HomeMy WebLinkAboutGRANADA HEIGHTS PUD PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - 7 92 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSITEM NO. 12
MEETING DATE 4/27/92
STAFF Sherry Albertson -
Clark
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
Granada Heights PUD, Preliminary and Final - #7-92
Jeff
C/o
214
Fort
Same
Laughren
Stewart and
N. Howes
Associates
Collins, CO 80524
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request for preliminary and final approval
for 44 single family lots on 8 acres, located north of Vine Drive,
west of Shields Street. The site is zoned R-L-M, Low Density
Multifamily.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with condition
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This proposal is to replat 24 existing lots
into 44 single family lots. The original Granada Heights
Subdivision was platted for four-plex units, which are permitted
under the R-L-M Zoning. The proposed density of 5.95 DU/acre is
supported by the Density Chart and the applicable All Development
Criteria of the LDGS have been addressed. Staff supports the
requested variance to the solar orientation requirement. A
condition regarding executing the plat, final plans and development
agreement is recommended.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 300 LaPorte Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins. CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Neighborhood Meeting Notes
A neighborhood information meeting was held on Wednesday, December
18, 1991 from 7:00 - 8:30 P.M. at Unity Church, 1401 W. Vine,
regarding a proposed development on the remaining property in
Granada Heights Subdivision.
Meeting attendees were Jeff Laughren, property owner/developer and
Sherry Albertson -Clark (City Planning Department). Two area
property owners and/or residents also attended the meeting.
The meeting began with Jeff Laughren presenting an overview of the
proposed development plan, which consists of 96 units (8 more than
the originally approved subdivision of 88).
The following questions and responses by the consultant were
discussed:
1. What will•the dollar value of units be?
Don't know at this time, just making attempts to make project work.
There is big demand for rental housing. Don't have a time frame
for project.
2. Would units be frame or brick? Modular? Two-story?
Probably would be frame. Don't know if modular would be used. All
buildings would be two-story.
3. Neighbors aren't looking at cost, but what will have to live
with.
4. Concerned that there is a spring that exists on the site. May
have trouble constructing in this area (vicinity of NE corner of
Pomona and Aztec).
Won't be building basements.
5. How will drainage be handled?
Will be piped into existing detention pond. Staff added that a
drainage report and plan and grading plan, prepared by a licensed
engineer, will be required.
6. Concerned about affect on existing irrigation well.
7. Concerned about number of dogs, cats, and people that would be
at this spot.
8. Concerned about fencing along the west property line. Current
owner doesn't claim, won't fix.
Will try to incorporate lots in question into project, or will find
way to fence those lots, as well as lots on this project.
9. Concerned about the number of people on the property. Should
be based on the national average space needed for four-plexes.
This development should be east of the Interstate.
10. Are you providing open space or a park?
None planned. Wanted to give City Parks Department space; but they
didn't want it. Staff will raise issue with Parks and Recreation
Department again.
11. What about safety of the Arthur Ditch?
What can I do about that? The problem exists now. Fencing may be
a solution. City may put a bike trail along railroad, which will
also bring more people near the ditch. Will provide a connection
to this trail from development.
12. Since neighbors appear to oppose project, what would you like
to see?
Single-family homes, like is on the south side of Vine Drive.
13. Appears developer didn't check out property before purchasing.
Over 1,000 people with pets being put on this property with nothing
to do, nowhere to go.
14. Concerned about what buildings would look like.
15. Would like to work with City for park or playground.
16. Might consider putting some single family lots in NW corner of
site.
17. Too many people in too small of an area.
18. What if went to plan with 8-plexes?
Staff replied that would still take Planning review and approval,
even if kept within original total of 88 units.
19. Appears you want to put "city" into a rural area.
20. Could put mobile homes on property instead of building
apartments.
Staff replied that mobile homes could be used, as long as they meet
the definition of "dwelling" under the Building Code.
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M.
STEWART&&SSOCIATES
Consulting Engineers and Surveyors
April 13, 1992
Mr. Rick Ensdorf
Transportation Director
City of Fort Collins
P. 0. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Dear Rick:
This is an abbreviated update of the traffic report for the Replat of
Lots 6 Thru 29, Granada Heights P.U.D. The proposed P.U.D. is a replat of
a part of Granada Heights which was approved in 1979. It is located north
of West Vine Drive, approximately 1000'feet west of North Shields Street.
Granada Heights has two access points onto West Vine Drive, Aztec Drive on
the west and Hanna Street on the east. There are no driveways directly onto
West Vine Drive, and Hanna Street is the only access point from the south
side of West Vine Drive in the immediate neighborhood.
The original plat of Granada Heights had 39 lots planned for four—plexes.
That plan then had a potential for 156 units which would produce 1560 trips
per day from the subdivision. At this time, 15 lots have existing four—plexes
for 60 units. The existing four—plexes should produce 600 trips per day
originating from Granada Heights. The remaining 24 lots could have had 96
units producing 960 more trips per day.
The proposed P.U.D. will have 48 single—family lots which will produce
480 trips per day. This proposed plan will have a total of 108 units in
the entire subdivision with a potential. of.1080 trips per day rather.than
a potential of 1560 trips per day under the old plan. The reduction of 480
trips per day is over 30% reduction.
The original density would have been 8.34 units per acre, and the new
plan's density will be 5.78 units per acre.
The streets and utilities in the proposed P.U.D. are substantially
completed except for the asphalt.
It is anticipated that approximately 50% of the trips per day will use
Aztec Drive to access Vine Drive, and 50% will use Hanna Street.
If you have any questions concerning the proposed replat, please call.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Rutherford, P. E. & L. S.
President
jrr
James H. Stewart
and Associates, Inc.
214 N. Howes Street
P.O. Box 429
Ft. Collins, CO80522
303/482-9331
ti
� 1, .111►,� Mid '
LL DEVELOPMENT: NUMBERED CRITERIA CHART
ALL CRITERIA
APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY
TERION
7POLICIES
[PLANS
IS the criterion applicable?
Will the criterion
be Safishea7
If no, please explain
Qe,�'���' ,;��0
Yes No '
D COMPATAMLITY
ompatability
rhood Character
e Conflicts
Traffic Impact
LICIES
5. Comprehensive Plan
PUBLIC FACILITIES & SAFETY
6. Street Capacity
7. Utility Capacity
8. Design Standards
9. Emergency Access
10. Security Lighting
11. Water Hazards
RESOURCE PROTECTION
12. Soils & Slope Hazard
13. Significant Vegetation
14. Wildlife Habitat
15. Historical Landmark
16. Mineral Deposit
17. Eco-Sensitive Areas
18. Agricultural Lands
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
19. Air Quality
20. Water Quality
is
X
21. Noise
22. Glare & Heat
23. Vibrations
24. Exterior Lighting
25. Sewages & Wastes
SITE DESIGN
26. Community Organization
27. Site Organization
28. Natural Features'
29. Energy Conservation
30. Shadows
31. Solar Access
32. Privacy
33. Ooen Space Arrangement
34. Building Height
35. Vehicular Movement
36. Vehicular Design
37. Parking
38. Active Recreational Areas
39, Private Outdoor Areas
40. Pedestrian Convenience
41. Pedestrian Conflicts
42. Landscaping/Open Areas
43. Land scapingiBuildings
I
44. LandscapingiScreening
I
45. Public Access
Y
I
46. Sians
I
x
�io�trA'1eA X X -12- f VAV�R V�IGL�
)ENSITY CHART
Maximum
Ecrnea
Criterion
Credit
If All Dwelling Units Are Within:
Credit
a
200/0
2000feetot on e.nrmg or aD0rove0ne'gf1WM0oa sh000ing centef.
b
10%
650 feet of on e.arng transit stco.
C
10%
4000 feet at an emnng or aopravets regional sn000mg center.
d
20%
3500 feet of an ensnng or reserved Mignoorhood oarK communvN con, or commurvfv facility.
U-i
@
10 /a
i000feetatascoameetingoiltnereauvemennatmecompulsoeveaucanonbwsarmestoreatcoloroao.
.10
I
f
20%
3000 feet at a mogr emolument center.
k ON
1 1 1
g
5%
1000feetofocnrlaccrecentef.
h
200/0
'NOfm'FOM Collin
I
20%
ihecentral0sau+essoismct.
- -
AOnalBa whose oounOarvis COhngUaBtoetannpllrOattaevB10OOSBnt.GedttrtgyOB Bathed oslolbws - -
. 0%—Faortsle tit oseorooervomnooNrsas OtolO%mnnguft
f
30%
10 to 15%—For dialects whose diadem, oounaary has 10 to 20%conngulrr.
15 to 20%— Fawaecn whose 000eriv counaary nds 201030%contiguity:
_
20 to 25%—got oraects wnose diadem counaary nos 30 to 40%connguty.
25 to 30%—Far 010MCrswh0s prooem aostnaaN has 40 to 50%eonhguN. _
It a can De aemOmtratea ma me araect will redl enon-fenewaale energy useage either Trough me adollcpnon at anefrlrnNe energy
k
Mtems or mtougn committed energy coneNariOn measures deyana ma normaiN reaulfeo dy CM Code. a5% oanus may ce earned
br even 5%reaucnas In energy use.
I
Calculate a 1% bonus, tot eve, 50 o3ef inotudea In me aOlect.
m
Calculate me percentage at me final acres In me aaea ma are aevafea to recreational use. enter 1/2 of torn eeicenrage as a tons
n me aooiicant commits to oresetvmg cefmonent oftslte open space ma rheers the Ci,s mmlmum reauremenm calculate me cercenloge
n
of this open soace acreage to me Iota development acreage. enter ins Dercentoge as a oonm
n pan of me total aevelodtnent wopet a to oe scent onmigricoinooa ouaK vansrt focrnnes which are not ome se teal I,CiNCoae.
-
O
enter 2% bonus to even 5too der twelnng unit mvenea
if port of me iota, cevelodmehs owes is to oe scent on nergnoornooa loaiihesana seNlces which are not omffw se recruited W GN Code.
p
entef al% bonus fa even 5100 Der ave"Ing unit lnvenecr
uacommmnentacerngmaceroceverooaspecifiescercenldgeatmetotal nurricerofa Ilingunmfar lowincome faminesenter mat
_
Q
percentagessaoanusuotoammsnumof30%.
a a commrlment is being made to aCtiBlOo a saeclfieci dercentage of me total MYhoer Of awellmg units la Tvpe-A- and Type V hanal(occec;
_
Z
housing as aennea oy me ON of Fort Collins, calcuae the cants m 10
Or
Typsi .51mries TsraA non Tu
rl
TyDe'W-1.OnmCs Tvoe Ir unit
l I t
lotalurvn .. ..
In no case shall me contained Whla oe greater man 30'+'
ttfie site Or actacent otOdem' confans on historic ouxing Or oloce, a aOnus mdv De earned for me follourm ;
3% — For dfeventhigormrtlgOnng outsldelntuenctisleg.envlrOnmentallOfK7 usB.aeSmatlC BconarliC atq Social factorsi adverse ton
S
pfeserwtron:
3% — Far aswnrq ma new smndrseswiil oemueean'y'wttn me Cttaraater of me wilding or DlOce.w ileavoldmg total units
3% — For orOpasina aaaome usear me Wlbmg of adCemawlllledd tonconnnuance.oresarWnonanalmorO eme tinan
aooraarlrna nanrter.
It a pOmOn or al of ttte reaUlted t>OtvKg m me mURIDIe tomlN prOledf a aovoBaurlaergrOUnd, vnthin me anbing. or In an elevolBO Wriafs9
smtcwe as pit accessory use fo me rsrmsarvstructure. adohus may ce earned as rolbws
t
9% — ForprovicirQ75%ormaeo tneoarltinglnasftuaure:
o% — For provgmg 50-7d% at rnBDafuetgmdttttlatle:
3% — For ofo++ang 25.49%of meoomnginomucue.
u
It a commitment a aemg modem crow•de aooroveo a8ommic tits ennguaning systems for me awelllrvq unit enter a dons of 10%.
TOTAL hD
,1
i MAR 41992
1 �
1�
1
r.� 1
e- I e4to
p
�i1 .
I I1:2w K �
, i n A 4-7 • e O ,i
.✓.. � ,_./...,.,.., n/..�� 1. ini.
0
✓_1_N.�SGLGS_�'o
�Gzat,�s�
C
�ZJ"CH�L
7�Q'�
I�w
0
�ff
!.I
I!i
I�
�i
I!
1,I
11
11
I�
Granada Heights PUD
April 27, 1992 P & Z
Page 2
COMMENTS
1. Background•
- Preliminary & Final, #7-92
Meeting
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: FA; vacant (in Larimer County)
S: R-L-M; existing four plexes (Granada Heights)
E: R-M-P; vacant
W: FA; vacant (Larimer County)
The Granada Heights Subdivision, which consisted of 39 lots on 23
acres, was approved in 1979. There are four plexes existing on a
portion of the lots. This proposal would replat the remaining
undeveloped lots into 44 single family lots.
2. Land Use•
The proposed PUD consists of 44 single family lots. The
residential density of 5.5 DU/acre is supported by 60% achieved on
the Density Chart of the LDGS. Points were awarded for proximity
to a major employment center (City's Service Center); proximity to
a day care center (Elm Street Daycare); being located in north Fort
Collins and for contiguity to existing development.
Single family homes are a use -by -right in the R-L-M zone; however,
this project proposes some lot sizes that do not meet the minimum
required lot size of 6,000 square feet. Thus, a PUD is necessary.
3. Design•
The proposed lots access from existing streets in the Granada
Heights Subdivision. Lot sizes vary from 4,029 - 18,813 square
feet. The developer will provide one deciduous street tree for
each lot. Front setbacks will vary, to provide for a more
interesting streetscape.
Tract B is a detention pond that will be maintained by the
Stormwater Utility. A pedestrian trail connection is provided
between Lots 23 and 24, to provide for a potential link with the
Burlington Northern land to the north, which may become the site of
a future Tails -to -Trails project.
The Solar Orientation Ordinance requires that 65% of single family
and duplex lots (less than 15,000 square feet in size) be oriented
to within 30 degrees of a true east -west line. As proposed, 15 of
the 43 lots (one lot exceeds the 15,000 square foot size), or 35%
Granada Heights PUD - Preliminary & Final, #7-92
April 27, 1992 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
of the lots qualify as solar oriented lots. The applicant has
requested a variance to this requirement, for the following
reasons:
"This project is a replat of a plat that was approved in August
1979. The utilities, curb and gutter and the detention pond have
been constructed, so there is no practical way to change the lots".
According to the Solar Orientation Ordinance:
"When permitted, the Planning and Zoning Board may authorize
variances under this Article upon its finding that the following
requirements in (1), (2), or (3) have been satisfied:"
(1) That by reason of exception topographical, soil, or other
subsurface conditions or other conditions peculiar to the site,
hardship would be caused to a subdivider by the strict application
of any provision of this Article.
(2) That by reason of exceptional conditions or difficulties with
regard to solar orientation or access, hardship would be caused to
a subdivider by the strict application of any provision of this
Article.
(3) The applicant demonstrates that the plan as submitted is equal
to or better than such plan incorporating the provision for which
a variance is requested.
Staff finds that the variance request is justified under the second
requirement. The utilities, curb and gutter are existing and the
street system in this development is an extension of the existing
street system in Granada Heights. Aztec and Alameda are
constructed to the south edge of this site. Therefore, staff
believes it would cause a hardship to apply the 65% solar
orientation requirement to this project. Staff finds that a
variance to the 65% requirement is justified and that granting the
variance would not result in a detriment to the public good.
The development agreement, final plat and final plans have not been
signed, pending completion of the review of the final storm
drainage report and plans. Therefore, staff is recommending the
following condition:
The development agreement, final plat and final plans be executed
by the developer and all other owners and proprietors (as defined
by Colorado Statute) prior to the next monthly meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Board; or, if not so executed, that the
Granada Heights PUD - Preliminary & Final, #7-92
April 27, 1992 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
developer, at said next monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an
extension of time. If the staff and the developer disagree over
the provisions to be included in the development agreement, the
developer may present such dispute to the Board for resolution if
such presentation is made at the next succeeding monthly meeting of
the Board. The Board may table any such decision, until both the
staff and the developer have had reasonable time to present
sufficient information to the Board to enable it to make its
decision.
If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or
as extended, if applicable), then the final approval of the planned
unit development shall become null and void and of no effect. The
date of final approval for this planned unit development shall be
deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of
determining the vesting of rights.
4. Neighborhood Compatibility:
A neighborhood meeting was held December 18, 1991. Two area
property owners attended. Concerns raised generally related to the
number of people expected to live at this site (Note: The plan
presented to the neighborhood was for 88 multifamily units) and
drainage.
The proposed plan has been redesigned for 44 single family lots,
rather than multifamily units, as was presented to the neighborhood
meeting. The existing detention pond will be maintained by the
City's Stormwater Utility, upon acceptance.
RECOMMENDATION
Two actions are required in order to approve Granada Heights PUD,
Preliminary and Final:
1. Variance to Solar Orientation Requirement
Staff recommends granting a variance from the strict requirement
that 65% of the lots be oriented to within 30 degrees of a true
east -west line. The granting of this variance is based on:
(1) That by reason of exceptional conditions or difficulties with
regard to solar orientation or access, hardship would be caused to
a subdivider by the strict application of any provision of this
Article.
Granada Heights PUD - Preliminary & Final, #7-92
April 27, 1992 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
2. Approval with Condition
The proposed plan addresses the applicable All Development Criteria
of the LDGS and the proposed density is supported on the Density
Chart. Staff recommends approval of Grenada Heights PUD,
Preliminary and Final, #7-92, with the following condition:
The development agreement, final plat and final plans be executed
by the developer and all other owners and proprietors (as defined
by Colorado Statute) prior to the next monthly meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Board; or, if not so executed, that the
developer, at said next monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an
extension of time. If the staff and the developer disagree over
the provisions to be included in the development agreement, the
developer may present such dispute to the Board for resolution if
such presentation is made at the next succeeding monthly meeting of
the Board. The Board may table any such decision, until both the
staff and the developer have had reasonable time to present
sufficient information to the Board to enable it to make its
decision.
If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or
as extended, if applicable), then the final approval of the planned
unit development shall become null and void and of no effect. The
date of final approval for this planned unit development shall be
deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of
determining the vesting of rights.
No Text
e,i h
t/IdLL I
Uo✓i.
�Muit
eLL �
,rarer
VICINITY MAP
SCALE-f•
N
W
o
Aueaxat %Ee+ �: o ca �"d rvs'•••. n e m._+n a c_.. arn.. .....a.. m.. W
/FO FI/d J1 4sc/J
21! FlON�V./OJ •. a u
Arrsc Ours
T1P/C•OC LOT
7.1
.L syh9 ✓ i/b .«dj.
4 9.va,.�,�e� P^:'✓ S�3 6r,ffrd /Pe.-.
V
5 LWN65n p41f � 4K+n Is1+L' I yl `_'
I � e
LURV6 "YAdB fOK %NLAtbP R-OW. OIV YIAP{KA Gi.
'A—d 90 I. A111N51 0" fb'aLo N il.ti
'ti—n•ryE'oil['CINML'IEL4 Wa'NKber'1fi FlAl♦'I F
'L-dEv'oi la K-ld n¢c=If 4S Wa�nsioe EiKln LL'I Q
'0-d'9E'[�Ib' PV, .1n LuabN'ea'w'W 21 L1�
I btl
i
I
1 YPI o
1
pAk� fEE¢NAPY N, 199Y - '�
�IW IY.
ELaC Pbd
[cYNgtV
N4KALE. Imo, ap'
O 10 D5 OO Im S[O
A R MAT OF
LOTS 8 TH U 21, 6RAHADA H�16HT6 PU,D
ti11VA7V IN 1A0 lwwAg %q Of w11DN 0, TOWH/mr 1 Hwg, K' w Lag WW OF 1* 1,1 7M., fW 60W[11i, 6XPVA2O
�
i
uss
vx.Lm
rmlrt
n,GnxK
g'a
II'� ®�s
iiI
�aRs�
siA
:
��\L�
-.F-
g�
4L•ag'
;'f�ii
I1
�i$
�8R
I
aa.m'
ri GN MN- 6'..G
WIN 4. f4 IAK LG.M,
� � •_ :gOi 8
dAm' i I Lba. m' J Go
(nKIUL Kvy'A`j b"f
/TATNMVMT 0r OWNWH]P, 01VIV1*10N ANV MV16ATION:
KNOW AN MEN 6V'IPWk PKF/HV,'!Nk VIN MAN. Axn PKOEKIGTOO. or `ir fOLLOWINb GycclEEo EAxo, fL-VIt� p
kAlt Olt I}w 51f TI IN 6d I,4 1/4 OF 66LTIW b,, iOHNNNi1 I NCNN, KANLb G9 WWI' LT f+E 6YA P.H., YGK1
Ltl.N116, LIXWaO, BWN6 Mxb KA fli GKLRInv I< FOLipFl6: loin 0 MRL 29 OF / NOVA µeloi
CONIAIN14a B4OY4L ALPE6, MON, CK LW6. TRIOiw..N NAVb L,I , 'ING AD P66 imvr IJNi, to bb
LYKVEYEP ANP 4T,DVIvlp IN1O mf6 ARV A fKALY A4 nPOWN ON 1NW f"i tO W KNOWN A A RERAf Lf W4,P itt"P1,e}0"VA NWW416, PIJ 1.
ANO W 1 "t fO AW DA6EMENf6 Alt RINFW-LP-WAY NW ON C.K V K 111, 6 IS INPILA160 OR TA tN�f. T*
40"'NONW POEb If oy piaY}{D AM, (pNV"Y TO AN, f, ii ., F04V6[I ¶W �NNNP4 mi, YA4GHEN14 An
AtE LAIC Wf pNa y2414N01EV Ox tNln 4LA1; rf.IWP, NOQ11. 4Af 1) ALmPfANLE DY TND In R TAK N,"l 91oN
Gf HLVMWf4 p[ib µRt i.mr G UFM 'iIW IN A "N 1, MAINYAIN l" WA,W,N.Nb ,0 LLgL . A. NRWN ANLG LP
AEOvO Gi.'LKIEEP 4,,.O, SUALL (,E F4'RiOKM6a DY "I14 UNv{KaI4MG0 (Mo NIi bIJLG6650 K6 IN IRtNlff%
UN114 �JW THG N ¶Ip ON E 'K.LY AHUMW, INWGNNb, 'Ne ✓Jtt M rsll(11 HAIN}ENANLD.
W 110E o IK NANan ARP cute *- PAY W A.1, I1
JOr FEKY P. LAU64KEN
44AK LF LLLOOA. _1
Ld N 6 LARIHK
'Y6 FO[BpPINN lid"T"NMGNf WA ALkNLWL6CGNa EGOKD Hb ¶t1 PAY M Ap., Iq, %Y
116TPGR/ P. LAU6µ[bN.
MY LLMMI6610N NYVIRD4 NYi Y f I,
AI-WHPY4 /W IFUTO
'(NI6 In Tv wl" VA' ON Ns NY bf A.v 19� i BAAHINEv 1NN fl1 TO THO M4 OOTY Ab
.1. N " ANV WNA I.O, TIAt u MR. ANC PKOKIbio Rom/ Op KaLCKP M Nb :YP P¢asctt A4 AORt tN, a
,"III AK6 A6 41OWN Nbcadl A6 Np nAIP PAT .
Allm.Y
K 41,10VNR 9,
l vw,yOK'S 6 aribvT
1, kaw A. Ku¶iERfLRP A WIN it M1OtbtbP PROfl i6ONAL & IN6K IN' NNO JJevGYOO IN ¶Y. iO4P If LLEOFAPO,
CO W."Y GENIKY T w NIZ "I O ARN,,t q'I#z B'N.LL W,4441A4, Iy iNLY ANv LL/.AiLhI PYfKC6Mt5 fllb
K T,i Of A s .Y MAvb by HIP Or W"NK MY RKELt 4upCKPIZIW.
(A(j'APo PEGWIEFyP FE.Le 4,OoOe
AMOM Al, 10 MM :
by NE V19wm OP 1,440k (C:NLf Gf 14b LM' CP fOFf 0"1 (AEORAGO ON {4W OAV M' T.P.,19
M,V"fq Of a NMN4
AMOVOD:
DY TNb PLANMIN4 ANP %ONINb U tv OI. vNi aI Of too OOWNn, OOLOKAPO ON 1,*,_9AY OP A o., I^i_
4fG yl R' RA.1" AMP AWIW. &A"
SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
PROPOSAL: GRANADA HEIGHTS PUD--Preliminary & Final
DESCRIPTION: 44 single family units on 8.065 acres
DENSITY: 5.46 du/acre
General Population
44 (units) x 3.5 (persons/unit) = 154
School Age Population
Elementary - 44 (units) x .450
Junior High - 44 (units) x .210
Senior High - 44 (units) x .185
Affected Schools
Putnam-Fullana Elementary
Lincoln Junior High
Poudre Senior High
(pupils/unit) =
19.8
(pupils/unit) =
9.24
(pupils/unit) =
8.14
Design
Capacity
Enrollment
600
570
740
617
1235
1009