HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE OVERLOOK/SENECA CENTER AT ARAPAHOE FARM PUD - FINAL - 55-87P - CORRESPONDENCE - STREET RELATED DOCUMENT Ted Shepard - Re: Overlook Conveniencore (Harmony at Seneca) Page 1
From: Cam McNair
To: Bob Blanchard, Dave Stringer, Janet McTague, Ma...
Date: Tue, Nov 23, 1999 1:27 PM
Subject: Re• Overlook Convenience Store (Harmony at Seneca)
It would be great to have you at that meeting on the 3rd. Maybe you could also help us coordinate with
REA on the overhead power line that needs to be placed underground as this area develops.
>>> Janet McTague 11/23 11:38 AM >>>
Cam,
I don't have a problem exempting the developer from the portion of development fees that would pertain
to front footage along old Harmony Rd. provided that it is done with the understanding that fees will be
accessed in the future if electric facilities need to be extended along it for any reason ( ex: electrical needs
at the second access, to provide an electrical loop to Harmony Ridge Filing 2, etc)
Do we need to attend the meeting on Dec 3rd?
Thanks,
Janet
>>> Cam McNair 11/22 4:27 PM >>>
I've had some further discussions with Scott Griffin concerning this development, in particular regarding
the disposition of old Harmony Road and future access to Harmony Ridge, 2nd Filing. Where we are
seems to be as follows:
- The City agrees that the old Harmony ROW can be vacated, but prefers to wait and vacate it after all
development has occurred, thereby preserving our options for any secondary access that may be required
for Harmony Ridge 2nd Filing (based on new LUC requirements).
- The City can issue encroachment permits for the C-store and multi-family encroachments into the
existing Harmony ROW.
- The City can waive the public street development fees for Light & Power as well as Engineering, in
anticipation of the street reverting to private street classification when the ROW is vacated.
-The developer is concerned about the potential for secondary access to Harmony Ridge, saying it
affects the value of the multi-family project they are proposing.
- The developer also feels that it has vested rights based on previous approvals, which supposedly
guaranteed that the ROW would be vacated when they are ready to proceed with their development, and
which supposedly guaranteed that any secondary access to Harmony Ridge would be emergency access
only.
I've asked for another meeting to discuss this. Scott and I tentatively agreed to Dec 3rd at 9:00 AM.
Before that time, I would ask for your help in determining what the actual commitments are, based on
previous P&Z actions or any other decisions. Please copy your responses to all addressees. Thanks for
your help.
CC: Doug Martine, Gary Diede, Paul Eckman