03-C PEDC/Kammer Appearance - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sales Comparison Approach This approach is based on the principli by the prices generally obtained for si properties are compared to the subject on a price per square foot (PSF) b participants. The motivation for purch their business location. of substitution; that is, the value of the properfy is governed nilar properties. In this approach, various sales of similar ~nd adjusted for [he major differences. They were compared sis which is a commonly quoted indicator between the sers in this type property is usually from individuals desiring The most recent similar neighborhoo~sales in this size range are listed in the analysis below. The sales were all on Bonham street. All he sales were all cash or conventional financing; thus, no financing adjustment was warranted. hey were all arm's length transactions. No. Grantor Date Size/SF Sales Price SP/SF Zonine As Compared to Subject l Brown/Buster 01/95 18,527 $15,000 $0.81 C Corner, sloping 2 Ingram/St. Josephs 03/95 43,502 $44,400 $1.02 GR Similar 3 Ford/Pshigoda 03/99 74,705 $50,000 $0.67 MF Corner 4 Savage/Noble 08/99 12,520 $6,500 $0.52 MP Corner 5 Stillwell/Clarkson 04/01 33,323 $25,000 $0.75 C Smaller, corner 6 Conrad/Miller 08/01 19,060 $30,000 $1.57 G217 Corner, old imprv. 7 Nance/Kammer 08/01 65,310 $45.000 $0.69 2F Interior, street to street Subject 08/01 68,460 GR Interior, street to street Sales 1 through 2 are dated and sales'_ raw prices as do most of the more rece Copography. Other than time, it was si also had dual frontage on Bonham and in zoning but a similar size and had o in size. and 4 are slightly dated but all four show the same range of it sales. Sale 1 was a mush smaller, corner site with sloping perior to the subject. Sale 2 was a slightiy smaller tract that Vlaple. It was high sale for its time period. Sale 3 was inferior irner access. Sale 4 was a small corner lot that was superior Sale 5 was a recent sale of a larger co ner lo[ that had inferior topography. It was purchased as the site for 18 to 25 apartment units but t e financing for the overall project has not yet been arranged due to the low rent levels in compar son to the costs of construction. The sale was inferior in ropography with a sharp slope but it as also about half the size. Those two factors were offsetting and it indicated about $0.75 PSF for t e subject. Sale 6 is the last closed sale in [he ne strip at $ I.57 PSF. That price seemc demolition of a 320 SF inasonry build to its rear but for its intended use, a fa: offset by its demolition costs and the c it was -30%. It indicated about $1.10 ;hborhood. It was clearly in a price level all i[s own for this over market, especially when considering the cost of the ig and some concrete paving on the site. It had a sharp slope lube, the slope was not a detriment. The corner location was al access of the subject Size was its primary adjustment and - Sale 7 was the current contract on the subject's parent tracts. It is inferior to the actual subject due [o zoning and the 15' alley bisection. T e alley closing will add another 3,150 SF to this property and give it increased utility as a entirely u eable tract of ]and with dual access. Considering the added PAT MUIRPHY & ASSOCIATES 10