Laserfiche WebLink
10. BOCK 6 DEVELOPMENT, R -66 (Cont'd) <br />Mr. Miller referred to the original plan for the suggested 1,000 <br />r sidential units and a high -rise office building, and inquired <br />w y we need to have an updated appraisal, when the other appraisal <br />w2 had was for 1,000 units and a motel. He did not believe the <br />c ange from a 20 -story office building and a motel would warrant <br />a other appraisal for a minor change. Mr. Brownell said that when <br />w2 change the land use it is required by HUD regulations to have <br />tie land re- appraised per square footage value. There is 123,404 <br />s uare feet on the north end of this parcel, which was set aside <br />f r a 20 -story office building, at $6.75 per square foot. On the <br />b lance of this appraisal was $1.80 per square foot for 1,000 units <br />o housing with 200 units of low -cost elderly housing. <br />Ii January of 1973, we received a telegram from HUD that there was <br />a freeze on low -cost housing, which the plan had called for. There <br />w re no more subsidies for elderly housing. When it became apparent <br />tie freeze would not be lifted we had an updated LUM Study made from <br />R al Estate Research, in Chicago. The update disclosed the need for <br />a ditional office space in that block so the use was changed to <br />S rvice Commercial /Residential use -- limited to no more than 200 units <br />of residential apartments and other office buildings and parking. <br />Wien the land use was changed to Service Commercial /Residential, the <br />a praised value was $.90 -1/2 per square foot. <br />Also, Mr. Miller said he is a little concerned about the total cost. <br />A he understands it, the City has approximately $7 Million of land <br />d wntown to sell. He is concerned about selling this land and also <br />c ncerned about the appraisal price. We need to get the value of <br />tie land and to get the proportionate share to cover that $7 Million, <br />or the City will be short. Mr. Brownell advised under HUD regulations, <br />w cannot change the price. Two independent appraisers appraise the <br />property and they give the reuse valuation per square foot, which is <br />tie minimum .price we can sell the land for. Anyone can bid higher <br />t an the reuse value, but not lower. We have a lower selling price <br />n w on this parcel, and any re- appraisal would increase the price <br />of this land, so he welcomes this interest in these developers. Com- <br />missioner Wiggins said they were concerned on the current price in- <br />crease, as it might change the feeling about the whole thing. Mr. <br />Brownell said that this question was asked by a member of the Press <br />d ring the developers meeting, and that they anticipated a reasonable <br />c ange in price. <br />C mmissioner Wiggins said the Commission wants the best use of the pro- <br />party so that it has construction on the property which has a very de- <br />finite reflection on the interest, plus other dimentional use would <br />b2 involved in the creation of employment, etc., depending on what <br />i done. All of these are factors. <br />M . Miller referred to the $7 Million approximately in land value <br />d wntown, and asked how much it would cost to re- appraise all the <br />property we have, so that we could have some good idea and have some <br />p tential of selling that property for $7 Million. Mr. Brownell said <br />ft would be expensive to go out and appraise each and every parcel. <br />A 1 the parcels were appraised in January, 1969. <br />- 13 - <br />