University of North Carolina at Asheville
D. H. Ramsey Library
Special Collections/University Archives

Register for:
Consultation Report:
Reuse Appraisal Civic Center, Asheville, N.C.

 

        
[Cover] Consultation Report: Reuse Appraisal Civic Center, Asheville, N.C.
Special Collections, D.H. Ramsey Library, UNCA
Title "Consultation Report: Reuse Appraisal Civic Center, Asheville, N.C."
Alt. Title "Consultation Report: Reuse Appraisal"
Identifier http://toto.lib.unca.edu/findingaids/mss/housing_authority_city_asheville/series_26_publications/
consultation_report_reuse_appraisal/consultation_report_reuse_appraisal.htm
Creator Roy Wenzlick & Co. ; James R. Appel, Hiram C. Martin Jr. (participating staff)
Alt Creator Housing Authority of the City of Asheville -- N.C. R-13 Civic Redevelopment Project
Subject Keyword Appel, James R. ; Asheville, NC ; Charles M. Dent, Jr. ; City Hall ; city planning ; Civic Center ; Civic Center Project ; commercial site ; comparable sale ; Court House ; Dent, Charles M., Jr. ; economic feasibility ; fair market value ; high-rise apartment ; Hiram C. Martin, Jr. ; housing ; James R. Appel ; land disposal plan ; land disposition ; land use ; marketability ; Market Analysis ; Martin, Hiram C., Jr. ; modernization ; motel ; NC R-13 Civic Redevelopment Project ; office building ; park ; property rights ; public institutional site ; public use ; recreation area ; Redevelopment Commission ; rehabilitation ;  relocation ; residential site ; reuse appraisal ; Roy Wenzlick & Co. ; topography ; urban planning ;
Subject LCSH Central business districts -- North Carolina -- Asheville
Central business districts -- North Carolina -- Asheville -- Maps
City planning -- North Carolina -- Asheville
City planning -- United States -- Asheville (N.C.)

Asheville (N.C.) -- Planning
Civic improvement -- North Carolina -- Asheville
Urban renewal -- North Carolina -- Asheville
Asheville (N.C.) -- Urban renewal
Tourism and city planning -- North Carolina – Asheville
Highway planning -- North Carolina -- Asheville
Traffic engineering -- North Carolina -- Asheville
Zoning -- North Carolina – Asheville
Housing -- North Carolina -- Asheville

Apartment houses -- North Carolina -- Asheville
Asheville (N.C.) -- Economic conditions
Asheville (N.C.) -- Economic conditions -- 20th century
Asheville (N.C.) -- History
Date 1961
Publisher Roy Wenzlick & Co.
Contributor

Housing Authority of the City of Asheville

Type text ; maps
Format Book 8 1/2"  x 11" 
Source D. H. Ramsey Library Special Collections, Manuscript Collections M2007.12.18
Language English
Relation Is part of: Asheville Model City Records, Special Collections, D.H. Ramsey Library, UNCA ;  Housing Authority of the City of Asheville ..., D. H. Ramsey Library, Special Collections, UNCA.
Coverage 1961: Asheville, N.C.
Rights Any display, publication or public use must credit D. H. Ramsey Library, Special Collections, University of North Carolina at Asheville.
Copyright retained by the authors of certain items in the collection, or their descendants, as stipulated by United States copyright law.
Donor Donor 310 ; City of Asheville
Description

This publication, the third in a series of reports from Roy Wenzlick & Co., deals with the reuse appraisals for the lands involved in the Civic Redevelopment Project (NC R-13).  The report goes through each parcel of land designated for commercial, residential, public/semi-public, and public institutional use, describing it, speculating what kind of building would be best suited for that particular parcel, and estimating its resale value.   A list of comparable land sales recently made in the Asheville area is included as evidence of the current value of land in Asheville. The plan is treated as comprehensive and nearly all-encompassing.  At the end of the report, the authors petition the Redevelopment Commission that, should revisions be needed, the entire plan “be considered frozen at this time, and no major changes from the proposed land use should be considered until adequate study has proved them to be feasible and to fit into the overall objective.” The emphasis is on deliberate, well-thought-out planning, with the ultimate objective of bringing people into downtown Asheville.

Acquisition 2007-
Citation Housing Authority of the City of Asheville Records, "Consultation Report: Reuse Appraisal Civic Center, Asheville, N.C."  D. H. Ramsey Library, Special Collections, University of North Carolina at Asheville
Processed by Special Collections staff 2008
Last update 2008-06-03
CONTEXT
PAGE DESCRIPTION THUMBNAIL
Consultation Report: Reuse Appraisal Civic Center, Asheville, N.C. -- FULL TEXT
Cover

Consultation
Report


REUSE APPRAISAL
CIVIC CENTER
ASHEVILLE, N.C.

Letter, 1 ROY WENZLICK & CO.

ECONOMISTS  APPRAISERS  PUBLISHERS

TELEPHONE GARFIELD I-0706
706 CHESTNUT STREET ST. LOUIS 1, MO.

February 20, 1961

Redevelopment Commission
City of Asheville, North Carolina
Post Office Box 7148
Asheville, North Carolina

Attn: Charles M. Dent, Jr.,
        Executive Director

Gentlemen:

We are pleased to submit herewith six copies of our Reuse Appraisal for the Civic Redevelopment Project N.C. R-13, as agreed per our contract.

We are of the opinion that there will be a market for the residential site and for the six commercial sites. We further believe that these seven parcels will sell for approximately our indicated values, if offered in the correct sequence and advertised widely so as to attract all possible redevelopers. The Public and Public Institutional sites have been evaluated on the basis of alternate uses. It must be kept in mind, that the City and the Civic Center group must be developed in order to have a project. The remainder of the parcels could actually be sold for their alternate uses without harming the overall project in anyway.

As shown on the Appraisal Certificate, we have concluded a total estimated fair market value of all sites appraised of $1,807,750. Of this total, $965,850 constitute the Public and Public Institutional total, pointing out the necessity of the active participation of these groups. Since the values are actually a forecast of fair market value of parcels of land which will be available at sometime in the future, they are subject to all of the usual hazards of forecasting. We call attention to both the statement of limiting conditions contained in the Appraisal Certificate and in the Reuse Appraisal.

Letter, 2 It has been a pleasure working with you, your predecessor, your staff, the planning consultants and your citizens of Asheville. We wish you every success in the completion of the Civic Redevelopment Project. If there is any other way that we can be of service, please call on us.

Respectfully submitted,

Hiram C. Martin, Jr.

HCM:bb

Appraisal

Appraisal Certificate

This is to certify that the property known as sites for redevelopment in the Civic Redevelopment Project NC R-13, Asheville, North Carolina briefly described as 35 parcels with a total area of 1,784,843 square feet:

1 Residential parcel 61,000 Sq. Ft. $ 70,400
8 Commercial parcels 584,390 Sq. Ft. 771,500
6 Public parcels 332,153 Sq. Ft. 490,800
15 Public Institutional parcels 807,300 Sq. Ft. 475,050

and classified as (see above) property has been examined for the purpose of determining its value as of (see page 9 of appraisal) and, on that date and subject to the following conditions, it is the opinion of Roy Wenzlick & Co. that the property designated above had a fair market value of One Million Eight Hundred Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty ($1,807,750) Dollars

     First: This appraisal report includes, in addition to this certificate, 45 sheets comprising plots, plans, notes, work sheets, etc., which are made an integral part of the appraisal.

     Second: The value of the property is expressed in dollars of the value on the date above specified and is subject to any future changes which may occur in the value of the dollar.

     Third:  All information and comments concerning the location, neighborhood, trends, construction quality and costs, obsolescence, condition, necessary repairs, rents, expenses, income, taxes, or any other data of the property appraised herein represent the estimates and opinions of Roy Wenzlick & Co., formed after an examination and study of the property.

     Fourth: While it is believed that the information, estimates and analyses given and the opinions and conclusions drawn therefrom are correct, Roy Wenzlick & Co. does not guarantee them and assumes no liability for any errors in fact, in analysis, or in judgment. No attempt has been made to render an opinion of title or of the status of easements of of any other matter of a legal character. 

     Fifth: This appraisal represents the independent opinion of Roy Wenzlick & Co., free from any commitments and free from any present or expected future interest in the property, with the sole compensation for the employment being a fair professional fee.

     It is further certified that this opinion is based upon an examination and analysis of the property and upon the application of pertinent research data and economic fundamentals compiled and developed by Roy Wenzlick & Co., and is made in accordance with modern appraisal technique and sound appraisal procedure.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Roy Wenzlick & Co. has caused these presents to be signed and attested by its appraisal department on the Twentieth day of February, 1961

Appraisal Department
ROY WENZLICK & CO.

By James R. Appel, M.A.I

Hiram C. Martin, Jr. Appraiser

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

    Page
I INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 1
II REUSE APPRAISAL 4
       Purpose of Appraisal 4
       Property to be Appraised 5
  EXHIBIT - Land Use Map 6
       Property Rights Involved 7
       Premises of Appraisal 7
  EXHIBIT - Disposal Plan 8
     Effective Date of Appraisal 9
       Method of Appraisal 9
III COMPARABLE SALES

11

       General 11
       Analysis of Comparable Sales 14
IV APPRAISAL OF RESIDENTIAL SITE 17
       Location & Environment 17
       Standards 17
       Appraisal

18

V APPRAISAL OF COMMERCIAL SITES 20
       Location and Environment 20
       Standards 20
       Topography 20
  EXHIBIT -- Land Disposition Map -- Commercial 21
       Site C-1 22
       Site C-2 24
       Site C-3 26
       Site C-4 28
       Site C-5

28

       Site C-6 and C-7 28
       Site C-8 30
VI APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC SITES 31
       Location and Environment 31
       General Conditions 31
  EXHIBIT -- Land Disposition Map -- Public 32
Table of Contents, cont.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

(continued)

VII APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL SITES

35

       Location and Environment 35
       Site PI-1 35
  EXHIBIT -- Land Disposition Map -- Public Institutional 36
       Site PI-2 37
       Site PI-3 37
       Site PI-4 37
       Site PI-5 38
       Site PI-6 38
     Site PI-7 38
       Site PI-8 39
       Site PI-9

39

       Site PI-10 39
       Site PI-11 40
       Site PI-12 40
       Site PI-13 41
       Site PI-14 and PI-15 41
VIII SUMMARY OF APPRAISED VALUES

42

       Methods 42
IX CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 44
       Possible Exclusion 44
       Additional Planning 44
       Size of Parcels 44
       Marketing 45
       Certification 45
1 ROY WENZLICK & CO.        ECONOMISTS  APPRAISERS  COUNSELORS   PUBLISHERS

 

I

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES

As authorized by state and federal legislation, the City of Asheville, North Carolina, through its Redevelopment Commission is proceeding with plans for the clearance and redevelopment of the city's blighted area. This report is concerned with the first project, known as the Civic Redevelopment Project, N.C. R-13.

As shown on the exhibits, this area is located adjacent to the City Hall and Court House extending to the expressway being bounded generally by Market Street on the west. Details on the exact location and the disposition are in the next section. A Transient Housing Study and a Marketability Study preceded the adoption of the present land use plan. There will still be minor changes due to technical details but for the purposes of this report, we are considering the land use map and the land disposition map as frozen for the time being.

The objective of this report is:
     To estimate the fair market value of the various tracts of land in the area after the site has been cleared and made available for new uses in accordance with the plan.

This objective is interrelated with the results of the previously completed Marketability Study, as the potential sale of these sites depends on the feasibility of their use. The sale of each site in this project is interdependent on every other site and the price for which each property can be sold depends on the selling and developing of each other site. This unusual condition is brought about primarily because of the civic nature of the project and by the avowed intent of the city to use the project to bring people in large numbers into the downtown Asheville area. While to a degree, the project is able to

2 stand on its own feet from an economics viewpoint, it can only do so by virtue of a considerable amount of public funds being used to buy and rebuild in the area. Additionally, large amounts of area will come under the control of tax free institutions. Some of this loss of revenue will be recovered through municipal parking revenue. The main point is; however, that this project can only attain full success if the comprehensive plan for Asheville is implemented. This will mean realignment of downtown streets to provide easier ingress and egress, warehousing and distributing relocated in the core and new and adequate parking provided for those coming into the area. Completion of the loop allowing by-passing of downtown will relieve congestion. This project then can only attain its ultimate success if the other work necessary to revitalize the central business district is also scheduled and completed. The degree of assurance of this completion will have a direct bearing on the sales prices of the project property.

When we speak of economic feasibility in this report, we are speaking of the highest and best use of this area as if vacant. We are not concerned with the economics of trying to justify the relatively high cost of acquiring the private properties in this area for redevelopment.

As for any commodity, the demand for real estate must include not only the desire for possession but also the ability to acquire. Supply is not only the existence of a commodity, but its existence at the right place, at the right time, and at the right price. Naturally, a reuse appraisal such as this must look to the future, which involves forecasting with all its hazards. Therefore, it will not be possible to arrive at precise conclusions as to the demand and supply situation for new commercial and residential sites in the Civic Redevelopment Project. As previously explained, this will depend a great deal on the extent of the public and semi-public redevelopment at the time of offering these sites for sale. However, by investigating as many known factors as are available it is possible to draw general conclusions as to both economic feasibility and sale price.

3 Each parcel has been designated, and the highest and best use determined. Public and semi-public as well as public institutional areas have been evaluated at an alternate use. All other parcels are evaluated on a basis of projection of market prices. These concluded land values should be considered only as a basis for budgeting and preparation of Part I. They can be used to establish early pricing policy but should not be considered as rigid. A second reuse appraisal, able to better evaluate the then changed conditions in Asheville should be made before the sale of any property is completed.
4

II

REUSE APPRAISAL

The appraisal of land for reuse in redevelopment areas is somewhat more speculative and hypothetical than the ordinary market value appraisal of private property. In a reuse appraisal there are complicating factors of time, highest and best use, method of disposal, restrictive limitations imposed on the land, property rights involved, and especially the fact that it is very difficult to make comparisons with other land market data because of several features unique to redevelopment areas.

The concluded values in this appraisal are based on the data contained in the following sections. Good appraisal practice dictates a careful description of:

     1. The purpose of the appraisal
     2. The property to be appraised
     3. The property rights involved
     4. The date of the appraisal

These qualifying items form the basis for the concluded land values and should be included whenever the values are considered.

All of the material contained in the preceding reports on transient housing and marketability is pertinent to the appraisal and shall be considered as integral parts thereof.

PURPOSE OF APPRAISAL

The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the fair market value of the land only included in the Civic Redevelopment Project area after the

5 area has been cleared and offered for sale under the limitations of the redevelopment plan.

Fair market value may be defined as:

     "...the highest price estimated in terms of money that a willing and well-informed buyer would be warranted in paying and a willing and equally well-informed seller justified in accepting for a property if placed on the market for a reasonable period of time; with both parties acting free of compulsion or duress and with all rights or benefits inherent in or attributable to the property included in said value."

For this appraisal, we are assuming that the "buyers" will be both private parties and public agencies, and that land will be sold by competitive bidding. In the latter case, the appraised values are based upon the most feasible alternative private use of the parcels in accordance with the intent of the over-all redevelopment plan and the city's zoning ordinance.

The "seller" will be the Redevelopment Commission of the City of Asheville, North Carolina, which agency we assume will widely advertise the various sites for sale, fully informing the public of restrictions as to use and other factors.

PROPERTY TO BE APPRAISED

The property to be appraised is shown on the Land Use Map on the following page. In this reuse appraisal, individual valuations will be estimated for each of the parcels as designated on the map. Certain properties as designated on the map are to be excluded from the clearance program and hence will not be available as parts of the sites. The appraisal of the various sections of the project area will not include the ground area of the excluded parcels. It

6

General Land Use Plan

ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA

PROJECT BOUNDARY
EXPRESSWAY BOUNDARY
 
RESIDENTIAL (MULTI-FAMILY)
R-1 High-Rise Apartment
 
COMMERCIAL
C-1  Office Building
C-2  Motel
C-3  Amusement & Recreation
C-4  Parking (Private)
C-5  Parking (Private)
C-6  Office Building
C-7  Office Building
C-8  Parking (Private)
PUBLIC (INSTITUTIONAL)
P-I-1  Church
P-I-2  Church
P-I-3  Civic Center
P-I-4  Civic Center
P-I-5  Church
P-I-6  Church
P-I-7  Church
P-I-8  Church
P-I-9  YMCA
P-I-10  School -- Jr. High
P-I-11  School -- Jr. High
P-I-12  Church
P-I-13  Health Dept.
P-I-14  Church
P-I-15  Church
 
PUBLIC & SEMI-PUBLIC
P-1  Parking (Public)
P-2  Parking (Public)
P-3  Park
P-4  Park
P-5  Park (City-County Plaza)
7 does, however, place an evaluation on all areas to be sold, even if they are part of former streets now closed. More detailed descriptions and identifications of the sites will be included in a later section.

PROPERTY RIGHTS INVOLVED

"All rights or benefits inherent" in the subject sites include the usual rights and benefits of ownership in fee simple.

These rights and benefits, of course, are restricted also by the reservations contained in the redevelopment plan itself as to use, height, density, yard requirements, off-street parking, setbacks, etc.

PREMISES OF APPRAISAL

In addition, we have based our appraisals of the subject sites on the following assumptions and limitations:

1.  No restrictions on the use of material and labor will prevent a purchaser from constructing improvements in accordance with the plan.

2.  Sites will be offered with streets and utilities provided as shown in the plan.

3.  The entire project area may not be cleared and offered at one time. Rather, we assume that the project area will be cleared and developed in progressive stages according to the plan over a period of several years.

4.  Utilization of all of the land will take place in a reasonable time subsequent to its purchase by redevelopers, be they private, semi-public or public agencies.

8

Land Disposition Plan

CIVIC REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
NC - R - 13
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA

PROJECT BOUNDARY
PARCELS NOT TO BE ACQUIRED
C - COMMERCIAL PARCELS
P - PUBLIC & SEMI-PUBLIC PARCELS
P-I  PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL PARCELS
R - RESIDENTIAL (MULTI-FAMILY) PARCELS
EASEMENTS
EXPRESSWAY

9 5.  We assume that neither a war nor a violent change in the economy will occur before or during the proposed redevelopment.

6. Land values will fluctuate very little between the planning stage and the dates of the various land sales, subject to reasonable limitations contained in the next section, "Date of Appraisal".

7.  Site dimensions prepared by the local agency are assumed to be correct, unless otherwise stated herein.

8.  Other standard limiting conditions are contained in our appraisal certificate.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF APPRAISAL

The effective date of this appraisal is indefinite as it is not possible to predict precisely when the various sites in the project area will be cleared and offered for sale. We are assuming that the sites will become available during 1961 and continue throughout 1962.

Since the concluded values are actually forecasts of land value based on a study of past and current market conditions, it would seem necessary that these values be reviewed at the time the sites are ready for disposal. In view of the fact, however, that real estate values of the type involved have been relatively stable in the recent past, it is our feeling that the values concluded in this report should remain valid for at least 12 to 18 months.

METHOD OF APPRAISAL

In the following sections of this appraisal we have treated each site for disposal individually. For convenience we have grouped them into four major categories: residential, commercial, public or semi-public, and public institutional. All of the parcels are identified on the disposal plan on the previous page.

10 Basically, our approach to value has been the comparable or market data method. Since the properties involved will be vacant sites available in the future, we feel this is the only reliable approach. Through comparison with recent sales and current asking prices for land in Asheville, and after considering the fact that the subject sites will have new environments and new facilities, we have concluded fair market values as defined and based on the premises stated. We were able to base rental and expense estimates upon comparable data on existing similar rental properties in the Asheville area.

An alternate method of appraising vacant land is the use of the land residual technique of the income approach to value. This method assumes the construction of a hypothetical new building or buildings on a parcel of land. The fair annual net return on the known building cost (interest and provision for depreciation) is deducted from the estimated annual net income to the property (land and building). The residual income is attributable to the land, and is capitalized to indicate the land value. In this type of analysis, it is necessary to estimate construction costs, fair rentals, vacancy rate, property expenses and capitalization rates, thus creating a pyramid of estimates. Due to this situation, the land residual method is not as reliable an indicator of value as is the market data approach. Also, any change in the size and resulting income of the building would change the estimate of land value. However, because there have been very few sales of property in Asheville for the uses intended in the redevelopment area, we have used this method in some places as a check on the market data in order to prove economic feasibility.

11

III

COMPARABLE SALES

GENERAL

In attempting to set up comparable sales of similar vacant property to the subject property after clearing, it was found that very few sales were available for similar purposes. As a result, there is a great deal of dependence upon degree of comparison, and general classification of use rather than specific use. In cases where sales were of improved property, we have talked to owners, checked asking prices of similar or adjacent property, and estimated that portion of the sale attributable to the ground. We recognize that the projection of the values obtained through comparable sales is predicated primarily on the past, and therefore have compensated somewhat by assigning values based more on use than on resulting square or front foot values indicated by comparable sales. There follows a list of comparable sales:

     1. Vacant lot of irregular wedge shape formed by the intersection of Biltmore and Valley Streets known as tax lots 334-336, Ward 1, Sheet 5, sold February 20, 1957, zoned commercial, recorded in Book 784, page 127. The site is roughly a triangle containing 37,696 square feet having all utilities available. Sold by U.T. Cannon to Gulf Oil Company for $60,000 which is $1.59 per square foot.

     2. Vacant lot on the southwest corner of Patton and French Broad Avenue known as tax lots 50-51, Ward 4, Sheet 2, zoned business, has all utilities, is level, sold March 20, 1960, recorded in Book 826, page 158. Sold by Investment Developers, Inc. to Public Service Company of North Carolina for $38,500. Lot is 74' x 118' and contains 8,735 square feet which amounts to $4.40 per square foot or $250 per front foot.

12      3. Vacant lot on the east side of Rankin Avenue known as tax lot 83, Ward 3, Sheet 1, zoned commercial, 45' / 45.2' fronting on Rankin x 79.5 / 79.8' deep, totalling [sic] 3,577 square feet. Sold April 30, 1956 for $3,000 which equals $66 per front foot or $.84 per square foot.

     4. Vacant lot on the northeast corner of College and Market Streets, presently used for parking and leased to the City of Asheville for 25 years in 1960 at $2,700 per year, being tax lots 28-29, Ward 2, Sheet 1. Lots contain 6,500 square feet having 65 feet frontage on College by 100 feet frontage on Market Street. Capitalizing the income at 7% shows a value of $38,571 or $5.90 per square foot.

     5. Vacant lots at number 16 Charlotte Street being tax lots 103-103½-104-105, Ward 2, Sheet 1. Sold November 19, 1958 by Gene Ochsenreiter Inc. to the North Carolina Highway Commission and recorded in Book 807, page 171. Lot fronts 280 feet on Charlotte by a depth of 177.5 feet on Orchard and a depth of 204.85 feet on the expressway, totaling 54,748 square feet. Sold for $31,900 or $.58 per square foot. This also breaks down to $100 per front foot on both Charlotte and Orchard.

     6. Vacant lot at 170-172 Charlotte Street being tax lots 25-26-26¼-27, Ward 2, Sheet 16. Front 160 feet on Charlotte by 220.36 feet deep, having a width of 213.34 feet at rear of lot, containing 37,400 square feet. Lot sold for $22,500 being recorded in Book 805, page 391. A filling station was erected on the site. Sale price indicates a value of $.60 per square foot or $140 per front foot uncorrected for depth.

     7. Vacant lot at 155 Charlotte Street being tax lot 76, Ward 2, Sheet 16, fronting 64.3 feet on Charlotte and having a width of 68 feet in the rear by a depth of 200 feet. Sold November 15, 1956 for $10,000 by T.C. Rogers to Gulf Oil Company, being recorded in Book 780, page 151. Lot contains 12,639 square feet indicating a value of $.79 per square foot or $156 per front foot uncorrected for depth.

13      8. Pioneer Building and Life Insurance of Virginia Building located at 40 N. French Broad Avenue being on tax lots 21-102-103-104, Ward 3, Sheet 14, together containing 42,707 square feet. Sold by W.B. Dillard to W.J. Parks August 1, 1958, and recorded in Book 802, page 313, and confirmed by Mr. Dillard. He said, that the consideration was $185,000 plus $9,250 brokerage fee. He said that he attributed $42,000 to the land and the remainder to the two buildings, a one-story and two-story structure containing 600 square feet and 2,448 square feet respectively. Bringing the sale up to date indicates a land value of $1.00 per square foot or $250 per front foot.

     9. Vacant lot at 162 College Street being tax lots 94-95-95½, Ward 2, Sheet 1, fronting 117 feet on College Avenue and having a width of 106.7 feet at the rear by a depth of 185 feet on the west and 160 feet on the east containing 18,406 square feet. Sold in 1954, for $41,900 which adjusted to 1961 indicates a value of $2.30 per square foot or an effective front foot value of $440. A small branch bank with drive-in facilities was constructed on this site for $33,000 plus $19,500 for site improvements.

     10. Vacant lot at the northeast corner of Haywood and Montford Streets being tax lot 147, Ward 3, Sheet 1, after the highway had taken a portion of it in 1959, was leased in 1960 to the Battery Park Hotel for a parking lot based on an appraised valuation of $86,000 for $6,450 per year. On a front foot basis this amounts to $300 indicated value.

     11.  Vacant lot on the north side of Woodfin at the ramp of the new expressway fronting 146 feet on Woodfin, being of irregular shape on the curve of the ramp approximately 175 feet deep at the deepest point. Property is leased to the First Baptist Church for a parking lot for $25.00 per month. That this is an uneconomic lease is established by the assessed value which is $5,388. Based on taxes and adjacent property, it appears that the front foot value should approximate $100.

14      12. A motel on tax lots 74-¼-78-80, Ward 2, Sheet 25, built in 1953, was sold June 13, 1960 by Norman Brown to Skyway Motel, Inc., as recorded in Book 830, page 229. Total consideration was $250,200. There are 45 units including office and living quarters which at $16.00 per square foot would cost $125,200. If we assign a value to the fixtures of $1,000 per unit and include the good will etc., in that figure we total $170,200, leaving $80,000 attributable to the land. As there are 104,000 square feet of land, this indicates a value of $.77 per square foot. As the site is 2.39 acres, this indicates a value of slightly over $33,000 per acres. This is in line with asking prices for land suitable for motels today, in this area.

     13. A motel on tax lot 77, Ward 8, Sheet 25, was sold in April 1960 by Zeb Brown to Holliday Motel, Inc., for $91,861. The land area is 20,090 square feet on which is one structure containing 5,780 square feet having 22 rooms and baths. From the observed net condition, we have evaluated the improvements, furniture, etc., at $75,861 following a reproduction cost less depreciation method leaving $16,000 as the indicated value of the land. This amounts to $.80 per square foot or an indicated value of $34,848 per acre.

     14. In addition to the above, we sought out asking prices on all types of property, because available properties will be the competition for project land. In the case of motels the asking prices of the most desirable property on Tunnel Road start at $35,000 per acre for adequate frontage and depth. We were told by the owner of the Howard Johnson motel that the land cost was $33,000 per acre on the most recent purchase.

ANALYSIS OF COMPARABLE SALES

From the foregoing sales listed in the previous section plus information obtained from owners, realtors, managers, and tenants we have determined certain square foot, and front foot land values prevalent in recent years. Although the expressway purchases were under the threat of condemnation, we have been influenced by the prices paid

15 for land in the acquisition of the right-of-way, although we are not listing these sales. We were also influenced by but did not list the sales to the First Baptist Church, whereby they obtained parking areas after razing the improvements. Following is a tabulation of the sales listed:
 
No. Type Front
Foot
Square
Foot
Acreage Comments
1 Commercial F.S.*   $ 1.59    
2 C.B.D.** $520 4.40   Utility
3 Commercial Pkg. 66 .84    
4 C.B.D. Pkg.   5.90   City Lease
5 Residential S.F. 100 .58    
6 Commercial F.S. 140 .60    
7 Commercial F.S. 156 .79   Add'n.
8 C.B.D. 250 1.00   Office Bldg.
9 C.B.D. 440 2.30   Bank
10 C.B.D. Pkg. 300     Hotel
11 Commercial Pkg. 100     Lease
12 Motel   .77 $33,000  
13 Motel   .80 $35,000  
* C.B.D.   Central Business District
** F.S.   Filling Station

While at first glance it may seem that there is no connection between these sales, the location shows that the filling stations in the residential area are much cheaper than the good commercial sites. The parking varies from the lot acquired for employees to the municipal parking area under lease. The difference in central business district prices is based on location, traffic and parking.

From these comparable sales, and the other information, we have determined front foot and square foot values which are used as a guide to apply to the individual sites. Each site however, has been considered on a basis of the anticipated use and the economic value of land used for that particular purpose. In other words, we have not assigned a definite front foot value of say $400 per front foot on College

16 or $300 at Broadway and Woodfin. We have, however, in the alternate uses necessary to produce values for the public and public institutional areas, projected streets and assigned residential or commercial values accordingly to these areas.

The comparable sales data has been most valuable in the instance of the hotel parking, municipal parking, office building and other commercial areas.

It must be remembered however, that the sale of project land for the new use proscribed and under the new restrictions may not have comparable sales to an exact degree. Therefore, the sales data is used as a bracket within which the new development must be able to buy and be economically stable in relationship to the net income of the proposed redevelopment.

17

IV

APPRAISAL OF RESIDENTIAL SITE

LOCATION & ENVIRONMENT

The only site for residential purposes in the proposed redevelopment plan is shown on the Land Disposal Plan. It is a parcel designated as R-1, being bounded on the north by Woodfin Street, the east by public parking, the south by a new access street and the west by parking for the hotel. While this may seem to be a rather commercial or public atmosphere, and consequently not conducive to residential use, it must be pointed out that the intended reuse of the site is for a high-rise luxury or semi-luxury apartment building. This type of residential use is compatible with all the new uses which will surround the site, and the existing hotel use to the west which will remain. These new uses will be: a luxury type motel and restaurant, a public amusement and recreational area, the Civic Center Auditorium Building and parking area, the Thomas Wolfe Memorial, newly created shops, and parking for the existing hotel. The site is large enough to contain a building having 94 dwelling units as indicated in the market analysis. It can have inside and underground parking, and be set back from the street with adequate landscaping for patio and terrace privacy. It is easy walking distance from the Court House, City Hall, downtown shopping area, Civic Center, amusements, and all facilities necessary to a good apartment site. We believe the highest and best use of this site to be for a luxury type high-rise apartment.

STANDARDS

The standards or additional requirements to be imposed on a developer of this parcel would require that he construct a high-rise apartment building of above average calibre. He should provide off-street parking facilities for as many cars as dwelling units, preferably in basement or underground areas. Set-back lines should be such that landscaping will be provided. Access should be provided for an off

18 street entrance and service facilities in order to minimize traffic interuptions or controls.

APPRAISAL

In appraising this residential site, we have attempted to be consistent with front foot and square foot values, as well as with an economic land cost per dwelling unit for a high-rise apartment. By comparable sales and the intended uses, we have established a generalized value of $250 per front foot on Woodfin Avenue from Broadway to Oak Streets. As there is no uniformity of depth to any parcel fronting on Woodfin, we have to adjust for depth or add for rear acreage. In this instance, we have added $6.00 to the front foot base to compensate for additional depth. This results in the following: 275+ front feet x $256 = $70,400. This compares favorably with comparable sale No. 8. If we divide the $70,400 by 94 dwelling units, the answer $749 is well within the economic range of the high-rise multiple family building in ground cost per dwelling unit. Also to check this cost of $1.62 per square foot, we have used a land residual technique. In this, because of the room distribution arrived at in the Market Analysis, we have held the construction cost to an average of $11,000 per dwelling unit, including air conditioning and garage. The result also checks out the indicated property value as follows:

HIGH RISE APARTMENT RESIDUAL

Construction Cost Estimate
     94 units @ $11,000 = $1,128,000
   
Income:
     25 units @ $100 = $2500 x 12 =
     30 units @ $150 = $4500 x 12 =
     40 units @ $200 = $8000 x 12 =
     Total Apartment Rental
     Ground Floor Rental
     Parking Rental
     Total Income
     Less Vacancy & Coll. Loss 5%
               Net Income


$30,000
54,000
96,000
$180,000
17,500
12,000
$209,500
10,475
$199,025










Call  $199,000

19
Expenses:
     Management, Maintenance
     Operating, Reserve, Taxes & Ins. 40%
     Return on Bldg. Inv. $1,128,000 x 10%
              (8% + 2% recapture)

     Total Operating Expenses


$79,000
112,800



$192,400







$192,400

Income Imputable to Land
     At 8% Land Value Would Be $82,500
 

6,600
 

This indicates that there would be a high return on the land at the $70,400 figure if all other assumptions are reasonably accurate.

20

V

APPRAISAL OF COMMERCIAL SITES

LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENT

The commercial sites have three general locations. The northwestern and largest group consists of all of the area north of Woodfin Street between Broadway and Oak Streets and two sites on the south side of Woodfin each adjacent to the Asheville Biltmore Hotel. The northeastern commercial area consists of one site east of the combination office building and nursing home north of Woodfin between the nursing home and the expressway. The southern commercial grouping consists of two sites for office buildings on College Street north of the Court House. Each site is located on the Land Disposition Map on the following page. The future environment of each site is totally compatible with all surroundings except possibly one area adjacent to the First Baptist Church. The terrain at this point becomes quite a protective barrier for the church as the ground slopes rapidly away from the church. Protection is also offered the church in the plan by a private cul-de-sac entrance which also separates the church from the commercial area. As explained previously, each parcel depends on the development of the Civic Center and of the other commercial properties in order to create this environment. Each parcel will be described separately in the appraisal.

STANDARDS

The standards set by the Redevelopment Agency for the commercial areas will differ with each parcel. Only certain uses established by the market analysis will be allowed. Parking will be required in excess of the existing ordinances and new set-back lines will be established. Standards will be reviewed on each parcel.

TOPOGRAPHY

The physical shape as well as the topography of each individual site is different

-
21

Land Disposition Plan
CIVIC REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
NC - R - 13
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA

PROJECT BOUNDARY
PARCELS NOT TO BE ACQUIRED
C -- COMMERCIAL PARCELS

EASEMENTS
EXPRESSWAY

22 from all the rest. The interest created by the relocation of streets, creation of a lake and the division of parcels is three-dimensional in character. This, with the proposed redevelopment will create a new pattern of urban aesthetic value in addition to the usual economic market value. This has a meaning to the redeveloper, the general public and the visitor which results in the image of the Civic Center Project. These commercial areas help to create this character. Each site therefore has a value to the others. In general, the area is high at Broadway and slopes downward to the east, reaching a low spot east of Central Avenue and rising to Oak Street. Individual site characteristics are described briefly in the appraisals.

APPRAISALS

SITE C-1

This parcel is located on high ground which slopes down to the west, north and somewhat to the east. The plan calls for development with an office building, which we believe to be the highest and best use. The parcel contains 69,700 square feet and while situated actually on three streets, it has access only to Woodfin Street. The proposed office building would house the Chamber of Commerce and perhaps other civic functions. In the market analysis, we showed a conservative demand for 160,000 square feet of office space, of which 53,000 square feet was for the Chamber of Commerce and other civic organizations. Since that time, we have received additional replies to our questionnaire further strengthening our results and indicating an even greater demand than we had anticipated. We feel very conservative, therefore, when we state that a 50,000 square foot office building on this site could be readily absorbed.

As there have been no new downtown office buildings constructed recently, we have relied strongly on the price paid for the bank site and downtown parking. This site is closer to the central business district than any other site in the project, and is available to the expressway. The highest and best use is for an office building.

23 Restrictions should include an equal amount of square feet for parking as is used for office. This would mean basement and underground parking for 125 cars. Fill from excavating could be used in Site C-3. Using these comparables, we have estimated a $2.00 per square foot unit price. Testing this against use it shows that such a building would cost approximately $1,000,000. Thus, we have the site; 69,700 square feet x $2.00 = $139,400 which is feasible for a $1,000,000 office building.

In order to further test this indicated value and the values of sites C-6 and C-7, we have created a hypothetical building and run a land residual applicable to all three sites as follows:

OFFICE BUILDING RESIDUAL

Construction Cost 60,000 square feet @ $18.00 =   $1,080,000
Income:
     55,000 sq. ft. rentable area @ $3.50 per sq. ft
     Parking Income 150 cars @ $10 per Mo.
     Gross Income
     Less 5% Vacancy & Collection Loss
Estimated Net Annual Income:

$192,500
18,000
$210,500
10,500
 





200,000
Expenses:
     Management, Maintenance
     Reserve, Insurance, Taxes Etc., 40%
     Return on Bldg. Inv. 10% (8% + 2% recapture)
Total Estimated Expenses
Income Imputable to the Land
80,000
108,000




188,000
$ 12,000

At 8% this amounts to an indicated land value of $150,000
This justifies all three office building sites.

24 SITE C-2 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

Parcel C-2 is an irregular shaped parcel on the north side of Woodfin, east of parcel C-1. It is bounded on the west by an expressway ramp, the north by the expressway and on the east by Central Avenue which goes under the expressway. It fronts about 387 feet on Woodfin Street and contains 147,000 square feet or 3.4 acres. The ground slopes down to the expressway and down to the east. In the transient housing study, made separately, it was determined that a 200 unit motel could be readily absorbed by downtown Asheville if the Civic Center Project was completed. This parcel is an ideal site for such a motel. It is directly across the street from the Asheville Biltmore Hotel and the new high rise apartment site. To the west will be a new office building, to the east will be a large amusement and recreation area, to the southeast is the new Civic Center. The site is prominent and the terrain easily adaptible [sic] to motel use.

APPRAISAL

Using the land prices ascribed to recent motel sales and asking prices of land available for motel on the periphery, we have determined a price of $40,000 per acre which indicates a front foot value of $350 uncorrected for depth. This amounts to:

3.4 acres x $40,000 = $136,000

As a further check on this value, we have run a land residual on this property as follows:

25

MOTEL LAND RESIDUAL

We have assumed the construction of a hypothetical motel of 200 units with a gross floor area of approximately 90,000 square feet. We estimate that 60,000 square feet will be utilized for guest rooms, providing an average of 300 square feet per room. The remaining space of 30,000 square feet will be utilized as lobby, restaurant-cocktail lounge, service facilities and swimming pool. The gross floor area amounts to 450 square feet per room. Specifications would provide for a fireproof structure, floors and roof of reinforced concrete. Exterior cavity walls of brick or stone with concrete block back up plastered and quality construction to be carried throughout. Design would be characteristic of modern motor hotels. Cost estimates include air conditioning and heating throughout, adequate parking and site improvements and swimming pool area. Based on our studies and appraisals of similar properties, the cost estimate of this unit in Asheville would be $17.77 per square foot of gross floor area or $8,000 per rental unit.

We estimate an average rental of $10.00 per room, per day, although we know summer is higher and winter is lower. A conservative occupancy rate of 72.5% has been used. Of course, there will also be income from food and beverage sales and other miscellaneous income.

Properties of this type are usually constructed by a developer and leased to a hotel or motel operator such as Hotel Corporation of America, Hilton, Pick Hotel Inc., or others while the terms of the lease may vary somewhat in each case, the lessor is assured of a reasonable return on and of his investment. We find from experience this reasonable return is realized by the lessor when he received a rent equal to from 26 to 30% of the net room sales. So, for our purpose we will use 28% with the lessee paying all taxes and insurance. It is also customary, and so a premise here, that 

26 lessee will furnish all furniture, fixtures and equipment. The improvement life is estimated at 35 years. An 8% net return has been anticipated after considering the subject type of property, class of tenant, money rates, equity demand and the present net yield of motor hotels. Since the above income stream has the characteristics of an annuity, the income has been capitalized on an annuity basis. Fair market value of land predicated on the above facts is obtained as follows:
 
Estimated Gross Annual Income:
     200 rooms @ $10.00 per day for 365 days
     Less Vacancy Allowance 27.5%
Estimated Net Annual Income from Room Sales

$730,000
200,750
$529,250
Property Income (before depreciation but after taxes) 28% of Room Sales Above
Less Income Attributable to Improvements
     Cost of 200 rooms @ $8,000 per room =
          $1,600,000 ÷ 11.655 (inwood factor 8% - 35 years
Net Income Imputable to Land
Estimated Land Value ($10,910 ÷ 8)

$148,190


137,280
$10,910
$136,300

The above value of land under the hypothetical motel development is only $680 per rental unit which is well below the national average. However, we discovered in our transient room study that occupancy was below the national average and rates varied greatlyfrom [sic] summer to winter. We therefore believe that the site C-2 will be very attractive to motel operators, especially if the Civic Center Project will increase winter visitors. 

SITE C-3 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

This parcel could well be the most controversial parcel in the entire project. As stated in the Market Analysis, the redeveloper of this tract must be selected with great care. Restrictions and lattitude should be

27 based on various proposals and negotiations prior to offering the parcel for sale. The function of this site is to attract people to the downtown Asheville area. It is classified as a commercial recreation and amusement area. It is the largest commercial parcel in the project containing 236,000 square feet or 5.42 acres. We believe that in order for the project to succeed, the highest and best use of this area must be this commercial amusement area.

TOPOGRAPHY

The terrain is quite useable for this purpose, although it contains the lowest ground in the project. It is located east of parcel C-2 on the north side of relocated Woodfin Street between Central and Oak Streets and backs up to the expressway. The expressway is higher than the site and the entire parcel is therefore visible to drivers on the expressway. A city park containing a lake is to be built across the street to the south. If the redeveloper desires it, this lake can extend under Woodfin and continue into parcel C-3. Should fill for this parcel be necessary, it could be obtained from excavation for all new structures in the project as this site should be the last one to be sold.

APPRAISAL

Evaluating a site for an amusement park is really just trying to out guess the promoter of such a venue. However, this land although further from the central business district than C-1 and C-2, is closer to the Civic Center. The terrain makes it a little less desirable. Certainly it is the equal of the comparable motel sites. Front foot value doesn't have much meaning for a site this large in the heart of a community, so we have used an acreage value of $35,000 per acre, or 5.42 acres x $35,000 = $189,700. This follows a descending pattern of value from parcels C-1 and C-2, which will be continued in Parcel P I-6 and C-B, for the alternate use, and commercial use respectively.

28 SITE C-4 LOCATION

This parcel fronts 75 feet on the south side of Woodfin Street, immediately east of the Asheville Biltmore Hotel. It is 164 feet deep and contains 12,300 square feet. It is flat and is presently used for parking by guests of the hotel. We believe that this parking facility is essential to the hotel. We also believe that if restrictions as to its use as a parking facility for the hotel could be improved, that there would be no valid reason for buying the property. However, as it was included within the project area, it is necessary to appraise it.

APPRAISAL

By using the comparable sales for parking lots as a check to the $250 a front foot value which we believe to be adequate for this depth lot fronting on Woodfin, we find that we are reasonable for such a location. Therefore, we have 75 front feet x $250 = $18,550  Call $18,500.

SITE C-5 APPRAISAL

This parcel fronts 60 feet on Market Street adjacent to the Asheville Biltmore Hotel. It contains 8,040 square feet which would best be used as a parking garage to provide additional parking for the hotel, the Civic Center and Wolfe Memorial. The front on such a structure could contain small shops or a grocery store to serve the apartments. As it is less valuable frontage than Woodfin frontage, we have used $200 per front foot uncorrected for depth of 60 feet x $200 = $12,000. This makes both C-4 and C-5 average about $1.50 per square foot which is within the range of comparable parking facilities.

SITES C-6 and C-7 LOCATION

Parcels C-6 and C-7 must be discussed together in that both are sites for office buildings. C-6 is located at the northeast intersection of College and Market Streets. To the end is a new city park which extends a green area from Pack Square through the city-county plaza to the new Civic Center Building. C-7 is adjacent to this park on the east.

29 TOPOGRAPHY

The grades in this whole area north of College Street are gentle. They slope downward to the east and to the north. From a future standpoint, the two office buildings on each side of the park will frame and limit the park and the Civic Building. The continuity of green area and the size of the parcels will create an openness seldom seen in a downtown area. The continuation of the park containing a lake north of C-7 and east of the Civic Center will create a spaciousness that will be most inviting. Such amenities, normally unavailable in a downtown area help in creating values.

RESTRICTIONS

If possible, the same redeveloper should develop both sites, as the buildings should really represent twin towers. The building on C-6, we envision as the professional and business building, while on C-7 we believe the state and federal offices should be located. These buildings should contain approximately 60,000 square feet each and should be similar in character and structure. First floor uses could be commercial, such as a bank with drive-in facilities, restaurant, drug store, and some small shops that could stay open evenings to serve the Civic Center trade. Parking should be required on a matching square foot basis of office space which means basement and underground parking.

APPRAISAL

Based on comparable sales of the branch bank on College Street and central business district sales, we have assigned square foot rather than front foot values to the property north of College Street. The double and practically triple frontage of C-6 has resulted in a $3.00 per square foot value from which we decline to $2.00 at College and Oak Streets. Of course, the difference in depths of the parcels results in a variance of front foot values. We believe that parcel C-6 is the choice commercial site in the project,

30 closely followed by parcel C-7. We also believe that both must be developed similarly in order to give the proper balance. We therefore find; C-6 is 47,850 square feet x $3.00 = $143,550  Call $143,500; C-7 is 49,500 square feet x $2.50 = $123,750  Call $124,000. These values are in concurrence with the comparable sales and the reuse purpose. We tested them by presuming the erection of a building costing $1,300,000 on C-6 and one costing $1,200,000 on C-7 and found that the ground values were well within economic feasibility for such structures. A further test is the residual example of site C-1, which further demonstrates the correct economic range of these indicated values.

SITE C-8 LOCATION

This parcel is located on the north side of Woodfin Street adjacent to and east of the nursing home. It is bounded on the north and on the east by the right-of-way for the expressway. It is almost a triangle in shape and contains 14,000 square feet. It is approximately level and is available for parking or a small office or shop, possibly doing business with the institutional use to the south or east.

APPRAISAL

Values going east on Woodfin Street decline from the high of Parcel C-1 to a low on this parcel C-8. These values were obtained from the comparable sales and adjusted for depth or acreage. Thus, we find that the lowest value on the north side of this street occurs here at $.60 per square foot, or 14,000 square feet x $.60 = $8,400.

31

VI

APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC SITES

LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENT

The normal classification of public and semi-public sites has been divided into public and public institutional because of the preponderance of sites in these classifications. The primary factor in the division was ownership. All parcels to be purchased by the City of Asheville are called public sites and carry the P designation. Four of these sites are located on each side of the Civic Center Building, thus framing it with parks or municipal parking. A fifth site is an extended City County Plaza, most of which the city already owns. The sixth site is at the cul-de-sac of Poplar Street at Beaucatcher Mountain. On this rather rugged site the city will have to develop a natural park area, which will be available to serve the Allen School and those who live south of Poplar Street.

GENERAL CONDITIONS

Normal standards generally required of a redeveloper are not applicable to these properties. Because of the need for parking around the Civic Center, parcel P-1 is to be developed with municipal parking. Because of the terrain, this will probably be done with a double deck structure. As a result, the alternate commercial use would be the same. Parcel P-2 uses the same reasoning, although it will not be double decked which partially accounts for the square foot difference in value. The remaining difference is due to location on Woodfin of P-1. Parcel P-3 is one of the choice parcels between two office buildings. The alternate commercial use would be the same as C-6 and C-7 resulting in the evaluation. Parcel P-4, is a very odd shape following the contour of a newly created lake, plus a municipal parking area. Of course there is not much alternate use for the lake, so we assume that it would not be created and designate the area for commercial and commercial parking use, pricing it in similar fashion

32

Land Disposition Plan
CIVIC REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
NC - R- 13
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA

PROJECT BOUNDARY
PARCELS NOT TO BE ACQUIRED

P -- PUBLIC & SEMI-PUBLIC PARCELS

EASEMENTS
EXPRESSWAY

33 to similar property in P I-6. If we were to return to former street patterns or straighten out the borders of this parcel with a new street in order to obtain a higher value, the cost of the street would offset the higher value so we have held to the acreage price on this park.

Parcel P-5 is the City County Plaza extension. This area in the form of park or street is almost entirely owned by the city at the present time. The changing shape of this area up to Pack Square, will change traffic patterns. The alternate use as commercial or commercial parking would undoubtedly bring the highest price of any property in the project due to the extremely prominent location resulting in great desirability and economic potential. By our computation, however, the City of Asheville already owns all but 35,600 square feet of this area which we have valued at $4.00 per square foot.

Parcel P-6 is quite rugged in character, but as an alternate use, we have used multiple family garden type apartments. While extensive grading would be necessary, and a very low density would result from the necessity of scattering the buildings, a beautiful arrangement would result. Because of these factors, however, plus the fact that this type of development usually uses cheaper open land, we have used a low acreage price.

While the city cannot be forced to develop any of these parcels, its contribution, by buying and developing them can be used in lieu of cash to meet its one-third share of the over-all cost of the project. In this manner, the city will obtain more for their money than simply putting out cash for their share of the project cost.

Following the above described conditions and comparisons, we have computed a table of values for the public sites as follows:

34
Site Use Alternate Use Size Unit Indicated
Value
P-1 Municipal pkg. Com. pkg. 23,500 sq. ft. $2.30 54,000
P-2 Municipal pkg. Com. pkg. 44,253 sq. ft. 1.50 66,400
P-3 Park Office Bldg. 56,600 sq. ft. 2.50 141,500
P-4 Park, Lake pkg. Com. & pkg. 2.6 acres 30,000 per acre 78,000
P-5 City County Plaza Com. & pkg. 35,600 sq. ft. 4.00 142,400
P-6 Park Garden Apts. 1.9 acres 4,500 per acre 8,500
          $490,800
35

VII

APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL SITES

LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENT

As explained previously, the Public Institutional Sites would normally be included as Public or Semi-Public sites. However, we separated this classification according to ownership, and the Public Institutional classification consists of the Public or Semi-Public sites to be purchased by groups or institutions other than the City of Asheville. Care should be taken by the Redevelopment Commission to insure credit to the city of all purchases and development by institutions such as the Board of Education and Health Department. At least some portion of these expenses will go toward meeting the city's share of the net project cost.

Generally, the PI classification covers the church sites, school sites and the Civic Center site. The latter, of course, is the key to the whole project and is in the very center of the intense redevelopment. The area to the east is mainly for church and school expansion. Topography and location as well as alternate use will be described briefly with each site.

APPRAISALS

SITE PI-1

This parcel is intended as a site for one of the churches to be displaced by the project. It fronts 250 feet on Orchard by 111 feet on Central and contains 31,900 square feet. It is suitable topographically and has good access. We have used an alternate use of single family residential and have estimated a value of $80 per front foot or 80 x 250 = $20,000.

36

Land Disposition Plan
CIVIC REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
NC - R- 13
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA

PROJECT BOUNDARY
PARCELS NOT TO BE ACQUIRED

P-I  PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL PARCELS

EASEMENTS
EXPRESSWAY

37 SITE PI-2

This parcel, like PI-1 is a site for a relocated church from within the project area. It fronts 189 feet on Orchard Street and contains 23,500 square feet. The terrain is similar to PI-1 and access is also good. The alternate use is single family residential and the indicated front foot value is also $80. Therefore, we have $80 x 189 = $15,120.

SITE PI-3

This parcel is a part of the Civic Center Project. It is separated from the main parcel for Civic Center use only because it may be desirable for the Thomas Wolfe Memorial rather than the Civic Center organization to purchase the property. It is irregular in shape being on the east and south of the present Wolfe Memorial, and contains 23,419 square feet. To the north is a new street and to the south a municipal parking lot. The alternate use is for additional parking, which because of the parking to the northeast, northwest and south, plus a certain degree of difficult access would reduce the parking price to an indicated value of $1.00 per square foot or 23,419 square feet x $1.00 = $23,419 Call $23,000.

SITE PI-4

This parcel is the one on which will be developed the actual Civic Center structure. It is of very irregular shape, being bounded on the east by the new park and lake, the north by parking facilities, on the west by PI-3, and on the south by City Park. It contains 113,000 square feet or 2.6 acres. Because of the similarity with the C-3 area and the lack of frontage, the alternate commercial use would be difficult. As explained in parcel P-4, the lake probably would not be developed and a street would have to be made. In addition to these improvement costs, we are still following a declining pattern of values from west to east. For the alternate commercial use therefore, we have indicated a value of $35,000 per acre, or 2.6 acres x $35,000 per acre = $91,000.

38 SITE PI-5

This parcel is intended to be used for expansion of the Christian Church. It is just north of the church and fronts on Oak Street and relocated Woodfin Street. It contains 27,000 square feet intended for a building addition and parking facilities. Additional parking is to the west. The alternate use is commercial parking which by both the comparable sales and declining values indicates a value of $1.75 per square foot. Double frontage and the major artery increase the value from PI-4. Thus we have 27,000 square feet x $1.75 = $47,200.

SITE PI-6

Sites numbered PI-6, 7, 8 are all intended for expansion of the First Baptist Church. PI-6 is north of the church. Woodfin Street is to be closed, thereby isolating an area already owned by the church and used for parking. The area of street owned on both sides by the church has been deducted from the total area, because by closing the street, the church would automatically acquire the land. It is necessary to provide a utility easement or an extension of Oak Street to the expressway. The alternate use of this site would be commercial or parking probably in the form of an extension of parcel C-3. Although the terrain is higher and better suited for commercial use than C-3, we have followed the declining pattern of value because of the church property in the middle of the site and to compensate for the easement. We have therefore used an indicated value of $30,000 per acre. The total area of the parcel is 79,400 square feet from which we subtract 8,750 square feet of closed street to obtain the following: 70,650 square feet = 1.62 acres or 1.62 acres x $30,000 = $48,600.

SITE PI-7

This parcel is to the east and south of the First Baptist Church, fronting on College Park Place and Oak Street. Even with College Park Place being a major traffic artery, we believe the alternate use to be residential in character, because of the church and school influence.

39 The lots would be very shallow, but desirable. Due to this depth, we estimate the value of these residential lots at $50 per front foot or 385 feet x $50 = $19,250 Call $19,200. Five lots could be obtained here which would make each lot $3,840, which is a reasonable figure.

SITE PI-8

This parcel is to the west and south of the First Baptist Church educational building. Charlotte Street, in a depressed right-of-way, separates the church from this property. The alternate use is single family residential as parcel PI-7. Because of the additional depth to the potential lots, however, we find an indicated value of $60 per front foot. The total frontage of Woodfin and College Park Place is an effective frontage of 270 feet or 270 feet x $60 = $16,200. Four lots can be obtained, making the cost per lot $4,050 which is reasonable.

SITE PI-9

Site PI-9 is intended for use as a site for the YMCA which presently occupies site C-1. Common use with the school of the playground PI-11 is contemplated. The alternate use of this site is for single family residential use. It fronts on both Woodfin Street and College Park Place and could be subdivided into 10 lots: a small utility easement, not affecting building sites, is on the northern boundary. Because of the depth factor and the ultimate lot size, we find an indicated value of $60 per front foot. As there is a total effective frontage of 600 feet, we find: 600 feet x $60 = $36,000 or $3,600 per lot which is reasonable.

SITE PI-10

This small parcel is created by the realignment of Charlotte Street. It is situated between the Junior High School and Charlotte which is depressed at this point. Actually, there is no possible alternate use due to a very limited frontage on College Park Place, making

40 the only possible purchaser the Board of Education. The parcel contains 19,500 square feet in an arc following the curve of Charlotte. Any alternate use would be detrimental to the school use, but because it could be used for parking we have simply ascribed a value of $.20 per square foot. Therefore, we find; 19,200 square feet x $.20 = $3,840  Call $3,850.

SITE PI-11

This parcel extends from Charlotte Street to the Allen School and church between College Park Place and Poplar Street. It contains 251,300 square feet. The topography is such that the ground slopes down from College Park Place to Poplar Street. It is the intention to provide a playground for the Junior High School on this parcel by cutting and filling. This playground would also be available to the YMCA. A small area would be reserved for parking and a pedestrian bridge over Charlotte Street would connect the area with the school.

Alternate use has been set up as multiple family residential, which development would require extensive fill and grading. Even so, the lots would have to be large in order to accommodate the grades. For this reason, we have not used a front foot or square foot value. Rather, we believe that sixteen lots at $4,000 each, would be the best use of the land. Each lot could support a four-family building. Therefore, we find 16 lots @ $4,000 = $64,000.

SITE PI-12

This parcel is a continuation of similar ground to that found in PI-11, immediately west of PI-11 fronting on Poplar Street. Because this property is behind and adjoining that owned by Allen School, it is designated for use by that institution. The same alternate use and grading conditions apply here as in PI-11. Therefore, we find two lots @ $4,000 = $8,000.

41 SITE PI-13

This parcel is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of College Street and Oak Street. It is the intention to develop this site with a building for t he County Health Department. It contains 38,500 square feet. Because of this limited size, it will probably be necessary to put most of the building on columns and utilize the entire area for parking.

The alternate use of the parcel is commercial. It would be a good service station site, store building, office or any other permissible commercial use. As explained earlier, the decending [sic] values on College Street started at $4.00 per square foot on the City County Plaza, continued to C-6 at $3.00 per square foot and went down on each parcel to the east to $2.00 per square foot at Oak Street. Thus, we find Parcel PI-13 is 38,500 square feet x $2,00 = $77,000.

SITES PI-14 -- PI-15

These parcels are on each side of an existing church on the north side of College Park Place at the extreme eastern edge of the project, at the intersection with the expressway. PI-14 contains 7,200 square feet and PI-15 contains 6,000 square feet. It is intended that one parcel be used for a parsonage and one parcel for parking purposes. The alternate use for each would be single family residential. Because of the size of the lots and their location adjacent to the expressway, we have indicated a value of the lot rather than a front foot or square foot value. Thus we find an indicated value as follows: 

PI-14 = $3,000         PI-15 = $2,500

42a
[attached report]
Roy Wenzlick & Co.
Economists  Appraisers  Counselors

Telephone Garfield I-0706
706 Chestnut Street    St. Louis 1, MO.

June 5, 1962

Redevelopment Commission
City of Asheville, North Carolina
Post Office Box 7148
Asheville, North Carolina

Attn: Mr. Charles M. Dent, Jr.
        Executive Director

Re: Reuse Appraisals
Civic Redevelopment Project
N. C. R-13

Gentlemen:

In accord with your request to recompute the values of parcels as shown on your revised disposal map, we have proceeded in the following manner, as agreed on the telephone and confirmed by your letter of May 31, 1962, namely;

     1. Values are changed only to reflect area changes.

     2. Values are based on data obtained during the winter of 1960-61 and have not been updated.

     3. All re-users of the land either fall into the previous classification of re-use or the alternate uses contemplated at that time.

This letter and the accompanying report therefore can be considered as an amendment to the values indicated in our original appraisal dated February 20, 1961 in order to adjust those values to the revised disposal map.

42b[attached report] Redevelopment Commission -- 2

June 5, 1962

The revised estimate of fair market value of all sites appraised is therefore $1,684,800 which is broken down by parcel in the attached report. In two instances the lack of buildable lots due to boundary changes have affected values. The most pronounced is PI-14. All original limiting conditions still apply. We specifically call your attention to the original date of appraisal on page 9 of the original report. We are aware that a second appraisal will be made prior to offering the property for sale, but wish to caution you that because of the time interval, changing conditions may reflect additional changes of value.

Hoping that this new computation is satisfactory for your needs, we are

Sincerely yours,

Hiram C. Martin, Jr., Director
Planning & Zoning Studies

James R. Appel, M.A.I.
Vice President

HCM/vt

42c[attached report]

AMENDMENT TO REUSE APPRAISAL
CIVIC REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT N.C. R-13

Because of certain changes in the sizes of parcels to be sold for reuse, the following summary of appraised values has been recomputed in accordance with the revised disposal map. All conditions of the original appraisal are the same except for the sizes of parcels. There follows a list of each parcel.

SUMMARY OF APPRAISED VALUES

Number Size Amount Totals
R-1 61,000 sq. ft.    
Total R 61,000 sq. ft. $70,400 $70,400
C-1 69,700 sq. ft. $139,400  
C-2 181,000 sq. ft. 166,200  
C-3 220,000 sq. ft. 176,750  
C-4 eliminated ----  
C-5 8,040 sq. ft. 12,000  
C-6 47,900 sq. ft. 143,650  
C-7 42,150 sq. ft. 105,400  
C-8 18,300 sq. ft. 11,000  
C-9* 23,500 sq. ft. 54,000  
C-10* 44,253 sq. ft. 66,400  
Total C 654,843 sq. ft.   $874,800
       
* Changed from P to C -- Previously priced as commercial parking alternate.
       
P-1 (P-3) 49,200 sq. ft. $108,300  
P-2 (P-4) 55,400 sq. ft. 38,200  
P-3 eliminated ----  
P-4 (P-6) 83,500 sq. ft. 8,500  
P-5 21,200 sq. ft. 84,800  
Total P 209,300 sq. ft.   $239,800
42d
[attached report]
Number Size Amount Totals
PI-1 31,900 sq. ft. $20,000  
PI-2 23,500 " 15,100  
PI-3 21,450 " 23,400  
PI-4 108,800 " 87,400  
PI-5 37,500 " 65,600  
PI-6 72,300 " 69,200 49,800   47,700  
PI-7 49,400 " 23,000  
PI-8 26,200 " 12,300  
PI-9 111, 000 51,400 Eliminated
PI-10 eliminated ---  
PI-11 251,300 " 64,000  
PI-12 29,600 " 8,000  
PI-13 38,500 " 77,000  
PI-14 6,500 " 300  
PI-15 6,000 " 2,500  
Total PI 813,950 sq. ft.
116,100
699,850
  $499,800
less 53, 500
446,300
       
Grand Total 1,739,093 sq. ft.
1,624,993
  $1,684,800
1,631,300
42e[attached report]
Parcel Land Improvement Total Assessed Value 40% of 80% x Tax Rate 1.53 City Income
R-1 $70,400 $1,128,000 $1,198,400 $383,488 1.53 $5,867
C-1 139,400 1,000,000 1,139,400 364,608   5,578
C-2 136,000 1,600,000 1,736,000 555,520   8,499
C-3 189,700 1,000,000 1,189,700 380,704   5,825
C-4 18,500 20,000 38,500 12,320   188
C-5 12,000 100,000 112,000 358,400   5,483
C-6 143,500 1,300,000 1,443,500 461,920   7,067
C-7 124,000 1,200,000 1,324,000 423,680   6,482
C-8 8,400 3,000 11,400 3,648   55
             
  $841,900 $7,351,000 $8,192,900 $2,944,288   $45,044
42

VIII

SUMMARY OF APPRAISED VALUES

METHODS

In this section, we have listed all of the appraised values and all of the sizes of each parcel. We have not indicated in the summary, the particular method of the appraisal, that is by square foot, front foot, or other means because of the number of different methods that were used. In this reuse appraisal, we have attempted to apply the most logical method to each parcel of property. In this manner, we have actually established a value by use that is consistent with a pattern of values for the entire project area. We also believe it to be consistent with the market analysis and values elsewhere in the Asheville community. It must again be reiterated; however, that these commercial and residential values will hold up only if the Civic Center development is an actuality. Therefore, the time of the offering is vital to the sales potential. The values indicated below, while we believe them to be realistic, should be used as guides rather than as prices. Bidding should be encouraged in order to obtain the best price for each site. There follows a list of each parcel.

SUMMARY OF APPRAISED VALUES

Number Size Amount Totals
R-1 61,000 Sq. Ft. $70,400  
Total R 61,000 Sq. Ft.   $70,400
       
C-1 69,700 Sq. Ft. $139,400  
C-2 147,000  182,400 136,00  + 32,800 = 168,800  
C-3 236,000 189,700  
C-4 12,300 18,500  
C-5 8,040 12,200  
43
Number Size Amount Totals
C-6 47,850 Sq. Ft. $143,500   $3.00  
C-7 49,500 124,000      2.50  
C-8 14,000 8,400          60¢  
C-9      
C-10      
Total C 584,390 Sq. Ft.
675,243
  $771,500
906,200
       
P-1 23,500 Sq. Ft. $54,000  
P-2 44,253 66,400  

P-3

56,600
122
141,500       $2.50
 
P-4 88,700   66,700 78,000  $.88   58,600  
P-5 35,600 142,400  
P-6 83,500 8,500  
Total P 332,153 Sq. Ft.
242,400
  $490,800
$351,000
       
PI-1 31,900 Sq. Ft. $20,000  
PI-2 23,500 15,100  
PI-3 21,450 23,400  
PI-4 113,300 91,000   80¢  
PI-5 27,000   49,000 47,200 + $19,400 based on p. 4
66,600
 
PI-6 70,650 48,600  69¢  
PI-7 41,400 19,200  47¢  
PI-8 41,400 16,200  39¢  
PI-9 86,000   113,330 36,000   47,500   42¢  
PI-10 19,500 3,850   20¢  
PI-11 251,300 64,000   25¢  
PI-12 28,200 8,000  
PI-13 38,500 77,000  2.00  
PI-14 7,200 3,000  
PI-15 6,000 2,500  
Total PI 807,300 Sq. Ft.
808, 930
  $475,050
494,100
       
Grand Total 1,784,843 Sq. Ft.   $1,807,750
44

IX

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

POSSIBLE EXCLUSION

We believe that it may be possible to write restrictions on parcel C-4, to which the owner will agree, thus making it unnecessary either to buy or resell this parcel. It is essential to the operation of the adjacent Hotel Asheville Biltmore that this area be available for parking purposes.

ADDITIONAL PLANNING

It may be discovered that some areas intended for redevelopment by a specific agency may be unsuitable for that agency after additional study. For instance, the Health Department may need more room. The YMCA might need more playground space, or the Allen School may not need the additional land. Should this situation arise, additional planning should attempt where ever possible to obtain a suitable replacement agency, especially if it is in the PI category. Before accepting the proposed alternate use, an investigation should be made to determine the effect this alternate use would have on the entire plan. In other words, this redevelopment plan should be considered frozen at this time, and no major changes from the proposed land use should be considered until adequate study has proved them to be feasible and to fit into the overall objective. This project, it must be remembered, is to bring people into downtown Asheville. 

SIZE OF PARCELS

If the size of any parcel changes due to minor changes in boundaries, the unit values concluded may be projected to the added or deleted portion with reasonable certainty that the new value will be reasonable. Sites may be made larger or smaller in this manner, according to building design, prior to offering the property for sale.

45 In the case of parcel C-3, it may be possible to have a competition, asking prospective redevelopers to submit their ideas and plans for the development of the amusement area. They could indicate their ideas on having or not having the lake extend into this parcel. Substantial changes in any parcel sizes would require new appraisals.

MARKETING

We have stated throughout the Transient Study, the Market Analysis, and this Reuse Appraisal that the method of disposition is all important to this project. We have outlined the disposition procedure as the values are dependent upon the entire project moving in sequence.

We realize that North Carolina law requires competitive bidding. This makes the writing of restrictions very important. They cannot be so strict that no bidders will be forth coming, but it must be assured, especially in the P and PI classifications that no private redevelopers can acquire these properties. For the C and R classifications, we advise the agency to use all of the advertising and promotion possible in order to obtain the best possible prices.

CERTIFICATION

To conclude this appraisal, it is our opinion that the total fair market value of the reuse sites in the Civic Center Project area, as of the date of the reuse sites in the Civic Center Project area, as of the date of offering is $1,807,750, and have so certified on our appraisal certificate which appears at the beginning of this report.

HOME