PRECA 07-13-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0 i profitability." The land as it exists under reasonable and probable legal use is as park, or the possible connection with adjoining land with no further additional units based on the underlying PRD, (no additional units, or building sites are allowable). The appraiser opinion that the property should be assembled with. the parcel to the east and petition the city council for a PRD zoning overlay, shows lack of knowledge or effort in determining the possibilities of the subject property. Further showing lack of understanding is the statement that It is presently feasible and viable to construct a new single family home on the site." No effort was made to determine if this is a possibility in this situation under the existing PRD. Under arke ata Anyroach: Discussion of Comparable Land les; In describing the site he states that a tennis court is located .between the subject and Silver Oak Condominiums, not noting that this site is approved under the PRD for 12 units. " Under Summarv an Con lusion? the appraiser states that "This appraisal report was made based on the condition so the subject the market and all other factors at the time of its inspection on May 13, 1994. ... Furthermore, this appraisal has been make subject to the assumptions and limiting conditions set forth within the pages of the document and to .the best of the appraises knowledge...". Many of the assumptions, and statements made in this appraisal are wrong and or not reasonable with little effort made to increase the appraisers knowledge. There is not any value or validity that this appraisal gives in determining the value to the subject property. In order to give this appraisal validity, the following assumptions must be made; 1. The property exists without the condition of a water main running on the east edge of the property 2. The existing PRD either does not exist, or that the city is ready and willing to change the entire scope of the PRD without the benefit of having the city counsel or planning commission considering a proposal. 3. The property excises as R-1 zoning with a building permit available, and that the highest use is that of a single family site, without questioning the possibility under the existing PRD. 4. Stating that the subject property and the property to the east could be combined and submit a new PRD to the city for approval, not understanding the existing PRD.