HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHAMROCK MANOR PUD PRELIMINARY - 53 89 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-CONCEPTUAL REVIEW4
0
Development Services
Planning Department
September 26, 1989
Larry O'Dau
P.O. Box 1149
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Chris Huber
2190 W. Drake, #266
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Dear Mr. O'Dau and Mr. Huber:
For your information, attached is a copy of the Staff's comments concerning
Senior Care Facility, Pinewood PUD which was presented before the Conceptual
Review Team on September 25, 1989.
The comments are offered informally by Staff to assist you in preparing the
detailed components of the project application. Modifications and additions to
these comments may be made at the time of formal review of this project.
If you should have any questions regarding these comments or the next steps in
the review process, please feel free to call me at 221-6750.
Sincerely,
1—
Sherry Albertson C ark
Senior Planner
SAC/gjt
Attachment
xc: Tom Peterson, Director of Planning
Mike Herzig, Development Coordinator
Rick Richter, Civil Engineer I
Project Planner
File
300 LaPorte .Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750
4
0
0
CONCEPTUAL REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS
MEETING DATE: September 25, 1989
PROJECT: Senior Care Facility, Pinewood PUD
APPLICANT: Larry O'Dau, P. O. Box 1149, Fort Collins, CO 80522 and Chris
Huber, 2190 W. Drake, #266, Fort Collins, CO 80526
LAND USE DATA:
Request for senior care facility for 21 residents and 12 multi -family units,
located in Pinewood PUD, between Stover and Stanford.
COMMENTS:
1. If any existing electrical facilities must be relocated, the cost will be the
developer's.
2. Any existing services not used must be abandoned at the main.
3. The large structure, housing the 21 residents must be sprinkled.
4. A restrictor plate for the manhole on Stover must be installed by the devel-
oper. A revised storm drainage report and plan and a grading plan, pre-
pared by a licensed professional engineer in Colorado, will be required.
The drainage report should assume full development of the site, although
phasing is anticipated.
5. If utility services change, revised utility plans will be required.
6. The traffic impact analysis must be revised/updated for the proposed uses.
This analysis should also assume full development of the site.
7. Any improvements not completed with previous construction of this develop-
ment must be completed. Any damaged existing curb, gutter and sidewalk
must be repaired.
8. Street oversizing fees will apply.
9. A development agreement addressing any necessary public improvements
yet to be completed, may be required.
10. Since the building envelopes were platted with the original development as
lots, a replat will be required and should vacate any unnecessary existing
easements and re -dedicate any needed easements.
11. Parking spaces for the multi -family units should be provided at a ratio of
1.5 space per efficiency unit.
0 0
12. A neighborhood meeting will be necessary. The enclosed map depicts the
area required for notification of this meeting.
13. This proposal must be submitted as a Planned Unit Development. All PUD
submittal requirements, including building elevations, site plan and lands-
cape plan will be required.