HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY RIDGE, 2ND FILING - PDP - 49-95F - CORRESPONDENCE - (7)Steve Olt - Fromme Prairie Wa Page 1
_ .._. _.. _ _. _ Y _ . _ _ __. _ _ . _ —
From: Jim Newcomb <jnewc@verinet.com>
To: <mvirata@fcgov.com>, <solt@fcgov.com>
Date: 2/28/04 12:12PM
Subject: Fromme Prairie Way
I had an interesting and challenging visit with David Pietenpol. He or his
entity involved still owns the third property to be developed on the SW
corner of Seneca and Harmony Road. It is approved, he said, with the
requirement of multi use. He intends to construct (soon) another office
building similar but a little smaller than what is there on the NW corner
of the property with a second story of condo's that have access from the
back side of the lot which would be accessed from FPW rather than from the
current parking lot.
He provided to me the 1998 (1996 was expired) agreement between his entity
and McGavey, et al (original developers of HR) which addressed several
issues around a small property purchase (by McGarvey for HR access), road
financing and turn lanes, requesting the small piece of old HR East of
Seneca to be vacated and more. In addition he copied his Development
Agreement with the city which has some reference to Phase Two development.
Pietenpol indicated the part that applies to us goes like this:
* Phase II to request an emergency access only to FPW
* After approval the city intends (has announced) to vacate their ROW
* Peienpol's group (PG) will grant easement to the city for trail head
access and us for emergency use
* This will maintain higher values for his condos
* The neighbors to the North are expecting a private road as well
As I review the two documents I (as a layman) and from earlier discussions,
think I see the following:
* City is not obligated to vacate FPW - might be good to have city
attorney check this
* PG is trying to give me the obligation to request to build and not
use. a public street
* There are several development requirements which have changed since
the agreements were signed
* There are benefits to PG if the road remains public
* city required maintenance
* city will allow commercial only in his development (no condo's
required)
* city street reimbursements available (is this for 1 /2 of his
section of Seneca?)
* My goal would be to arrive at enough benefits for PG to change their
mind
As part of our staff meeting this next week (3/1) let's discuss these
issues as they apply to PG and Phase Two. I will ask Kent and Mark to set a
meeting. TKS JIM
CC: <dkarst@ncfspecialists.com>, <jims@jimselldesign.com>, <kentb@jimselldesign.com>