CCP 09-08-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Mr. Aaron Parrish August ) 5, 2003 Page Five ATS has refused to engage in any direct discussion, negotiation or meetings with us. At this point, we have expressed our frustration but informed Welsh that we are available at any time to discuss the potential acquisition of ATS. We have made numerous attempts to acquire ATS property since the Fall of 2000. They continue to insist on a price that is substantially above market, especially when you take into account substantial deferred capital expenditures required to return the property to a good condition, i,e. roof, parking, etc. The market values of all properties have clearly dropped over the past three years because of the economy and oversupply of excess real estate. However, we have increased our offer in spite of the current conditions. Other industrial brokers have confirmed that our offer is reasonable and in-line with the market. Therefore, we are at a loss as to why ATS has not agreed to a sale. ATS had objected to the extension of our PUD last year because they felt it affected their ability to sell the property. . First, the existing Gateway Business District (GBD) zoning outlines the area to be redeveloped including the ATS property. This Was put in place by the City in 1989. The GBD zoning changed the ATS property to a nonconforming use scheduled to be redeveloped in the future. Second, the Master PUD established by Chesapeake does not change the status of ATS's property under the current GBD zoning district. Our PUD defines the development standards, requires City final PUD approval, and is contingent on acquiring ATS. Our PUD simply defines in more detail the uses and development standards acceptable to the City for redeveloping the property. This is consistent with the GBD zoning that is already in place. Therefore, it is inaccurate for ATS to object to our PUD as something new that adversely affects ATS. The legal status of ATS would not change if our PUD was not in place. ATS would continue to be a non-conforming use. We are trying to implement development of the property consistent with the City requirements and the existing GBD zoning. Status of Interstate Crossin!!:: . In conclusion, the impact on the economy and the over supply of existing space has resulted in very few companies requiring new build-to-suit space. Most firms are contracting and leasing space in existing properties at rental rates far below the cost to build, Kodak Corporation is a recent example of what is happening in the market. They needed 150,000 square feet and contacted Chesapeake regarding Interstate Crossing, along with several other land sites, for a build-to-suit project. In the end, they used the build-to-suit options to negotiate a better deal to . renew in their existing space, This scenario is occurring because there is so much vacant space on the market at extremely low effective rates.