My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 06-17-2002
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
CCP 06-17-2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:17:15 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 4:04:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Memo to Mayor and Council <br />June 10,2002 Indykiewicz Reuse Memo <br />Page 2 of3 <br /> <br />(estimated at less than $400,000). Alternatively, the broker indicated that the City may get <br />closer to the appraised value if it were willing to sell the property to a c-store user. Finally, <br />the broker indicated that a restaurant, particularly a sit-down restaurant was not a likely <br />prospect given the location of the site, and its lack of proximity to similar users. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />Based on the information currently available, staff would like to receive direction on how the <br />Council would like to market the site. In general, the following options are available: <br /> <br />1. Do not actively market the property. <br /> <br /> Pros Cons <br />. This option may allow the property to be . Undetermined carrying costs for the <br /> better integrated with future development property (Essentially acquisition cost plus <br /> In the area including the Gateway 5% per year). <br /> Redevelopment and/or TCAAP reuse. . The Office of the State Auditor discourages <br />. Enhanced locational factors ill the future cities from retaining land on their balance <br /> may yield an increased return ill the long sheets for extended periods of time <br /> run. particularly if they are not part of a larger <br /> redevelopment. <br /> . Loss of tax base until the property is sold. <br /> <br />2. Market the site for office and retail uses previously outlined by the Council. <br /> <br /> Pros Cons <br />. Use desirability . Reduced revenue 011 the sale of the <br />. Compatibility with Gateway Business Park property <br /> . Marketing the property may take longer <br /> due to weak suburban office market. <br /> <br />3. Market the site for office and retail uses previously outlined by the Council with the addition <br />of a C-store. <br /> <br /> Pros Cons <br />. Maximize revenue on the sale of the . Use desirability of a C-store (perceived <br /> property an! or real) <br />. Marketing the property may take less time <br /> <br />If the Council was inclined to market the property, consideratioll should also be given as to <br />whether the property should be marketed by staff or a commercial real estate broker. The <br />advantage of staff marketing the property would be to retain any commission that a broker <br />otherwise would receive. The disadvantage of this particular approach includes existing <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.