HomeMy WebLinkAboutLEMAY AVENUE ESTATES - PDP - 37-04 - CORRESPONDENCE - ACCESS, UTILITY, DRAINAGE EASEMENTSteve Olt - Re: Lemay Aveune Estates Page 2"
CC: Stan Everitt, Cameron Gloss
CC: David Averill; Eric Bracke; Marc Virata; Mike Chavez; 'Stan Everitt'
Steve Olt - Re. Lemay Aveune Estates Pagel
From: Steve Olt
To: Cameron Gloss; Troy Jones
Date: 1/11/05 9:04AM
Subject: Re: Lemay Aveune Estates
Troy,
Your re -submittal, without a possible future street connection to the property to the south, will not result in
an "unresolved" comment on the next round of review. My original comment stated only that "this
development could provide for a future street connection to the adjacent developable or redevelopable
property to the south". I go on to reference the fact that properties in the UE - Urban Estate District are
exempt from the standards and requirements contained in Section 3.6.3, Street Pattern and Connerctivity
Standards.
Steve
>>> "Troy Jones" <troy@architex.com> 01/11/05 08:20AM >>>
Steve,
I just want to follow up on comment #25 for the Lemay Avenue Estates
project. This comment requests that a street connection be made to the
south. The properties to the south are part of a 4 lot development
called Emerson Acres Subdivision. The subdivision is in the City, and
in the Urban Estate Zone district. Lot 1 through lot 4 are 5.03, 5.01,
5.03, and 3.74 acres respectfully. Although they are large lots, they
are not so large that redevelopment should be a forgone conclusion. In
fact my client, Stan Everitt, has talked to the neighbor to the south
about the future of the property, and the property owner has no
intention of ever redeveloping.
As your comment stated, the Urban Estate zone district specifically
exempts the street pattern and connectivity standards, therefore a
street stub to the south really isn't required, but is recommended by
City Staff. We respectfully disagree that the connection should be
provided for two reasons. First, it is very likely that the development
to the south will never be redeveloped; and second, working out a
solution to the stormwater comments (that swales need to be in tracts)
have required the loss of one lot already, this street stub would mean
the second lost lot.
We are working on a resubmittal for this plan. At Staff Review, you had
greatly encouraged us to try to accommodate this comment. I just wanted
to let you know that we're not intending to make the street stub. Can
you confirm that this will not translate into an "unresolved" comment
from a Current Planning standpoint?
Troy Jones