Land Development

I am sure some or most of you have read about an offer the city received to purchase land on the city's north side (west of the Veterinary Clinic). I was opposed to the sale because the owner wants to build a single-family dwelling which will very likely inhibit future growth. Commercial and/or high density growth is important to a city because it builds tax base and helps keep taxes stable.

Shown below are excerpts from a memorandum I wrote to elected officials. It will explain the reasons for my recommendation.

· City land totals 1.54 acres comprised of 6 lots
· The city paid $3,600/acre, not including staff time, in 2002
· Mr. Eubank intends to build a single family dwelling, but has not been specific about location
· The land Mr. Eubank wants to build on is owned by Harry and Mark Piffer
· Mr. Eubank’s former home (immediately west) sits on approximately 30 acres and significantly inhibits higher density use
· The Comprehensive Plan shows the first 600’ of frontage as C-2 (highway commercial), the next 200 as R-3 (multi-family—serves as buffer) and the remainder as R-1 (mixed and single family residence)
· Note that 600’ of commercial may not serve future needs—Wal-Mart has 1,000’ and Noble Ford is 700’
· Connect fee for sanitary sewer is $3,672/acre plus 4.5% interest. This sewer was installed to help stimulate growth.
· A 5-10 acre acreage may limit collection of the connection fee. We do not know the total number acres Mr. Eubank’s home will occupy.
· This land is zoned A-1 and requires a minimum of 20,000 sq. ft. (nearly ½ acre) with a 125’ minimum lot frontage.
· Hoover Avenue will eventually cross (east/west) this area possibly resulting in a very large assessment
· City code does not prevent a single family dwelling from being built on this property
· Undeveloped land sells for about $10,000 to $15,000/acre according to a realtor’s estimate (obtained during Country Club purchase offer)

Based on the above, I cannot recommend sale of this land for a single-family dwelling based on the following:

· The land is a natural growth area
· The single family dwelling could prohibit higher density growth
· The city installed sanitary sewer at a cost of $375,045 to promote development
· Future Hoover paving could be inhibited by a single-family dwelling and the size of the assessment (W Euclid??)
· The city land can be sold when a higher density development occurs
· A full development plan should be submitted in order to assure the highest and best use of the entire property

Should council prefer to sell the property, I suggest the following:

· A site plan showing the single family dwelling is in a location that does not limit normal density single family and/or multi-family dwelling construction/development—that is, Howard, Buxton and 1st Streets should be able to extend to Hoover uninhibited by this home.
· Price/acre be at least $10,000 (consistent with the realtor’s estimate)
· A minimum of 5 acres be included in the sanitary sewer connection fee (return on investment)
· An agreement with Mr. Eubank to a future paving assessment should he still own the land adjacent to or within 300’ of Hoover

My recommendation was based purely on “community” benefit and not intended to be negative toward Mr. Eubank. The city has invested heavily in sanitary sewer and the result should be a return on that investment (high density growth). Residents can expect no less.