One address in, read against the county roll, the city's code text and permit records, recorded sales and a published cost guide. Street, city, owners and every case number removed; the lot's depth is scaled by one factor and every money figure by another, so areas, ratios and the binding rule are unchanged. Every figure in the study carries its source and the date it was read.
The question: what may legally be built under the current rules, how much of it fits, and whether redevelopment pencils. The answer gives the facts, what the price depends on and how each method is worked out. It does not state a price. The workbook that comes with it does the arithmetic, so the client sees the land value move when an input changes.
It opens with one question back to the client: how much ground-floor retail should the scheme carry? The test scheme assumes 5,400 SF; the building on the county roll is 9,062 SF. Every square foot moved between shops and homes changes the sales value.
The floor area ratio is the limit that binds. Height and setbacks alone would hold 82,000 SF over 4 storeys; the ratio caps the building at 31,500 SF, about 1.54 full floors of the largest footprint. In the test scheme that is 26 homes over 4,860 SF of shops, and what limits the number of homes is the minimum average unit size of 800 SF, not density.
| Fact | Where it comes from |
|---|---|
| Two platted lots, 100 ft by 210 ft, 21,000 SF. | County property roll, read October 2026 |
| The roll still carries a one-storey commercial building of 9,062 SF, at the same building value three years running. | County roll, three years of building records |
| The building burned some years ago and was reported a total loss; the city opened an unsafe-structure case the same day. | Local news report; city permit and code records |
| The listing describes the site as vacant land. | Listing, read October 2026 |
| A demolition permit was applied for this year and is not issued. Three unsafe-structure cases are on file; none is open. | City permit and code records |
| The front of the lot shows a roofless masonry shell with its outer walls standing. The rear is paved and a few cars are parked on it; whether that earns anything is not on record. | Aerial image, early 2025 |
What the study relies on. The building is a shell that earns nothing, the roll has not been updated for the fire, and the site's value is its land under its best legal use, less demolition. An income approach does not apply. No ground inspection was read, and the study says so.
| Rule | This lot |
|---|---|
| District | A commercial district. |
| Floor area ratio | 1.5 for all uses. The district's bonus to 2.0 does not apply on this street. |
| Height | 55 ft, measured from the required flood elevation. The district's general limit of 50 ft does not apply on this street. |
| Setbacks | Front 0 ft, interior side 0 ft, rear 5 ft. |
| Density | 100 homes per acre, which is 48 on this lot. A bonus exists for some kinds of housing. |
| Unit size | 550 SF minimum and 800 SF minimum average for new construction. |
| Parking | None for a hotel; none for shops in some cases; 1.5 spaces per home of this size, which is 39 spaces for the test scheme, with a fee in lieu allowed. The rule is written to apply only to projects permitted before a stated date; what replaces it was not read. |
| Demolition | The lot is in a protected area. Demolition needs an approval given at a hearing, and no demolition permit issues until the replacement building is approved. |
| Flood | A mapped flood zone. The ground floor is raised and flood-proofed, and height is measured from above the flood elevation. |
| State law | State law may allow more for some rental schemes. That is a different scheme. It is not priced here and needs land-use counsel. |
Two records disagreed and the code text settled both: our own record held heights of 50 ft and 55 ft, and a density of 74 homes per acre. The text read in October 2026 says 55 ft and 100.
| Factor | Facts found | Direction |
|---|---|---|
| Condominium sale price | Recorded unit sales in new buildings within a mile: Sale A, spring 2025, $899/SF; Sale B, late 2025, $860/SF; Sale C, late 2024, $902/SF; Sale D, spring 2026, $1,152/SF. Sales in buildings of another kind, priced far higher, were left out as not comparable. | Raises it: the largest single driver |
| Build cost | A published cost guide for the metro, first quarter 2026: multi-family hard cost $171 to $261 per SF. The workbook uses the high-specification figure and also shows the result at the low figure and at a $315 stress cost. | Lowers it |
| Allowed floor area | 31,500 SF, with no bonus on this street. | Caps it |
| Ground-floor retail | Asking rents in new buildings nearby: $76 and $45 per SF a year. A regional retail cap rate of about 6.6% from a brokerage's quarterly report. | Raises it modestly |
| Condition and approvals | The building contributes nothing. Demolition depends on that approval. Approvals and construction take time, and taxes of about $173,000 a year accrue meanwhile. | Lowers it; depends on the approval |
| Recorded site sales on the same street and district | Site E, mid 2024: 32,900 SF, $656/SF of land (two parcels in one deed, bought for a hotel; part of the price was financed by the seller, per a press report) Site F, autumn 2025: 7,800 SF, $545/SF of land Site G, late 2025: 15,600 SF, $315/SF of land Site H, mid 2026: 23,100 SF, $468/SF of land Site I, early 2025: 40,200 SF, $470/SF of land (two addresses in one sale) | Depends: every one of these had a standing building that earned income, which this lot lacks |
| Flood zone | Ground floor raised and flood-proofed. | Lowers it (cost) |
| Parking rule | 39 spaces if the rule applies; ground parking at the guide's rates is in the workbook as a test. | Lowers it if it applies |
Sales left out of the land comparison, each with its reason: a site in a residential district, sales on two other retail streets, small apartment buildings, an office building.
Residual land value. In the workbook, change an input and the result moves.
Comparable land sales. Each recorded sale above, price divided by land area, with a size adjustment. The two methods are shown side by side and are not blended.
| Anchor | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| County land value this year | $297/SF | County roll; it was $360/SF a year earlier |
| County building value | $391,000 | County roll, not updated for the fire |
| Asking price | $509/SF of land | Listing, about four months on the market |
| Last sale with a price | Decades old | County sales history, marked disqualified by the county |
The study also lists what it re-checked: one entry in our own record held the lot area ten times too large. The county record and the legal description agree with each other, and every figure uses them.