frame/Gd Inferior 10% Inferior 10% Interior 10% Functional Utility: 1 Sto ry/Average Inferior 10% Similar 0% Similar 0% Gross Building Area(SF): 9,260 8,000 0% 7.312 -5% 5,368 -10% Age/Condition: 2002/Good 2003/Aug-Gd 5% 1999/Avg-Gd 5% 2004/Good 0% Amenities: Mezzanine None 5% None 5% None 5% Site Improvements: Typical Similar 0% Similar 0% Similar 0% Net Adjustment: NA 25%I 10% -15% Adjusted Sale Price: i NA $2,000,000 $1,690,700 $1,443,874 Indicated Value/SF: $250 $231 $269 Explanation of Adjustments: The previous adjustment grid illustrates a detailed display of the comparisons and adjustments of the market data used in the valuation of the subject property on a sales price per square foot basis. Each comparable is adjusted for differences in comparison to the subject. An upward adjustment is made to a comparable if it is considered to be inferior to the subject property in a specific category, while a downward adjustment is made if the comparable is considered to be superior. An explanation of each adjustment category is presented as follows: Property Rights Conveyed: No adjustments for property rights are considered necessary as all the comparables represent the conveyance of the fee simple estate, Financing Terms: All three sales reportedly sold either for cash or subject to market financing with cash being paid to the grantor, and no adjustments are indicated for atypical financing. Conditions of Sale: All of the improved sales were reported to be "arm's length" fair market transfers and no adjustments are indicated for unusual motivation. Date of Sale: This line reflects appreciation or depreciation in the market. All of the improved sales sold between August 2010 and October 2011. Overall, commercial values have been relatively flat during the past 2 to 3 years and no adjustments are indicated for changing market conditions over time. • 23 Location: Improved Sale #1 is located on East 96ih Street and Improved Sale #2'is located on East 82thi Street. Both of these properties are located on the northeast side of Indianapolis and are considered to have a similar location as compared to the subject property and no adjustments are given. Improved Sale #3 is located on a major thoroughfare in a diverse commercial area that is judged to be a superior location compared to the subject and a minus adjustment is applied. Land-to-Building Ratio: All of the improved sales have a higher land-to-building ratio than the subject property and negative adjustments arc made accordingly. Construction/Quality: All of the improved sales have buildings that are lower construction quality compared to the subject's structure and positive adjustments are assigned. Functional Utility: All of the buildings were chosen because they are improved with a restaurant facility similar to the subject's building. Improved Sale#1 has a unique design relating to the island theme of its former use. It is expected that functionally this probably caused some market resistance and a positive adjustment is applied. Improved Sales #2 and #3 both include restaurants with a functional layout and no adjustments are indicated. Gross Building Area: Typically, adjustments for gross building area are based on the premise that larger buildings tend to sell for a lower unit value than buildings which are smaller, all other factors remaining constant. Improved Sale#1 has a similar size building compared to the subject property and no adjustment is assigned. Improved Sales #2 and #3 both have smaller buildings and received negative adjustments. Age/Condition: The subject's building was constructed in 2002 and is considered to be in good condition. Overall, Improved Sales #1 and#2 are improved with buildings that are judged to be effectively older than the subject's building and positive adjustments are indicated. Improved Sale#3 includes a building that was reportedly built in 2004 and appears to be in good condition similar to the subject and no adjustment is needed. Amenities: The subject's building includes a partially finished mezzanine that is superior as compared to the improved sales and plus adjustments are necessary. Site Improvements: Overall, all of the improved sales have site improvements that are typical for a restaurant and no adjustments are given. After adjustments, the improved sales reflect value range of $231 to $269 per square foot of gross building area. 13ased on these indications, the subject's market value is considered to be fairly represented at a unit value of$250.00 per square foot,which equates to a value of$2,315,000. ESTIMATED VALUE VIA SALES COMPARISON APPROACH $2,315,000 24 INCOME APPROACH The income approach to value reflects a relationship between a property's income producing potential and its market value. This supports the reasoning why this approach is primarily based upon the principle of anticipation because it involves capitalizing the anticipated future benefits (net income) derived from the ownership of a property into an indication of value. The principle of substitution also applies to this approach since no prudent investor will pay more for the right to receive a future income stream than an amount for which he can obtain the rights to a substitute future income stream having a similar quality, quantity, and durability. The method employed in this approach to value for the subject property is direct capitalization. This technique converts the subject's projected one-year stabilized net operating income into a value indication utilizing the capitalization process. With direct capitalization, the first step is to project the subject's potential gross income. This requires estimating the market rent of the subject property and applying it to the appropriate rentable building area. An allowance for vacancy and collection loss is then deducted to arrive at an estimate of effective gross income. The fixed and variable expenditures normally incurred for properties similar to the subject property are stabilized and deducted from the effective gross income to provide an estimated net operating income. The net income is then capitalized into an indication of value utilizing a capitalization rate commensurate with return requirements typically found to exist in the market for this type of investment property. Contract Rent: As indicated in the ownership history of this appraisal update, the subject property is currently 98.6957% owner occupied doing business as Shapiro's Delicatessen Cafeteria. The owner reportedly entered into a sublease agreement between BJS, II, LLC (sub landlord) and Shapiro's Cannel, Inc. (subtenant). This agreement is apparently between related parties and is not considered arm's length. In addition, the tenant and subtenant are reportedly in default and the right of termination is in process. Market Rent: The local market was thoroughly searched for current lease information regarding properties similar to or competing with the subject with respect to location, building utilization, size, construction quality, age and condition as well as other amenities. The following rent comparables are thought to provide a reasonable indication of the subject's potential market rent. • 25 RENT COMPARABLE #1 A , hAISPikticiskty L.I. N-rav LiiC i"ta �I a. ,lls/ ii, i + ag "4., 1'r� , k , ,p >. s'ttll ttt7* i ,e�Y,Q#�"k P11, I,:i Seamy ,C {tr. ti" iq � �". :lh91'"•IA ` ,� KI 141` d",` e , ,�+,� {i e•!°9hx ii.:3.� e (�rst3glb?{e 3 t r i T t' wit:- } < 3 y Mat y, +4 ,it ygy��,4: 1/2 k cipt .„ �Y,�* ., 5r1, R...;ff.,t r— ..o.GS .- + y qswf 'Nw*. d c I � s 2, • "-- a ,."y'.'}r.KF 2r. 2 .0 's� 7r'r p4 r - 9' 'e'�,i.r,t ;.•^1 S°F 1S "Y � d.*V. 4 Y` 44444_ °h Se , I �•. ., ^�: car t,,o �!-- , ., e .t 4-.-/ • Location: 12950 Publishers Drive,Fishers, IN 46038 Land Size: 1.94± Acres (Land-to-Building Ratio: 12.00:1.00) Description: One-story frame constructed restaurant building with a concrete slab floor and a standing seam metal roof. The exterior has frame siding and aluminum frame insul-glass windows and aluminum frame and tempered glass entry doors. It contains a gross building area of 7,043± S.F. The interior finish consists of painted gypsum board and wood panel walls and ceilings. The floors are mostly ceramic tile and exposed concrete. The structure reportedly includes all the typical built-in restaurant equipment such as coolers, freezer, sinks, dishwasher, hood ventilation system, sprinkler, etc. The building was originally constructed in 2001 and the overall condition is considered to be good. Land improvements include asphalt pavement, concrete walks and curbing, decking and average landscaping. Lease Terms: Triple Net, 5 Year Renewal Option, as.of June 2001 Lessor: Solid Ground,LLC Lessee: North Indy Host, LLC Annual Rent: $222,000 payable @ $18,500/mo. ($31.52/S.F.)+5% of sales?$4.44 million Additional Remarks: This property is located on the east side of the SR 37 corridor between 126"' and 131s` Streets. 26 RENT COMPARABLE #2 • � y ,�..' Yew,, ' • . i �r Grill n b at S rlktAdT97 i1 t i ti-:--r-� : Tf�'- r it t3. e- L;• r^t tt .. ta s s+g + .-ter ! g}„S ' . b1 :^ Ni. P knl uritc_r91 .Mr N�d'�i"Sie.);$'.< �k � �. p+ t � ^ ,y i�' SYw rye.er r 'icy X.4.1„,�°• *ift ?Nt i•t ,.y{ J+ skit 4-4,--%-3i- 0,-, ,,,.4.C -- .4. ,�5i^.f.. 4E fad I' i'`,Y, -eta i'�}�.l'e $ 4U[� /i. w� - r.T= 'HN . ';:trVk?...it E..ar.g 1!..w"1'fb011v._.F+k, L':"V ? n,:,. Z Location: 9111 N. Michigan Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268 Land Size: 1.74± Acres (Land-to-Building Ratio: 10.54:1.00) Description: One-story frame constructed restaurant building with a concrete slab floor and a standing scam metal roof. The exterior has frame siding and aluminum frame instil-glass windows and aluminum frame and tempered glass entry doors. It contains a gross building area of 7,1911 S.F. The interior finish consists of painted gypsum board and wood panel walls and ceilings. The floors are mostly ceramic tile and exposed concrete. The structure reportedly includes all the typical built-in restaurant equipment such as coolers, freezer, sinks, dishwasher, hood ventilation system, sprinkler, etc. The building was originally constructed in 2001 and the overall condition is considered to be good. Land improvements include asphalt pavement, concrete walks and curbing, decking and average landscaping. Lease Terms: Triple Net, 5 Year Renewal Option, as of June 2001 Lessor: Solid Ground, LLC Lessee: Pyramid Host, LLC Annual Rent: $232,800 payable @$19,400/mo. ($32.37/S.F.)+ 5%of sales>$4.656 million Additional Remarks: This property is located by the Pyramids on the east side of the U.S. 421 corridor and just south of I-465. 27 RENT COMPARABLE #3 • • fir , .c� t , t tt a' t�l •^t�l "'rr 'Y 4 (^�W �{ 1s° y. S { t.Ir i" ,'S"i p4r ,.•F'ty q.1. 4iitrr a,. rf' f,4/' •T.ate F ,;57A C� v p+ta r 9'1p frj';�ir9 ti '� ' ,S.rx f � r''p'���a+J. �ant?.-.! �i,{"� r<" ,���' "➢ }. ,.r, K�t 7f r r :::g4tl "h r"t ,YW� R1�f,.C'�4j�p{.�de��l�„y{ n y,{f,��.iN �.,.; �:,�^�N.a�i}',FYi�+i L�4M1 "`y 4d��.t+''�'i,��r:Q}' i?..i °�i iM52: -r et 4� .w>:g °. fit rt`:g7-i.V3.:v',7.�C�JAi'TiEkl tntft +l`rY`ic .,Jl Location: 10340 U.S. Hwy 36, Avon, IN 46123 Land Size: 1.08±Acres (Land-to-Building Ratio: 6.47:1.00) Description: One-story frame constructed restaurant building with a concrete slab floor and a standing seam metal roof The exterior has frame siding and aluminum frame insul-glass windows and aluminum frame and tempered glass entry doors. It contains a gross building area of 7,276+ S.F. The interior finish consists of painted gypsum board and wood panel walls and ceilings. The floors are mostly ceramic tile and exposed concrete. The structure reportedly includes all the typical built-in restaurant equipment such as coolers, freezer, sinks, dishwasher, hood ventilation system, sprinkler, etc. The building was originally constructed in 1999 and the overall condition is considered to be good. Land improvements include asphalt pavement, concrete walks and curbing, decking and average landscaping. Lease Terms: Triple Net, 5 Year Renewal Option, as of January 2009 Lessor: Solid Ground, LLC Lessee: Avon Host, LLC Annual Rent: $207,420 payable @ $17,285/mo. ($28.51/S.F.)+ 5% of annual sales. Additional Remarks: This property is an outlot in the Shiloh Crossing Shopping Center along the north side of the U.S. 36 corridor. 28 Income Approach - Market Rent Adjustment Grid PROPERTY - — • Sutijcet' ' ' 'fierit'Comp:#1 'Rent Comp:#2 Rent lump:#3' Identification: Shapiro's Deli Texas]toad House 'Texas Road House Terns Road Hou e Address: 9185 Ra gei o Rd_ 12950 Publisher's Dr_ 9 1 1 1 N Michigan Road 10340 U.S.H u y 36 , Camel IN 46032 Fishers,IN 46038 Indianapolis,IN 46268 Avon,IN 46123 Lessor N/A Solid Gao J LLC 1 Solidt'Smund,LLC 1 Solid Ground LL�_ Lessee N/A N'onh Indy Ilost,LLC pyramid Host LLC Avon Host,LLC Leese D t¢ June 2011 June 2011 _1 ]avunry 2009 Lease Term: 5Year Opdion 1 5Year Option _1 _ 5Year Opuo Rent Per SF 1 53152 1 532.317 _ __52831 Market Conditions_ 1 0% 0% 0% Adjusted Rent/SF: ' $3152 53237 _ $28.51 Other/adjustments: —1 1- T Location: Camp!G t C nter SR 37C_do 10/ US 421 Corridor _10/ U.S.36 COm dor, -10% L-to-B Ratio 356.1.00 1200100 ` -10% 10.54:100 -10% 6.47:100 _____-5% C ast et on/Quahty: Masonry-Frame/Gd Inferior 10% Interior 10% Inferior t 10% Functional Lr 1 ty I Story JAverage Surul L 0% s rnilar I 0% Similar _ 0°/a_ __1,-- -_ -- 1 ttt Cross R hh y Area 9,260 7,043 5/ 7,191 5/ 9276 5% Aye/C heo 2002/Good 2001/Good 0^/ 2001/Good J —_ 0/ 1999/Cod 1 0% ,Fyuipme r/A endues: _ Standard/Mes Standard/N ne4 — 5% Standard/N c 1 5 Standan1/Nee 1 5% _— Site lmpr merits: . ._ TYPe h_.._ Surul _ 0°/ Similar t 0°/ Similar 0% 1 0% µ NNN 1 0% QI>!iy +fLe so/ Ad'L NNN NNN I 0/ NI4N Total Net Adjustment: 1_,10% _ I -10/ -5% Indicated Rent Per SF: 1 $28.37 $29.13 $27.08 Explanation of Market Rent Adjustments: • The previous adjustment grid illustrates the pertinent information from each sale. Each comparable is adjusted for differences in comparison to the subject. An upward adjustment is made to a comparable if it is considered to be inferior to the subject property in a specific category, while a downward adjustment is made if the comparable is considered to be superior. Location: All of the rent comparables are located in diverse commercial areas along major thoroughfares that are judged to be a superior location as compared to the subject property and negative adjustments are applied. Land-to-Building Ratio: The subject has a lower than typical land-to-building ratio, although adjoining surface parking areas owned by the Carmel Redevelopment Commission provide ample parking. All of the Rent Comparables have higher land-to-building ratios indicating an advantage over the subject and negative adjustments are given. Construction/Quality: As described, the subject's building improvement is good quality masonry and frame construction. All of the rent comparables include buildings that have a lower construction quality and positive adjustments are made. 29 Functional Utility: All of the rent comparables are improved with one-story, free standing restaurant facilities that are considered to have similar functional utility as compared to the subject's building and no adjustments are needed. Gross Building Area: All of the rent comparables include buildings that are smaller than subject's and received minus adjustments since smaller buildings typically reflect a higher unit rent. Age/Condition: All of the rent comparables include improvements that are judged to have a similar effective age as the subject and no adjustments are assigned. Equipment/Amenities: All of the rent comparables are presumed to include all of the standard built- in restaurant equipment similar to the subject and no adjustments are assigned. However, as described, the subject's building includes a partially finished mezzanine area reflecting an advantage over the rent comparables and positive adjustments are necessary. Site Improvements: Overall, the rent comparables are considered to have supporting land improvements that are considered typical as compared to the subject property and no adjustments were given. Expense Obligation Adjustment: Restaurant leases are typically negotiated on a triple-net basis with the tenant being responsible for real estate taxes, property insurance, utilities and common area maintenance, including janitorial. The lessor is usually responsible for major structural and mechanical expenditures that are typically covered under reserves for replacements. The rent comparables are reported to have similar lease agreements as assumed for the subject and no adjustments are necessary. The adjusted market rents of the comparables reflect a range of$27.08 to $29.13 per square foot. Based on this range as well as other rental data examined, the market rent for the subject property as a continued restaurant facility is estimated to be $28.00 per square foot, on a triple-net basis. Estimation of Potential Gross Income: The Potential Gross Income (PGI) for the subject property is estimated utilizing the gross rentable square footage of the subject's building, times the estimated market rental rate as previously established. The annual potential gross income for the subject is calculated as follows: 9,260 Square Feet x $28.00 = $259,280 Vacancy&Collection Loss: The subject property is currently occupied by the majority owner d/b/a Shapiro's Delicatessen Cafeteria. It is designed as a single occupant facility; therefore the occupancy at any given time would either be 0% or 100%. The subject's immediate area has experienced fairly significant commercial development activity during the recent past and vacancy levels are expected to remain relatively high into the near future. In addition, tenant turnover as well as possible collection losses would also be anticipated by potential investors for properties similar to the subject. Observations from the market as well as discussions with various market participants revealed that restaurants similar to the subject typically maintain a relatively high occupancy rate; however, due to the current availability of competing retail space, an overall 15% vacancy and collection is deemed appropriate. 30 Estimation of Effective Gross Income: Effective Gross Income is simply Potential Gross Income less the vacancy and collection loss and is calculated as follows for the subject property: $259,280 PGI - $38,892 (15% of PG1) = $220,388 Estimated Expenses: Management and Professional Fees: With properties similar to the subject, a lessor would typically incur nominal management expenses and professional fees over the course of a year. Due to the triple-net agreement, an allocation of 2.0% of the effective gross income is considered reasonable for management and an additional 1.0% is added for miscellaneous legal and accounting fees. Therefore, a total of 3% of the effective gross income will be used for this calculation. $220,388 x 0.03 = $6,612 Reserves for Replacements: Under the subject's assumed lease agreement, the lessor would be responsible for major structural and mechanical repairs, which is a typical agreement for this type of property. Most of these repairs are considered to be replacement items that would periodically need to be replaced during the life of the building, as the item wears out. Therefore, these items are included as reserve for replacement expenses. Reserves for replacement expenses are an indirect cost, but one of the most important items in a prudent operation. It is a fact that the roofs, HVAC, parking lot, etc. wear out periodically and must be replaced. Since most investors want a return of their initial investment, any capital expenditure for replacement would change investment returns and could not be recaptured through additional rent. Obviously, the rent cannot be raised every time a capital replacement is made, and therefore, an annual budgeting of reserves helps insure the availability of funds when needed and helps protect the level of net annual cash flow. An appropriate reserve is estimated based on replacement cost of the major component costs and applying a Sinking Fund Factor at a 4%safe rate, as illustrated in the following table. Reserve for Replacement—Sinking Fund Calculation Item Area Unit Cost Replacement Economic Sinking Annual Cost Life Fund a,4% Reserve Roof 9,260 SF $4.00 $37,040 25 0.0240 $ 889 HVAC 9,260 SF $5.00 $46,300 15 0.0499 $2,310 Parking Lot 20,000 SF $1.75 $35,000 20 0.0336 $1,176 Total: _ -$4,375 Per SF GBA(9,260) $0.47 31 Reconstructed Operating Statement The following Reconstructed Operating Statement (ROS) represents a market-supported estimate of the projected, stabilized Net Operating income(NOI) for the subject property: Income: Potential Gross Income (9,260 SP x $28.00/SF): $259,280 Less: Vacancy& Collection Losses (15%) $ 38,892 Effective Gross Income: $220,388 Expenses: Management&Professional Fees (3%): $ 6,612 Reserves for Replacements: $ 4,375 Total Expenses and Reserves: $ 10,987 Net Operating Income: $209,401 This estimate of NOI will be used to develop an indication of market value for the subject property via direct capitalization. Direct Capitalization There are several alternatives available to a potential buyer or investor in estimating an appropriate capitalization rate. Market extraction is by far considered to be the best indication of an overall capitalization rate (Ro); however, there were no recent comparable sales obtained that would provide meaningful support utilizing this technique. Another means of support for an overall rate is a national real estate investment survey. Flowever, the subject property is not likely to be in competition with the national marketplace, and is best considered as a local investment. Therefore, reliance on a national survey would not be prudent, and therefore, a capitalization rate will he derived through the development of a mortgage-equity method. Mortgage Equity Method: The"Band-of-Investment"mortgage equity method is utilized to derive an overall capitalization rate (Re). The development of this technique satisfies the market return requirements of both debt and equity investment positions. Lenders require competitive interest rates commensurate with the perceived risk of an investment or they will not make funds available and equity investors must anticipate receiving a competitive equity cash return commensurate with the perceived risk or they will invest their money elsewhere. The rate derived through the band-of-investment is a weighted average of the mortgage constant(Rm) and the equity dividend rate (RE). The loan-to-value ratio (M) represents the loan or debt portion of the property investment; the equity ratio is expressed as (1-M). Typical loan terms and loan-to-value ratios are obtained by surveying lenders and the equity capitalization rate is based on the anticipated return to the investor. All of these elements are included in the following formula. Mortgage Component M x Ro = Equity Component (1 —M) x RE = + Ro = 32 Based on available loan terms and investor criteria found to exist in the market, the assumptions for the development of the band-of-investment technique are as follows: Amortization Period: 20 years Mortgage Interest: 6.25% Loan-to-Value Ratio: 75% Equity Dividend Rate: 11.0% Applying the previous data to the band-of-investment formula results in the following overall rate: 0.75 (M) x 0.0877 (RM) = 0.0658 0.25 (l-M) x 0.1100 (RE)= 0.0275 Overall Cap Rate(Ro) = 0.0933 NOI - Ro = Value Indication $209,401 _ 0.933 = $2,244,384 Rounded to: $2,245,000 ESTIMATED VALUE—INCOME APPROACH $2,245,000 33 RECONCILIATION AND FINAL VALUE ESTIMATE The last step in the appraisal process is to conclude a final value estimate for the subject property. This is done after analyzing the quantity, quality and reliability of the data utilized strengths and weaknesses of the different methods of valuation, and applicability of each approach to the type of property being appraised. The final estimate of value approximates that which an informed, rational investor would pay for the subject property if it were available for sale on the open market as of the effective date of the appraisal, given the data used in this report. Appraisal literature usually recommends using the Cost Approach for new properties that have not been affected by the various forms of depreciation. Due to the age of the subject's improvements and the difficulties in estimating accrued depreciation,The Cost Approach to value was not developed. The Sales Comparison Approach, as developed, provides a firm basis for an indication of subject's market value estimate. A physical comparison of three comparable improved sales indicated a fairly consistent pattern of value for subject property which lends credibility to this approach. The indication of market value as estimated by the Sales Comparison Approach is estimated at $2,315,000. This value indication is considered to be supportive of subject's final value estimate. The Income Approach to value utilizes direct capitalization to arrive at a value indication. The projection of stabilized income and expenses is based on projections of market rent, occupancy, and other reliable income and expense information derived from the market. The indication of market value as estimated by the Income Approach is $2,245,000. The positive aspect of this approach is that income and rate of return is what typical investors analyze when investing in income producing properties. Properties such as the subject are often purchased for their income producing capability. In estimating the market value of the subject property, nearly equal weight is given to the value indications derived via the Sales Comparison and Income Approaches. Therefore, based upon this investigation and analysis, the market value of the subject property, as of the effective valuation date of May 20, 2013, is estimated to be: TWO MILLION THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,300,000) 34 Estimated Exposure Time Implicit in the concept of reasonable exposure time, is the time necessary to list, promote, show, negotiate, allow for due diligence, and close the sale of the subject property, assuming it were priced to sell. The date of closing, when title passes from the seller to the buyer and the seller receives cash or other valuable consideration in exchange for the property, is the same as the effective valuation date utilized in this appraisal. Marketing period is the length of time that would be required to sell the subject property if placed on the market as of the effective date of appraisal. The appraiser discussed the issue of exposure time with a number of real estate brokers, investors, and developers who are frequently involved with commercial real estate in and around the subject's marketing area. Based upon their input, as well as observations from the market, it is concluded that properties comparable to the subject that are in relatively good condition are typically sold in one year or less. Given professional marketing efforts with continuous exposure to the expanding base of property investors, a reasonable exposure period is estimated at approximately one year or less, at the market value estimated in this report. 35 • PART IV -- ADDENDA O Cr) LE N O -+ 0000o0 o W 000 000 > c. v C-o r- l--0r CN N01N 001.-1 a K CO 10 N CO 19 tO ti NOM 0 0 co o o C N H ,, Z o N� D N N U Ni U r[ V 0E0 g0 0000000 u N 'N> ^ 000000 W 4 N U U "iN Mm rnmL Uy CO'Cl OI0J1 al X 4 EN 4 v O 0NOI t�NO � O 0 C NON NON U w F v aN W d E E o 4 ++ H ° "' a ° e,2 o 0. 0. ti .00 o > D 0 0 0 0 o o W £ �_ DO v000 000 4 '" W C Limn ,-IW0 x La> '^- a F LO o lO Ifl rl W F ? n W N N N O N E NOO1 OM V m 4W 01 N ,-I N > 4 W W am aF �V 0. U V 0 O w., W4 Ca j 0 0 H W> n m F 0n u L -0 000000 F W " W W ry .N v0000O0 HHHy WW Ex W V V Y N CO OI CO 01 £4 F S F E0 N(1 L l0�O N 5 'V CIO Q O 0 C-NO I--N0 0 W b NOM NOfo o m O 0 N N U n Km ° a) o a D0. Ni a o °o O O 0 • 0 H m -0000000 [4 0 W 000 000 GJO o 0 0 40, y N N('1 �NCf H Na O E�.� � CO o f 0-CO 0 f�t'1 O n J m NOM N041 '�K (t � N R 1 W O L1 u`I �l Zq 00 O\ 0 O '� N (' I 0000000 W "' ~ O Na Cl Q /� 000 000 ' X `ly W N l0 e ED r t j c ON FkOm 71. 00 a' 91 H 0> UK v uu r 10 r E0 0 C. N a Z-a 4 = F' E v ^ NOIN NOIN C ] £ W On-1 r1 NJ S{ r" `y O W C 4 W W In 4 U 0 W v Q U N 3.�f V K >DJ Cri W I (N 'O p, a E F U O x 9000000 IFj OCcW C 000000 E' ^U N:" \ y ry (Ft >i T ONN 0NN Ni L. co mm E F F o Y W FCINO CO NO -N OW N OE of (0 01 0 ; 0 W� N 01 y N CI N a l l P Er 7 • U an 01 0 N o° ° w . M C n I ,4o kir N o ai .I v i-- .. 0 . 4 °'■NO N 0 K W 0 £ L] '0 rD OJ E lT Z d."D E. V ." 0 ^�EI in H Cr, IL V] H O C 0 i N U F C W > a0 , �°y Ca 9 U 0 41 .. `^v C Ni O v O x N rl N'41 .i ° L n W a > > av C F n F N•-I E 0 a n 4 CO °on 0 'O U H 45 -0 o `I C. N I ro 0 El D N u 010NU Inoo 4 L ^ a 0- H an X n F > LE in D O Ni 9 a 0 C Z ONi 4 F 0 O" 5 Q 0 ry £ f o K£ n Ni 0 a U ' H ° O .Z U N O .� C. 0 O H pE 0 Z F O ." H a £ F O W O ] NC V H H D 0 K Di O >yGF a£o W -64 y t IaK K O 0. K O 4 O H S O O C W 0 C U O i 0 U 0. O 0 W ~ O N Zoo >,C y >'U ° U „ (I O " 4 m �. O H ,]rl uC OOry V vv, y 0 U C 0 F rIP 1,„ 0 Na .n 0 0 00 0.0 PO 0.0 IZ-, N N N' n y 0. .0 P C W = d Ti K 0m OM X O - 0 N J� W 0 Zn W 4 h 4 U O N F d 0 ... O M 0 co Oa Ud Uo 0 00 mo 0 ca Ooo O0000mo — o F -. a 6 .= p O 0 o OFfrn O Fo CO X z 000 0 00000Voo o — o yQ fj 0�0 z pc • ^I C vNa 00000000 0 00 HZ NO£ O m VE N 0• 0 zQ Or • m m m oOGGOOOn r ry Td LW p 00 MO GS m0° °0 ° OG pm 0 ~zry m m 0 0000000n o mm ry 'In. . a�4 o ry ry o o= 00 0 - U o IN WE. OM La co a uO a 0* D o w O Ca) - 0 o A 00L 0 om -• 0 U O-H m a 0 b iC d lu 0 >L.c a Y p 7 W"l E A Z m v ry 0m4n..aaz00.� 0o.somm (0 000oa400 OX 0aV cEFO z o° nq a o co 0 H - or, s Qm C zz z o a H• MG 00 IS m0 0 O <4 >4 4 „ 0 u m 9 a �r a 0 0 - 0 n a Ey 000• rvry y z = ro - o 0 U 4 Q O Qt. � H F H 0 Y Cr x m �I O r� Q en o Q r u O 77 • F V O O SZ si 0 Ua U N Uo d oa M • O J ry N El 9 O H W N M o z Qoco 0000 U H H N Vo° coo E H ry ry W O W m Z N EO x W Z U F H .0 co 0 G 0„ m moon Z• MOO - F O 0 U a mo q mo o0 N 0 7 m tninr, 4 C % H• rJ U V Z y z r z m”m W N -.n roa a• 0 4 ∎a a a z m u a m x o K m a. am£Vr W W W ..'JF S 24w a WSIilF ODEIQRME Street Atlas USA®2008 Ni r Comparable Market Data Map 1- A'Sr Noblesville Jz —indanapb4s .......-2........................................-1-4.4.....• '"" COEltecutive �.......�.�.»,.�..��.,.,..,.w. Q_ ® a 1 ' \ t 8111......— _•_- I b yd Rent Com 411 Whitestown t_Z1 p • Subject Property) i / 1 Oarmel tr �� •• 111,1 Fork p� r j"aif��r' i \ ` fishers• Zionsville /'�� s' • ' " I (Improved Sale #11 arl 6\ Ren�Co\#\ �/eaa a e Metro Iran I• - `42l --4-----� z Genf, - ! \ 4 466 1` Nora/ �;%/ cResem.r 1 \ Castleton e it y{ Ili A •,t r It Z^-- r•yo 4L. 891 McCardsville./ i;t �� New Augusta p1 °Improved Sale#2 t ;-0akl\ Eagle Creek Park I` •Grandview- S� `,f.• V Eagle •l � ' . '� (reed', Fort Benjamin Harrison Milita Reservation. j SA It Receirill �� ; rim . h I es. Rocky Ripple L I MI�4 ; APPRAISER'S QUALIFICATIONS REILY A. BURRELL II, MAI, SRA, SR/WA Professional Licensing: Indiana Certified General Appraiser License No. CG69100433 Indiana Broker's License No. PB5I309182 General Education: Indiana University,Bachelor of Science in Business with Real Estate Major, 1977 Appraisal Designations: MAI(Member of the Appraisal Institute)since 1993 SRA(Senior Residential Appraiser)* Appraisal Institute since 1984 SR/WA(Senior Right-of-Way Professional) since 2001 Currently certified under the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. Appraisal Education: Appraisal Institute(AI)** International Right-Of-Way Association(IRWA) Real Estate Appraisal Principals Principles of Real Estate Acquisition(101 Engineering) Basic Valuation Procedures Principles of Real Estate Acquisition(101 Negotiation) Residential Valuation Principles of Real Estate Acquisition(101 Law) Standards of Professional Practice(last update 11-07) Principles of Real Estate Appraisal(400 Appraisal) Capitalization Theory&Techniques(parts A&B) Interpersonal Relations in Real Estate(202) Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation R/W Agent Pipeline Development Program(215) Valuation Analysis&Report Writing The Appraisal of Partial Acquisitions(401) The Appraiser's Complete Review Seminar Valuation of Contaminated Properties(407) Easement Valuation Seminar Business Relocation(502) Market Extractions Seminar Environmental Contamination in Real Estate(603) • Convenience Store Valuation Seminar Interpreting Engineering Drawings(901) Subdivision Valuation Seminar Property Descriptions(902) Appraising Conservation Easements Metrics for Right-of-Way Seminar(I4001) Organizational Affiliation(s): IRWA,Indiana Chapter 10,President, 1987 IRWA, Indiana Chapter 10,Membership Chairman, 1995 through 1999 IRWA, Indiana Chapter 10, Valuation Committee Chairman,2005 through 2012 AIREA,Indiana Chapter,Board of Directors, 1987 through 1989 Appraisal Institute,Regional Ethics and Counseling Panel, 1993 through 1998 Appraisal Institute,Hoosier State Chapter,MM Experience Review Panel, 1994 through 1999 Appraisal Institute, Hoosier State Chapter,General Chapter Admissions Chair, 2001 &2002 Appraisal Experience: Appraiser/Supervisor: J. M. Cleminshaw(Mass Appraisal Firm), Summer 1977 Appraiser: Hugh Meeker& Associates, Summer 1977 through August 1978 Appraiser: Burrell Appraisal Service, Inc., September 1978 through Present *Rib]designation#1855 was exchanged for the SRA designation as a result of the unification between the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and the Society of Real Estate Appraisers effective January I,1991. The merged organization is called the Appraisal Institute. **Formerly the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers(AIREA) (Revised January 2013)