CCP 09-09-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. M:ayor Dennis. Probst Council Member Beverly Aplikowski Council Member David Grant Council Member Gregg Larson Council Member Lois Rem Page 2 September 4, 2002 2.) Condition 14 of the City approval of the Master PUD expressly states that, "approval of the Master Plan is continl,':ent on the applicants acquisition of all properties shown in the proposal." (emphasis added) 3.) Chesapeake has publicly marketed its proposed development in reliance upon the Master PUD and fully incorporated the A. I.S. parcel as an integral part of its proposed development. 4,) 1I0wever, since September of 2001, Chesapeake has refused to engage in any good faith negotiations to purchase the A.I.S. parcel-contrary to: a.) its repeated representations to the City Council; and b.) Condition 14 of the Master PUD approval. . As a direct result, Chesapeake has placed A. T .5. and HPMK in a totally untenable position. Although the property has been listed for sale by the Welsh Company at $2,000,000 ($300,000 below the appraised fair market value of the property as of October 31, 2000). the property C3l1not be sold in the market place for a price anywhere close to fair market value. In fact, prospective buyers have abandoned interest in the property once they have been informed of the Master PUD and development plan that incorporates the A.I.S. parcel. In conclusion, the pending Master PUD represents an "exertion of significant control" over the A.T.S.lHPMK parcel. Ihis control seriously restricts my clients' "freedom to choose" how to use the property, including restriction of their ability to sell the property in the market place without a substantial impairment of fair market value. Therefore, A.T.S. and HPMK. request that the City Council deny Chesapeake's application for extension of the Master PUD and development plan proposal beyond September 26, 2002, . ~~/8 06Bd!9Pij#~( !08:6 co/rO/60 ~rij8LOSr~S9 'V'd'"OllTW~'UOIIT8'".pUe^Ol :~q .U'8