Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Questions:
The presence of the non-exclusive The presence of the non-exclusive
Why wasnt there any mention of the March 27, 2003 Zoning Administrators comment included
parking easement and the nature of the parking easement and the nature of the
in either appraisal, that, If the location of a structure is within the floodplain is proposed, the
ingress-egress must be taken into ingress-egress must be taken into
application would be subject to Sec 9-606 of the Zoning Ordinance which pertains to Special
account when planning the size of any account when planning the size of any
Exception approval. . .by the Board of Supervisors.
potential project. potential project.
What are the implications of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act upon this property?
Did RAs land use attorney or RA seek any land use determinations during this process?
The proximity to Lake Newport, The proximity to Lake Newport, Did the owner provide any proof that there was recent buyer interest in this building?
floodplain, RPA and dam spillway may floodplain, RPA and dam spillway may What development plans and correspondence did the appraiser use in writing the appraisal that
result in above-average development result in above-average development or were not attached to the appraisal?
or redevelopment costs." redevelopment costs."
Restrictions, Use and Site Plans Restrictions, Use and Site Plans Comments:
2010 appraisal notes that there is confusion/disagreement over permitted uses while the 2015
Contains extensive information about Appraisal lacks zoning determination appraisal relies on the word of the owner.
the propertys permitted use and zoning documents as present in 2010 appraisal. The 2010 appraisal includes background information on the zoning discussions while the 2015
restrictions. appraisal includes none of these appendices and does not provide any assurances that the value
The subject is designated as a which is given is for a use that is currently permitted.
The appraiser notes, "...a difference of Convenience Center in the Reston Master In 2015 the appraiser says the highest and best use to continue operating the existing building
opinion existed concerning the Plan. The new draft Reston Master Plan as an office following maintenance and to proceed with expansion of the property with a
development potential of the property. Special Study recommends that the commercial use (Note: they do not say restaurant use) once a lead tenant or owner-user has
. .we have attempted to prepare the subject be planned for office use at the been secured and when the market permits (indicating that the market will not support a
appraisal consistent with Fairfax existing built intensity to maintain its restaurant at this point). Again, typically a retail use would provide the highest return to the
County's determinations to the extent current character. land. (retail - office or restaurant) there are a lot of IFs here.
possible. The 2010 appraisal was conducted in a 1-month window, the 2015 in a 2-week period.
The appraisal notes that the property Questions:
In 2003 the county concluded that the owner reports There is no limitation on Why wasnt the fact that restaurant use would require substantial renovation and possible
FAR for the conversion of the sales the amount of restaurant FAR he can do, demolition included in the 2015 appraisal as it was in the 2010 appraisal?
center or a second or expanded eating but that the office FAR cannot be Why did the client instruct the appraiser to assume that a restaurant would have the potential
establishment, is limited to the FAR of expanded. The appraiser notes, This for a 6,930 expansion?
the initial construction. . .adding an may apply to just the existing building. Why didnt the firm include restrictions/county zoning docs in second appraisal?
eating establishment to the site Why werent the 1981 plan documents mentioned in the appraisal, titled Reston Visitors
unrelated to the sales center would not Center and Restaurant as prepared by Doug Corkern, Architects, Inc., included in the packet?
The appraiser provided an estimate
require an amendment to the assuming the Additional Building
development plan or proffer. An eating Improvements Could be Expanded into
establishment would require approval Lake Newport
of a PRC plan.
We have been asked to assume that,
We have assumed that the subject will according to our client instructions, a
require substantial renovation, restaurant would have the potential for
including gutting and perhaps extending out into the lake and that the
demolition in order to accommodate a GBA would be 6,930 feet.
restaurant use. (page 25)
Building plans from 1981 indicate it was
Highest and best use if vacant is to possible to extend out into the lake
hold for development with a further with construction of a restaurant
commercial office or retail project to building. Parking spaces have already
the maximum density allowed once a been provided to support such expansion
lead tenant or owner-user has been and utilities appear to be available.
secured.
Highest and best use if vacant is to
hold for development with a commercial
Highest and best use as improved is use to the maximum feasible density
considered to be continuation of the allowed once a lead tenant or owner-
present use as office until the market user has been secured. Typically, a retail
warrants expansion or redevelopment commercial use would provide the
of the site. highest return to the land.