HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHAMROCK MANOR PUD PRELIMINARY - 53 89 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS1W ITEM NO. 9
MEETING DATE 12-18-89
STAFF Sherry Albertson -Clark
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Shamrock Manor PUD, Preliminary - #53-89
APPLICANT: Chris Huber
c/o Gefroh Hattman, Inc.
145 W. Swallow
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNER: Greeley National Bank
Greeley, CO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A request for preliminary approval of a 17-resident senior board and care
facility and 29 apartment units, on 2.0 acres. The site is located south of
Drake Road, in the 2700 Block of Stanford Road and is zoned R-M-P, Medium
Density Planned Residential.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The applicant proposes a 4,200 square foot senior board and care facility for
17 residents and 29 apartment units on the site. The project scores 100% on the
Residential Density Chart. A minimum of 100% is required to support the
proposed density of 14.5 DU/acre for the apartment units. The care facility
is not evaluated as a residential land use, since these living units do not meet
the definition of "dwelling unit" in the Zoning Code. Conditions regarding
building materials and drainage are being recommended.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 300 LaPorte Ave. P.O. Boa 580 Fort Cothns. CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GEFROH HARMAN INC.
ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
135 West Swallow Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
October 26, 1989 (303) 223-7335
Ms. Sherry Albertson -Clark
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Planning & Development
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80577
RE: SHAMROCK MANOR
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT 89-534
Dear Sherry:
This Preliminary Plan is submitted as the Third Filing of the existing
Pinewood P.U.D.
The P.U.D. consists of approximately two acres devoted to assisted and
independent living facility for the elderly. The entire site consists
of this single basic use. The project provides for housing, eating, and
care facilities for individuals in need of attention and care as well as
those capable of independent care. Shamrock Manor P.U.D. completes the
original Pinewood P.U.D. constructed over the past 8 years. The existing
buildings on site consist of independent living elderly housing units
under individual ownership. The proposed project will be built in phases
with the First Phase being the assisted living facility. The independent
living units will be completed in three separate phases.
The assisted living facility will contain a maximum of 17 residents in a
combination of single and double sleeping rooms. All residents will dine
at a central dining room. A living room and multi -purpose room are pro-
vided for the use of the residents. A caretaker unit is provided for a
24-hours manager to be on site.
The 17 residents in the assisted living program are not allowed to have
automobiles. Eight parking spaces are provided for the caretaker and
employees. The independent living units are efficiency in nature. It
is expected that each unit will'contain only one resident.. Each unit
will contain full kitchen and bath facilities. It is estimated that 50
percent of the residents will have automobiles or 14 residents. A need
for a total of 22 spaces are anticipated between the assisted and inde-
pendent living units. There is a total of 48 spaces on
site giving the project 26 spaces for visitors or overflow.
The operator of the facility, Chris Huber, has over 18 years .of experi-
ence in personal boarding care operations and is a long standing resident
of Fort Collins. Currently she has a facility in operation at 2711 South
Taft H'i l l Road.
Ms. Sherry Albertson -Clark
SHAMROCK MANOR
October 26, 1989
Page 2
The following is an itemization of information on goals and policies re-
quired in the. Statement of Planning Objectives.
1. City Land Use Policies Achieved by Proposed Plan
Policy 3. - "The City shall promote:
a. Maximum utilization of land within the City;
b. The location of residential development which is close to employment,
recreation, and shopping facilities."
Explanation: The property lies within close proximity to all resident needs.
Shamrock will be an infill project in an area primarily occupied by elderly
residents.
Policy 12. - "Urban density residential development usually at three or
more units to the acre should be encouraged in the urban growth area."
Explanation: Shamrock scores well over 100 percent on the Density Chart
and _5 living units at maximum build out.
Policy 20. - "Land use, site planning and urban design criteria shall be
developed to promote pleasant, functional and understandable inter -rela-
tionships through and between land uses."
Explanation: The plan is consistent with developed site planning and
urban design criteria in the City. The overall design offers a mixed use
approach to development.
Policy 26. "Availability of existing services shall be used as a criter-
ia in determing the location of higher intensity areas in the City."
Explanation: All utilities and streets are available at the project site.
Policy 51. - "Conservation of water shall be addressed by land use, site
planning and design criteria, and the environmental management plan."
Explanation: The landscape approach in the project will promote water
conservatism through sensitive design, mixture or materials and water
conserving irrigation systems.
Policy 63. - "Neighborhood service centers shall locate in areas served by
existing water or sewer facilities or consistent with the phasing plan for
the urban growth area."
Policy 65. - Neighborhood service centers.shall locate in areas served by
existing water or sewer facilities or consistent with the phasing plan for
the urban growth area."
Explanation: Scotch Pines and King Soopers on College Avenue are "neighbor-
hood centers" near this project.
Policy 75. - "Residential areas should provide for a mix of housing
densities."
` Ms. Sherry Albertson -Clark
SHAMROCK MANOR
October 26, 1989
Page 3
Explanation: A mix of two housing types are proposed within the project.
This mix is intended to address a range of existing and future market
characteristics.
II. Open Space, Buffering and Landscaping
This project will incorporate a well landscaped approach to open space
useage. Formal and informal planting areas are located along the walk-
ways for the tenants to enjoy.
A mixture of shrubs and ground cover combined with shade trees make up
landscape elements on the site.
A pedestrian sidewalk system will be incorporated throughout the entire
site and will connect to neighborhood sidewalk systems.
Should you feel that any additional information would be helpful to the
Planning and Zoning Board or Staff in their.review of the project, please
contact me.
Sincerely yours,
GEFROH HATTMAN INC.
0
Ja A. Gefroh
resident
kam
enc.
,0
ALL DEVELOPMENT: NUMBERED CRITERIA CHART
ALL CRITERIA
APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY
CRITERION
Is the criterion applicable?
Will the criterion
be Satisfied?
If no, please explain
e�``�,;,o ,
Yes No
COMPATABILITY
1. Social C6mpatability--
2. Neighborhood Character-
3. Land Use Conflicts
�(
4. Adverse Traffic Impact
PLANS AND POLICIES
Street Capacity
.-UtilityCapacity
`.
Design Standards
r6.
Emergency Access
. Security Lighting.
Water Hazards
0 RESOURCE PROTECTION
,& Slope _Hazard
ficant Vegetation
•'.
life Habitatrical
K14.
Landmark
rdl DeposifSensitive
Areascultural
Lands
0 — 1?r lawn%k M.Il Alnr' Pi)[--) —
DENSITY CHART
Maximum
Eamed
Criterion
Credit
IfAII Dwelling Units Are Within:
Credit
O
20%
2000 feet of an existing or opproved neighborhood shopping center.
D
b
10%
65Dfeetof an existing transit stop. -
.Q
C
10%
4000feet of an existing or approved regional shopping center. lLL- a/*QA1 11A
J1
VO
d
20%
35Mtwi of an exisfirg or reserved neighborhood park community park or community facility. ASK f7L
we
10%
10,00 feet of a school, meeting oil the requirements of the compulsor,educalbnklws of the States of Colorado.
D
rC'
f
20%
30(xlfeet of a major employment center.
Ulm
V D
•- r
g
5%
10001feet of a child care center.
O
h
20%
'North'Forl Collins.
I
20%
The Central Business District.
A project whose boundary is contiguous to exuf ing urbari_FleveloprneM. Credit may be earned as tollows:
0%-For projects whose properly boundary has 0 to 10% contiguity,
30%
10 b 15% - For projects whose properly boundary has 10 to 20% contiguity;
j
15 to 20%- For project whose properly boundary has 20 to 30%contiguity.
20to 25%-For protects whose property boundary has 30 to40%contiguity:
25 to 30%- Far protects whos property boundary has 40to 50%contiguity;
D
If 0 can be demonstrated that the project will reduce non-renewable energy useoge either through the appllcalgnof alternative energy
k
systemsorthroughcommittede gycons NcifionmeosuresbeyondMotnprrnallyrequ!fedby Clry.Code.o5%bommncybeeamed
forevery 5%reduction in energy We.
Calculate a l% bonus for every 50 acres included in the project.
m
Calculate the percentage of the total acres in the protect that are devoted to recreational use. enter W of that percentage as a bonus.
If the applicant commits to preserving permanent offsite open space that meets the Cilys minimum requirem in$ colculafethe percentage
.._ .
n
of this open space acreage athe total developrrantacreage, enter this percentage asabonus .
If porlatthe total development budget a to be spent on neighborhood public transit facilities which pre notothenyee_required by City Code,
O
enter 2%bonus for evsery$100 per dwelling unit invested. ,
B Dart of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood facilities and services which are not ofienvise required by City Code.
P
enter al%bonus for every$100 per dwelling unit invested.
-
tta commitment is being madetodevelop a specified percentage ofthe total numberof dwelling unfsfor low incomstamilles, enterthdt
Q
percentage=a bonus. up to a maximum of 30%.
�'y
If o commitment is being madeto develop a specified percentogeofthetotal number ofdwellingimHsfor TypeWcWType �'tiontlicoppetl
L
nousingasdefined bytheCllyof Fort Collins, calculate the bonus as folows:
O
r
TYPe'A'_. .Slimes T peAunits
Mo u-n -
co
Type'B"-1.0times Type'B'unih
oT aTTuE -
In no case sholl the combined bonus be greater than 30%.
0the:ete or adjacent property contains on historic building or place, d bonus may be earned for the following
3% - For prevsntingor mitigating outside Influences (e.g. environmental and use. aesthetic economic arc=lot foctors)adverse toffs
S
preservation;
3% - For assuring that newstructures; will be in keeping with the character of the building or pace. whileavoldingtotal unit
3- - Forproposing adaptive useof the building or place thatwlll load to Its continuance, preset arionond improvementinan
appropriate manner.
0 a portion or all of the required parking in the mutilplefamily project is provided underground within the building, or in an elevated porlung
structure man accessory usetothe primarysfructure, a bonus maybe earned as follows.
t
9% - For providing 75% or more of the parking in a strucure;
5% - For providing 50-74% of" parking in 0 structure.
3% - For providing 25-49% of the parking in 0 structure.
u
If a commitment is being mode to provide approved automatic fire extinguishing systems for the dwelling units, enter a bonus of 10%.
TOTAL IdD
-30-
GEFROH HATTMAN INC.
ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
135 West Swallow Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
November 28, 1989 (303) 223-7335
Ms. Sherry Albertson -Clark
Planning & Development
City of Fort. Collins
Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: SHAMROCK MANOR P.U.D.
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY POINT CHART
Dear Sherry:
This letter i.s to verify the density Chart H for residential uses relating
to the 28 residential units located on this site for Phases Two and Three
that will in the future be constructed along with the board and care facil-
ity. As you are aware, the density chart requires a minimum of 100 per-
centage points to allow the density that is requested. This is the method
that we intend to achieve the required credits:
BASE CRITERIA
CRITERION
b - Within 650 feet of an existing transit stop
c - 4,000 feet of an existing regional shopping center
University Mall/K-mart complex, Foothills Mall
d - 3500 feet of an existing neighborhood park
f - 3000 feet of a major employment center
Woodward Governor/Scotch Pines Center
j - Contiguous to existing urban development for 50%
more of the property boundary
BONUS CRITERIA
u - Project commitment to provide residential type
automatic sprinkler system for each dwelling unit
in conformance to Poudre Fire Authority
EARNED CREDIT
10%
10%
20%
20%
30%
10%
TOTAL 100%
These are the credits that we are applying for at this time, all of which
are verifiably accurate. It is with these commitments that we ask that
this project be reviewed having achieved 100 percentage points and allow-
ing the density requested.
Sincerely yours,
� i c/
Fredric J. Hattman
Vice President
r
GEFROH HATTMAN INC.
ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
135 West Swallow Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
November 28, 1989 (303)223.7335
Mr. Rick Ensdorff
Traffic Department
City of Fort Collins
Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: PROJECT SHAMROCK MANOR P.U.D.
AN AMENDMENT TO THE PINEWOOD P.U.D.
LOCATION: The project is located approximately 1/4 mile south of Drake Road
between Stover, a collector street, and Stanford, a local street.
HISTORY: Pinewood P.U.D. originated as a townhome project in 1983 as a two-
story two and three bedroom complex consisting of 42 dwelling units. The
original plan called for surface parking of 88 spaces. A later administra-
tive change planned for 48 of those spaces to be provided with carports. At
the time of the initial development, the parking and drive infrastructure,
including curb cuts onto Stover and Stanford, were both. constructed Due to
economic reasons, only the first building was constructed consisting of four
units.
PROJECT DATA: Number
of
Units
42
Number
of
Bedrooms
97
Number
of
Trips Generated
336 Trips/Day
PINEWOOD TOWNHOMES: After the demise of the initial venture, a second group
designed the project around a 4-plex and duplex concept for the site:w1th-the
total.density of the project to be a total of 40 units, 36 new, and 4 exist-
ing. This occurred in the mid -eighties and no major change in project trans-
portation pressures were Indicated at that time.
PROJECT DATA: Number of Units 40
Number of Trips Generated 320 Trips/Day
SHAMROCK MANOR-P.U.D.; This current plan that you see before you permits a
break from the first two concepts by providing two distinct housing types
that are targeted to the elderly housing market. The one is a 17 patient
board and care facility and the other is 28 unit independent living complex.
Both are targeted to the seniors market that cannot physically nor economically
maintain a single family residence and need assistance to some degree to care
for their personal needs.
Within the board and care facility, this need is provided on a 24 hour basis
with special attention paid to meals, hygiene, laundry, personal care, and
Mr. Rick Ensdorff
Traffic Department
RE: SHAMROCK MANOR P.U.D.
November 28, 1989
Page,2
companionship. The independent living provides the opportunity for the senior
to do as much as he or she can for themselves with the provider assisting as
needed. Within the framework of the facility no car will be allowed to be
kept by the board and care resident. There will be a full-time resident staff
person within this facility that will have the ability to maintain private
transportation on site. The board and care facility is noted as Building A
on the Site Plan.
Building B, C, and D will comprise the 28 units of independent living Of the
28 units, 26 will be efficiencies and two units will be one bedroom units.
Occupancy has been determined to be one person per efficiency and two persons
for the one bedroom.
PROJECT DATA:
Existing 16 Units
Number of Employees (A maximum of 4
employees from off site arriving for work
and leaving at the end of a shift)
Visitors (Maximum assumption 1 visitor per
every 2 residents/Day)
On -site Staff Personnel (Apartments set
Aside for Employees)
On -site Mass Transportation Van
Deliveries
On -site Residents (Assume 60.% for Res-
idents to have autos. 17 at # the typical
residential trip generation)
Total Site Traffic
128 Trips/Day
4 Trips/Day
25 Trips/Day
16 Trips/Day
10 Trips/Day
4 Trips/Day
68 Trips/Day
255 Trips/Day
SUMMARY: Three major findings are apparent with this design dedicated to
senior living.
First: Traffic is reduced at least by 25 percent from the initial design due
to the housing type and age of the resident.
Second: Trips generated from this portion of the site will tend to be off-
peak traffic since the population will be beyond the typical employment ages.
Third: An additional benefit to the residents is the on -site public transpor-
tation provided by the facility. With the on -site system personal services
and recreational opportunities not satisfied on site can be provided on a
mass basis.
Sincerely yours,
A
TTMAN I.Hat an
Vice President
to 4b
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY
On Wednesday, October 25, 1989 at 7:00 P.M at O'Dea Elementary, a neighbor-
hood meeting was held on the Pinewood PUD Senior Facility, located south of
Drake Road, between Stover and Stanford Road. In attendance at this meeting
was Chris Huber, applicant; Jim Gefroh and Ric Hattman, architects of
Gefroh-Hattman; Larry O'Dau, builder; and Sherry Albertson -Clark; Project
Planner for the City Planning Department. Nineteen residents/property owners
attended the meeting.
The meeting began with an introduction by Sherry Albertson -Clark to the
purpose of the meeting. Jim Gefroh and Chris Huber then provided an over-
view of the proposed project, after which, questions and comments were
addressed.
The following summarizes the questions asked and responses given by the
developer's representative, as well as comments made by the residents.
Question : How many units are in the project?
Resnonse 45.
uestion: Shouldn't the buildings be built with brick rather than wood frame?
Brick would seem fire resistant, important with seniors living in units.
Response: All units will have fire sprinklers.
Comment: Question the location of garages for the existing units; in terms of
convenience.
uesti n: Who would maintain the street?
Response: The Homeowner's Association would maintain their part of the
street and the rest would be maintained by the developer of the remainder of
the site.
uestiont Could the new garages be located closer to the existing units?
Response : They could be, subject to not interfering with existing utilities.
uestion; Where would the manager's unit be?
Response: There would be an on -site nurse and her husband residing in the
first building constructed. Other live-in staff would be in subsequent buildings
built.
Comment: The existing drive is under the HOA's responsibility.
Comment: Concerned about the increase of people on the site and the reduc-
tion in open space.
uestion: How would trash pick-up be handled?
ResponseWill stay as is now. The senior care facility would have a separate
trash receptacle.
Comment: Maybe access drives should be split since uses are different.
Response: A continuous access through the site is needed for fire access.
uesti n: Who would maintain the drives?
Response: Will need to get legal opinions as to the status of the HOA's
responsibility for street maintenance, given separate ownership of part of the
development.
uestion: Would the new development be a member of the HOA?
Response: No, would be responsible for a portion of the maintenance costs of
the accessways.
Comment: Concerned about the change in use, from residential. and the status
of the HOA's responsibility.
Comment: Concerned about the number of units, construction materials.
Response: Added cost of brick would price out seniors.
Comment:. Question the amount of parking and its location.
Comment: Concerned about the density increase.
Response: Units are efficiency units, 300-400 square feet, so only one person
per unit.
uesti n: What is the square footage of the building?
Response: Larger building is 5600 square feet for 17 residents and one
caretaker and spouse, for a total of 19 people. Building coverage of this
proposal may be less than original proposal.
Question : Why doesn't developer want to join the HOA?
Response: Not opposed, but is not aware what that entails.
Comment: Can't see splitting property with respect to the HOA membership..
The HOA covers maintenance of streets, buildings, open space.
Comment: Should use brick to match existing buildings.
Comment: No objection to senior facility, but need to work out HOA prob-
lems.
Response; Developer may propose to escrow money for share of maintenance
costs and not join HOA.
-2-
•
Shamrock Manor PUD, Preliminary, #53-89
P & Z Meeting - December 18, 1989
Page 2
COMMENTS
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: R-M-P; existing apartments (Pinetree Apartments)
S: R-M-P; existing duplexes
E: R-M-P; existing townhomes (Pinewood PUD)
W: R-M-P; existing tri-plexes
This site is the western -most portion of the 1984-approved Pinewood PUD,
which consisted of 40 townhome units on the entire 3.5-acre site. Five of the
approved structures are existing on the eastern half of the site, for a total of
16 units. The remainder of the site was never developed and has subsequently
been sold. The driveway system was constructed throughout the entire site, as
per the approved plan.
2. Land Use:
The proposed use consists of a 17-resident senior board and care facility and
29 apartment units (situated in three separate structures), for seniors capable of
independent living.
The proposed 29 apartment units (which includes the manager's dwelling unit
in the board and care facility) were evaluated under the Residential Density
Chart. This portion of the proposed project achieved 100%, which is required
to support the proposed density of 14.5 DU/acre for the apartment units.
Points were awarded for proximity to a transit stop, regional shopping center,
neighborhood park and major employment center; urban contiguity, and; for the
use of automatic fire extinguishing systems.
The Residential Density Chart of the Land Development Guidance System was
not used to evaluate the proposed senior board and care facility. These
living units do not meet the definition in the Zoning Code of a "dwelling
unit". The Code defines a dwelling unit as:
"Dwelling unit shall mean one (1) or more rooms and a single kitchen
designed for or occupied as a unit by one (1) family, for living and
cooking purposes, located in a single-family or multi -family dwelling."
One of the primary features of the board and care facility is the centralized
dining room. The individual units in the board and care facility will not be
equipped with kitchens. The dining room serves to provide a convenience for
the residents, as well as providing the added benefit of the social atmosphere
for the residents. Since the individual units within this structure do not meet
the definition of "dwelling unit", staff has not evaluated this component of the
proposed PUD by the criteria of the Residential Density Chart. This interpre-
tation is consistent with past City policy for this kind of commer-
cial/residential land use.
Comment: Prefer seniors over other users, need to work out HOA situation.
Comment: Developer would propose fencing consistent with existing fencing_
along south property line.
Comment:
Concerned about affect on property values,
no problems with senior
facility, but
should be compatible with existing units.
a stion:
Would access from Stanford be cut-off?
Response:
No, would continue as is.
Comment:
As HOA president to south of site, would
like to see same fencing
continued,
not a 6' fence.
Comment:
Concerned about the number of guests and
family visits.
Resuonse:
Do special activities twice a year. Don't
find numbers of visitors
being too
large.
Comment:
Concerned about adequate parking for current residents.
uestion:
How would new area be addressed?
Response:
Staff will look into this item.
The meeting
adjourned at 8:30 P.M
-3-
•
Shamrock Manor PUD, Preliminary, #53-89
P & Z Meeting - December 18, 1989
Page 3
3. Design:
The board and care facility is proposed at 4,200 square feet and consists of 17
living units, a centralized dining room and a dwelling unit for the on -site
manager of the facility. Cooking, cleaning, laundry and transportation needs
will be provided for the residents of this facility. The other structures
proposed for the site are for independent living units. These units are
designed as efficiency or one -bedroom units, with communal gathering space
for socializing. Buildings B and D each contain 10 units, while Building C
contains 8 units. The existing driveway system has been retained with the
proposed building placement.
The structures arc proposed as one-story, with a maximum height of 24', which
serves to retain a residential character throughout the project. Existing
structures on the site arc 17' and 27' in height. The applicant proposes
building materials consisting of painted wood siding and brick wainscotting for
the lower portions of the proposed structures. The existing one-story structures
on -site are predominantly brick, with some wood trim. There is also an
existing two-story wood frame structure on the southeast corner of the site. To
provide structures more visually compatible with the existing structures, staff is
proposing a condition that final building elevations include brick as the
predominant building material and that all building materials match existing
material of existing buildings on the site.
The proposed design has incorporated seating into patios, porches and plazas as
outdoor areas to be used by the residents. A fairly large open space area has
been retained in the northwest corner of the site, to be used for outdoor group
activities. An extension of the existing 6' privacy fence along the north
property line is proposed. The existing picket fence along the south property
line will also be extended, allowing residents of this development views into
open space to the south.
Residents of Building A (the board and care facility) will not be permitted to
have autos on -site, since transportation is provided for them. Adequate parking
has been provided for residents of the apartment units, who may have autos
on -site, as well as for the staff and any visitors. Parking requirements for the
proposed apartment units and staff total 46, with 49 parking spaces being
provided. The approved plan provided a total of 71 parking spaces for the
entire site. Of the 71 spaces, 24 spaces were placed to serve the existing units
on the approved plan. A single car garage was provided for all units, with
the exception of the existing 4-plex (which has 8 surface parking spaces).
Given the nature of the senior board and care facility and the apartment units
geared to seniors, staff believes the parking is adequate to support the proposed
development, without a negative effect on the existing portion of the site.
4. Neighborhood Compatibility:
A neighborhood meeting was held on this proposal on October 25, 1989 (see
attached summary). Issues raised at this meeting may be summarized as relat-
Shamrock Manor PUD, Preliminary, #53-89
P & Z Meeting - December 18, 1989
Page 4
ing to building materials, the number of dwelling units/residents, reduction in
open space and responsibilities of the Homeowners' Association with respect to
this site. Resolution of these issues is as follows:
Building materials - The building materials consist of painted wood siding and
brick on the lower portions of the proposed structures. Staff is recommending
a condition that would require additional brick, so that the proposed structures
would be more visually compatible with the existing structures.
Number of dwelling units/residents - The approved plan consisted of 40
two -bedroom units on the entire site, for a gross density of 11.2 DU/acre. The
proposed plan would add 29 apartments (efficiency and one -bedroom units) and
17 board/care rooms to the existing 16 two -bedroom units. While the overall
number of dwelling units is greater than the approved 40 units (45 apartments
and 17 board/care rooms), the actual number of bedrooms is smaller. Since the
proposed units are efficiency and one -bedroom units, fewer residents would be
expected to occupy the proposed apartment units. The applicant has projected
that a total of 49 persons would occupy the site.
Reduction in open space - The proposed plan has a building coverage of 16,090
square feet. The approved plan for this portion of the site has a building
coverage (including garages) of 29,343 square feet. The difference in the
amount of coverage has occurred due to the smaller dwelling units and the
lack of garages. The additional area not covered by buildings is utilized for
surface parking and open space in and around the proposed structures.
Homeowners' Association - As of this time, the applicant has indicated an
interest in joining the existing Homeowners' Association, for maintenance of
that portion of the driveway, parking and open space areas on the western
portion of the site.
5. Transportation:
Access to the site is from either Stover Street or Stanford Road, via a private
driveway system. The majority of traffic coming to this portion of the site
would be expected to use Stanford Road, rather than Stover. The circuitous
route through the site would tend to discourage through traffic to the western
portion of the site.
6. Storm Drainage:
The existing garage that is split
by the proposed property line was not
constructed at the
proper elevation.
As a
result, detention water may stand in
the garage during
a 100-year storm.
The
applicant is responsible for correcting
this situation. A
number of solutions
are being considered to solve this
problem. Staff is
recommending a
condition that final utility plans provide a
drainage solution
for the existing garage
that is approved by the Stormwater
Utility.
•
Shamrock Manor PUD, Preliminary, #53-89
P & Z Meeting - December 18, 1989
Page 5
RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that the Shamrock Manor PUD Preliminary meets the criteria of
the All Development Chart of the Land Development Guidance System and the
Residential Density Chart (for the proposed apartment units). Therefore, staff
is recommending approval of Shamrock Manor PUD Preliminary, #53-89, with
the following conditions:
Final building elevations include brick as the predominant building material
and that all building materials match existing material of other buildings
on the site.
2. Final utility plans provide a drainage solution for the existing garage that
is approved by the Stormwater Utility.
cu
Al
F16
0
111111111 00
I ail --l.LV IN I Mml-.' ILI: I I, IN
owners
m.'1. w.. qt .. iinnrin.pii .suiiai°nrm
iuuunr. ur mNr uu un nu,
mwl Iwn
' nlpnl ., Iprn
N ees n . er Inlpre en . Na re�np
NI, II Ip wpe•
.[w.ell... .e
use
I .r. p .. AL l.plpL W
hul YINIy 4.rNp If.fpA L .rf i .p
rr r rgyy a.H..e..i su W fp
1Mutlla V�f-�.B 1fI1�L .p
WN
s ...e ..la 1" a ,v .7 w� sip uv
rn-.Lwr.+.•<uay le sqn ly Y@.
f .rnq�ln 1 r r�
Ylply.-IJggr.ne liriy �yii�y Wli.
y Nin
/.Irlq.xln IMYrpr
•.4 pq t�nr N Nyl.
iC q I�.rI.W .O WrNu rr�.
NILL.
y.. ruy rl 3w.
u141r4 pW
nu
�_:-'::rWws .0 ewW.Ws.
3333•����.)wW
.Iu I".,
cS '
.. Ill :rl
—IY.tlIIp rYr
uou
I WMY....
41n.w
v'Iq WIl01q
t L'f6v
n w �„
- munlW ns+lu
Im ne vun
r-;
gxgwu n[.H w
�A,�/SHAMROCK MANOR P.U.D.
V]INW q�
`GGN-GEI�-ECEV/�T ION -000
1Ina30.0ft AN AKE92h0>7'10T•4G FITAed V
It .o ao w eo
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN GofmhwHAtm n Inc.
utilit es,grading&drainage
OONOBPi e[,eV14C[-ION-b.G,n a•:,�
l-,
C
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
PROPOSAL: SHAMROCK MANOR PUD
DESCRIPTION: 30 dwelling units on 2.062 acres
DENSITY: 14.56 DU/acre
General Population
30 (units) x 1.6 (persons/unit) = 49
School Age Population
Elementary - (units) x (pupils/units) _
Junior High (units) x (pupils/unit) _
Senior High - (units) x (pupils/unit) _
Affected Schools Design Enrollment
Capacity _ _ - ---_
No elementary or high school aged students
GEFROH HATTMAN INC.
ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
135 West Swallow Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(303) 223-7335
SUBMISSION INFORMATION AS PER CITY
OF FORT COLLINS LAND DEVELOPMENT
GUIDANCE SYSTEM FOR
SHAMROCK MANOR
ASSISTED AND INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER
PRELIMINARY P.U.D.
PREPARED BY:
GEFROH HATTMAN INC.
145 West Swallow Road
Fort Collins.-, Colorado 80525
PREPARED FOR:
CHRIS HUBER
2190 West Drake N266
Fort Collins, CO 80526
OCTOBER 26, 1989