HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHAMROCK MANOR PUD PRELIMINARY - 53 89 - MINUTES/NOTES - CORRESPONDENCE-NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGto to
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'Deu, 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?
Response 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.
esti 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.
Ouestion: Could the new garages be located closer to the existing units?
Response: They could be, subject to not interfering with existing utilities.
Oucstion: 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.
u sti n: How would trash pick-up be handled?
Restonse: Will 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.
Ouestion: 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.
Comments 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.
uestion: 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.
ue tion: 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-
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.
ues i n: 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.
Response: Do special activities twice a year. Don't find numbers of visitors
being too large.
Comment: Concerned about adequate parking for current residents.
ue ti n: How would new area be addressed?
Response: Staff will look into this item.
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M.
-3-
w
Ah
PROJECT: `I I. dr-,,wmp
&c>
TYPE OF MEETING:
DATE:
NAME
ADDRESS
WRITTEN
NOTIFICATION
YES/NO
OWNER
RENTEF
n
vezlkj
1-
1
✓,4eq
of
1
!
d ,
710
t
G
I /
Y- _