HomeMy WebLinkAboutA005 - Letter from Haverkamp Properties in response to staff report .... .........
614 Billy Sunday Road
........... ..........
Suite 100 H ave rka mp
Ames, IA 50010 Prope r t i e s
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Brent A. Haverkamp,Haverkamp Properties, Inc.
Re: Billy Sunday Road Land Use
Date: August 23, 2002
I am writing this letter in response to the staff report titled Billy Sunday Road Land Use and
Development Alternatives, dated August 13, 2002. First of all, I would like to thank City Council
for allowing me to delay this item for two weeks so that I could review the report. I would like to
give some perspective and inform the Council on the history of the project and the issue at hand. As
the staff report states, I purchased approximately 16 acres of ground in 1999. In order to develop the
property, the city made the requirement that I pay for the extension of Billy Sunday Road, the
associated utilities, and bike path. The City's position at the time stated that they had no interest in
developing their parcel on the other side of Billy Sunday, and the requirement was that I pay for
both sides of Billy Sunday Road at a total cost of over$250,000. In return for this investment, I had
the expectation that I was to get 4 lots zoned, at that time, General Commercial.
I then proceeded to build on two lots of the development, constructing 3 high quality, mixed use
buildings that will generate approximately$300,000 of additional property tax revenue for the city,
at very little additional infrastructure load. It was during this time of construction that I was
informed that the property was to be rezoned HOC. This rezoning would not allow me to build the
same type of structures that now exist on the site.
After listing the lots with a realtor and investigating several alternatives, I came to the conclusion
that the remaining lots had very limited appeal as HOC lots. They were too far from the existing
traffic flow and had too little visibility to be productive as a strictly commercial development.
At this time, I inquired of the City Staff about making a change to the text in the Zoning Ordinance
or a change in zoning that would allow the same sort of structures that now exist.
On page 4 of the Staff Report, the document states: "Therefore, the most critical issue surrounding
the subject area is vehicular access." It goes on to say. "Elevated trips generated from high-density
residential development could potentially have a major affect on the existing condition of Billy
Sunday Road, and its intersection with South Duff Avenue."
There are two issues that the Staff Report discusses. The first is future roadway access in the
general greater area, i.e. the State Nursery, my ground, and the City owned parcel to the North of
Billy Sunday Road. The second issue is specific access, namely the intersection of Billy Sunday
Road and South Duff Avenue.
www.haverkamp-properties.com Phone: 515-232-7575 Fax: 232-1326
....... .....
I will address the future road access first. I completely agree with Staff that for the greater property,
future road access is limited. The new fire station was placed at the only available extension to
Airport Road. If the greater area is to develop commercially, the only reasonable way to accomplish
it would have been to extend the major arterial Airport Road east into the development. This area
would have been an outstanding commercial addition to the City. As it stands now,this is
impossible, and in my opinion,the property will no longer be of any interest to developers because
of the lack of future road improvements in the area. I do not believe that my property should be
penalized because of the City's decision of where to place the new fire station.
The second issue is one of specific access on the existing road system. On this issue, I strongly
disagree with Staff. My reasons follow:
• Billy Sunday Road ends at a stoplight controlled intersection at South Duff and Airport
Road. This roadway is by far the least used of the four, i.e.Northbound Duff, Southbound
Duff, and Airport Road. Billy Sunday Road is almost always clear of traffic when the
stoplight turns, unlike the before-mentioned roads.
• Because I office at this location, and have driven the roadway in question multiple times
everyday for the last two years, I have strong anecdotal evidence that traffic density is not a
problem on this road.
• Even though the city has studied this area since February and believes that traffic is the
biggest concern against this rezoning request, it has provided no studies or hard data to
suggest that the traffic volume is problematic.
• From anecdotal experience only, I believe that the soccer complex produces much more
peak traffic at this intersection at one time. The only time that I have seen traffic queuing at
the stoplight on Billy Sunday Road has been on Saturdays and Sundays at the conclusion of
soccer tournaments.
Finally, the traffic analysis apparently has an error. The premise that Staff is using is as follows:
Residential apartment development produces more traffic then the existing commercial
development; therefore we don't think it should be rezoned to residential.
In reviewing the document from the city, Fox Engineering found an error in the calculations of
projected traffic. According to the data in the report, a rezone to residential would actually produce
slightly less traffic. On page 7, Staff lists a table, which shows Mixed Use producing 454 trips per
day, and Commercial use producing 160 trips per day. In calculating this number, they state—
"Office uses produce an average of 4 trips per 1000 square feet of space per day". However,
according to the table given on page 14, office uses produce an average of 4 trips per employee per
day, not 4 trips per 1000 square feet per day. Given the typical assumption of 4 employees per 1000
square feet of office space,the number of trips per day per 1000 square feet would be 16. (Note
that the 4 employees per 1000 square feet is consistent with the assumptions used by the city for
parking calculations). Following is a recreation of the table using the corrected data:
Land Use Trips generated
2 Apartments (62-units total, or 31-units Office trips(10k s/f x 4 emp x 4.04 trips) = 161
each: similar to he existing mixed use Apartment trips(62 apts x 6.63 trips) = 411
apartments) with 5,000 square feet of office Total Trips = 572
space in each.
2 20,000-square feet office park complexes Total Trips (40k s/f x 4 emp x 4.04 trips) _
(40,000 square feet ) 646 trips
20,000 square feet is the typical office size
for lot sizes similar to the subject parcels in
Ames.
In addition,the traffic projections made the assumption that the space would be used for office
space —an assumption that produces a low amount of traffic as compared to other possible HOC
uses. In summary,
The mixed-use development proposed would produce less traffic than an HOC development,
even when using the conservative assumption of developing office space. In addition,
mixed-use traffic has lower peak traffic than office space. Therefore, rezoning the area to
allow this mixed-use would help alleviate traffic on Billy Sunday Road, if traffic ever
became a problem.
In conclusion, I strongly urge council to recommend Scenario 2. Rezone RH,No Additional
Improvements. My reasons are as follows:
1. Albeit I have no study to prove my point, the daily experience of myself, my employees, and
tenants over the past two years have yielded very little to no traffic problems at this site. I
cannot envision how the increased load of two additional mixed-use building would produce
the kind of problems apparently anticipated by the city.
2. Although they have been studying the property since February, and believe "traffic
problems"to be the predominate issue.No data is given to support this conclusion.
3. The only reason that future vehicular traffic is "very limited"is because of the city's choice
to place the fire station in such a way that it would prevent the extension of Airport Road. In
my opinion, this is the only reasonable way to properly develop the property commercially.
4. Although I applaud the efforts of Council and Staff to bring a comprehensive look at this
entire area, I feel that it would be unjustified to hold up the development of a relatively
small area for such a small possibility. Because of the limited future road access, this area
really has limited development possibilities.
5. Finally, I, in good faith, installed and paid for the city improvements needed to produce 4
commercial lots. The change that I am requesting would put no more tax on city services
than the existing zoning. I am simply requesting a change to continue building out an
attractive project that is beneficial for all involved.
Sincerely,
Brent A. Haverkamp