HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEARTHFIRE (HOFFMAN) - OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 31-95 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSN c
Y o
t(jbfV % iZ �fY
fN^ w 188 44 �N z 13/14 Z
J l\ W �8,/43 p �31�55 O
~ DOUGLAS RD v 17 4 U
25/57...� fir o 45/14y fir o
39/2,1 ^ 0 14/59 + o n
48/31 ` \NS Inverness t nN�
+�N Ln n (Serromonte D�
Richards Lake Rd
x
o
�o
Y
0/0
/0
tat
Z
W
W
O
W
J
J
O
U
LEGEND:
125/65 —
AM/PM PEAK HOUR
8000 —
AVERAGE, DAILY ;TRAFFIC
(ESTIMATED)
«
Y
k `R
FIGU. E'.
'`
5 V
EXISTING + . CUMULATIVE
f PR6jECT
' r
- '�'} x�ix 5.. ix1'+Ca �i&.tar •. rt
t r
?i.
_
!S
N
�
W
Y
g
O
�
a:
Z
Of
Of uj 5%
(5%)
z
(357.) uo 25%
U
(30%)
30% DOUGLAS RD 35% 60%L(6%)(25%)
(25%)
25%
40%100%
40%
Serramonte Dr
(10%)
Richards Lake Rd
10%
(40%)
40%
1
G�
N
o
(25%)
25%
(30%)
30%
COUNTRY
CLUB RD
(40%)
10%
40%
(25%)
25%
(10%)
40% 40%
(15%)
15%
j
z
W
J
W
Q
W
J
(4-0%)
40%
15%
0
(15%)
Y '
FIGURE', 5'
= CPROJECTwTRIP
DISTRIBun, b4
0 M
C
w
0
Q � o
f
T
) 52
) 50
LEGEND:
125/65 -
AM/PM:-.PEAK HOUR
8000-
-
AVERAGES DAILY TRAFFIC'
(EST IMATED)
1,FIGURE
4 .
o,PROJECT ATOTAL'TRIPS '.
d. lY.�':�.i,.
� A
N
N
o:
Y
o
w
Y
>
}W
o
a:
n
`
r`�78/44
v F-
win D
z
Jl♦w-
\
LLJ�
~
�39/19 I0
J
�=13/14
3B�54
7
0
v
DOUGLAS
RD
29/.2
fir
700 s/,4.J
4S/S0 �
r
500
39,2,1
�/31
n
e m ~
0,4
Inverness t
l N�
lSerramonte D�,
Richards Lake Rd
o N
n0
o nLon
n
N
10
w
0/0
0/0
11
COUNTY RD 52
o;oJ
fir
Q
W �
W
Z
W
Q
v COUNTY RD 50
w
J
J
U
LEGEND:
1 i5/6S
- AM/PM PEAK HOUR
7-
8000
- AVERAGE_ DAILY"TRAFFIC
(ESTIMATED)
YEAR,
2000 CUMULATIVt:-TRAFFIC
FIGURE•�-14 "
CONDITIONS
a. I
cNi Y
re
re
p
r)wm
�0/8
\ w
J1 M
f�15,37 rnNY Z
�33,16 )�l =p
t/5
�245
65
Z
~
DOUGLAS RD / \ U
21/46�
fir
7DD 4,,2�
38,42 ��
fir
50D
33/ 18 r
40/26
n
n 0/3
�Int
�Nz
Inverness t
^ N
�Serramonte Dr
o
Frco-)
150 y
Richards Lake
Rd
500
I
O * c
N
N
N
o\
`0/0
1;9
COUNTY RD 52
d
LCOUNTFRZY
00.lir
CLUB RD
000�
a
W
Z
Lu
.J
W
Q
W
w
COUNTY RD 50
J
J
U
LEGEND:
125/65 — AM/PM PEAK. HOUR -------_-_----------- .- -_=-. ___ _.
8000. — AVERAGE -DAILY TRAFFIC (ESTIMATED)
i 7
150 — AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC,
(OBTAINED FROM LARIMER =COUNTY_-6 95)
mS§ k ;•rv: t*iT i ��A JJi.rI .R+, FIGyU„E. L
r5oo PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION -'VOLUMES ; EXISTING TRAFFIC -VOLUMES
(OBTAINED FROM: LARIMER COUNTY
4
o
�
a:
w
o
0
�-
wl
0I
0
f-
not t tec pn U
0
I Inverness
PROJ ECT jtl
SITE Serramon e D
COUNTY RD 52
Long
Pond
Lake I COUNTY RD 50
TO CHEYENNE
25
TO DENVER
FIGURE 1
rr
R
MAP
VICINITY
x ! f � { • � •s
f� j;� T
Y�f�f� 'xy vty,Y� °�7
Sit � M1R{�J! (` n�•`�'
S
W.f 3t y
'..Y ,..•f:} YJ'
,Q' t
� �
j�Nk i t u•w, f... y+
,'�. 'tljji .L, .lt. IY. L� .
{
�. t(•,Y .7 � 1� n•• y. '
li
, t t r.r+-.x`..t Y) �
i
4' �
.��1'
3"i u• f t..• u.. .
h'.
.
ft j '
Hoffman Traffic Impact Analysis
State Highway 1
In the State Highway Access Code, general criteria for speed change lanes can be found
(Section 4.7.1, pf 29). These include criteria for right turn acceleration/deceleration lanes.
Based upon the existing conditions at the intersection of State Highway 1 and Douglas Road,
a deceleration and acceleration lane is needed for the northbound right turns during the p.m.
peak hour. The proposed development will increase the number of right turns and add to this
problem. With the proposed development, an acceleration and deceleration lane will be
necessary in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. It is apparent that modifications are
necessary under existing conditions.
Cul-de-sac at Inverness Street
The alternative which includes the construction of a cul-de-sac at Inverness Street will result
in the diversion of additional traffic to State Highway 1. This additional traffic will worsen the
already existing problem. The preferred solution would be to not cul-de-sac Inverness Street
and minimize the additional traffic at the intersection of State Highway 1 and Douglas Road.
Hoffman Traffic Impact Analysis
Highway 52 at County Rd 11 (Stop
Control)
Southbound Left
A
A
Northbound Left
A
A
Eastbound Left
A
A
Eastbound Through
A
A
Eastbound Right
A
A
Westbound Left
A
A
Westbound Through
A
A
Westbound Right
A
A
Other Potential Impacts: Although the existing+cumulative+project traffic volumes at the
intersections are low and within acceptable levels of service, other impacts will be seen on
the roadway system due to this project.
Inverness/Abbotsford Street
Inverness Street and Abbotsford street are currently two lane dirt roads running from the
proposed project connection at County Road 13 southwest to Gregory Road. Inverness
Street turns into Abbotsford Street. These are very low volumes roads that carry local traffic
to/from Gregory Road. Based upon trip generation, this project will generate 2400 trips daily.
Approximately 40 percent of these trips will use the Inverness/Abbotsford connection to
Gregory Road. This results in approximately 950 additional daily trips on Inverness Street
and Abbotsford Street. These volumes exceed the general standards for when a dirt road
should be paved. An alternative solution may be to cul-de-sac Inverness Street at County
Road 13. The downside to this alternative is
1) People currently using Inverness Street would be precluded from doing so
2) A cul-de-sac requires diversionof traffic to State Highway 1
III
Hoffman Traffic Impact Analysis
Level of Service: The resulting existing plus cumulative plus project peak hour levels of
service for the intersections described are presented in Table D. As can be seen, acceptable
levels of services prevail at all intersections in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour 'conditions
with the addition of project traffic.
Table D - Existing + Cumulative + Project Levels of Service (LOS)
Douglas Rd at County Rd13 (Stop
Control)
Eastbound Left
A
A
Westbound Left
A
A
Northbound Left
A
A
Northbound Through
A
A
Northbound Right
A
A
Southbound Left
A
A
Southbound Through
A
A
Southbound Right
A
A
State Highway 1 at Douglas Rd 11 (Stop
Control)
Northbound Left
A
A
Southbound Left
A
A
Eastbound Left
B
D
Eastbound Through
A
B
Eastbound Right
A
A
Westbound Left
C
C
Westbound Through
A
B
Westbound Right
A
A
Hoffman Traffic Impact Analysis
Trip Assignment: Applying the trip distribution percentages times the a.m. and p.m. peak
hour trip generation yields the project traffic volumes as presented in Figure 4. Adding the
project traffic with the Cumulative Year 2000 a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic yields the Year
2000 plus project traffic volumes as present in Figure 6.
MERRICK & COMPANY
�T iX /.^.e•e=91�i%-j- �
�
�
; � � �x
� � Y
JT �pS
S j '
-
Hoffman Traffic Impact Analysis
Table C - Project Trip Generation
AM AM AM PM PM PM
UNITS ACT IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL
Trip Generation
Rates
Single Family DU
Residential
Apartments DU
Trip Generation
Single Family 142
Residential
Apartments 147
Total
10
.19
.55
.74
.66
.35
1.01
6.5
.09
.42
.51
.43
.2
.63
1420 27 78 105 94 50 143
956 13 62 75 63 29 93
2376 - 40 140 180 157 79 236
Trip Distribution: The trip distributions for the proposed project are based in part on the
location of the project within the City of Fort Collins and in part on existing residential traffic
patterns determined from the review of the existing traffic counts. Based on the existing
counts at the intersection of County Road 13 and Douglas it appears that approximately half
of the traffic goes west towards State Highway 1 with of one quarter of traffic continuing north
on County Road 13 and the remainder turning east on Douglas Road. The proposed Hoffman
development consists of residential development and this report assumes that the majority
of the peak hour traffic will be attempting to go south towards Fort Collins. It is estimated that
approximately 5 percent of the project traffic will travel north, 40 percent will travel south on
College Avenue, 40 percent will travel south on Lemay Avenue, and 15 percent will connect
to 1-25. The project trip distributions are shown in Figure 5.
- Hoffman Traffic Impact Analysis
Highway 52 at County Rd 11 (Stop
Control)
Southbound Left
A
A
Northbound Left
A
A
Eastbound Left
A
A
Eastbound Through
A
A
Eastbound Right
A
A
Westbound Left
A
A
Westbound Through
A
A
Westbound Right
A
A
Project Impacts
The following project impact section generates traffic for the proposed development, defines
where trips will go to/from, assigns those trips to the intersections under investigation and
evaluate impacts.
Trip Generation: The a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation rates for the proposed
residential units are based on the single-family and multi -family residential land use
designation from the Institute of Transportation Engineers 5th edition of the Trip Generation
Manual. As shown in the following Table C approximately 2400 average daily trips will be
generated by this project. Approximately 180 a.m. peak hour trips will be generated along
with approximately 240 p.m. peak hour trips.
MERRICK & COMPANY
Hoffman Traffic Impact Analysis
Table B - Cumulative Levels of Service (LOS)
Douglas Rd at County Rd 13 (Stop
Control)
Eastbound Left
A
A
Westbound Left
A
A
Northbound Left
A
A
Northbound Through
A
A
Northbound Right
A
A
Southbound Left
A
I A
Southbound Through
A
A
Southbound Right
A
A
State Highway 1 at Douglas Rd 11 (Stop
Control)
Northbound Left
A
A
Southbound Left
A
A
Eastbound Left
A
C
Eastbound Through
A
B
Eastbound Right
A
A
Westbound Left
B
C
Westbound Through
A
B
Westbound Right
A
A
Hoffman Traffic Impact Analysis
Highway 52 at County Rd 11 (Stop
Control)
Southbound Left
A
A
Northbound Left
A
A
Eastbound Left
A
A
Eastbound Through
A
A
Eastbound Right
A
A
Westbound Left
A
A
Westbound Through
A
A
Westbound Right
A
A
Year 2000 Cumulative Traffic Conditions
To evaluate the project in a future condition scenario, a three percent annual growth rate was
assumed for a year 2000 cumulative condition. A connection from the collector street within
the proposed development will be made to County Road 13.
The estimated year 2000 traffic volumes are presented in Figure 3. The resulting levels of
service are presented as follows. Growth in traffic does not results in unacceptable levels of
service.
El
Hoffman Traffic Impact Analysis
Table A - Existing Levels of Service (LOS)
Douglas Rd at County Rd 13 (Stop
Control)
Eastbound Left
A
A
Westbound Left
A
A
Northbound Left
A
A
Northbound Through
A
A
Northbound Right
A
A
Southbound Left
A
A
Southbound Through
A
A
Southbound Right
A
A
State Highway 1 at Douglas Rd 11 (Stop
Control)
Northbound Left
A
A
Southbound Left
A
A
Eastbound Left
A
B
Eastbound Through
A
A
Eastbound Right
A
A
Westbound Left
A
B
Westbound Through
A
A
Westbound Right
A
A
MERRICK. &. COMPANY
M
Hoffman Traffic Impact Analysis
The three intersections described can accommodate a left/through/right, on each of the four
legs.
Inverness Street and Abbotsford street are currently two lane gravel roads running from the
proposed project connection at County Road 13 southwest to Gregory Road.
Existing Traffic Volumes: Existing a.m and p.m. peak hour turn movement traffic volumes
for the intersection of State Highway 1 and Douglas Road, County Road 13 and Douglas
Road and County Road 11 and Country Club Road in June, 1995. These volumes are used
in the .intersection level of service analysis and are presented graphically in Figure 2.
Existing Levels of Service: Intersection level of service analysis was performed at three
intersections including State Highway 1 and Douglas Road, County Road 13 and Douglas
Road and County Road 11 and Country Club Road. Level of Service (LOS) is a grading
system as to how well an intersection operates, ranging from "A" which is excellent to "F"
failure.
The existing levels of service for the intersections analyzed are based on the 1985 Highway
Capacity Manual and are presented in Table A. The calculation sheets for this analysis are
presented in the appendix of this report. As can be seen, acceptable levels of service were
found at each of the intersections.
Hoffman Traffic Impact Analysis
Introduction
The following preliminary traffic impact analysis is for the proposed Hoffman multi -family and
single-family residential development located near the intersection of County Road 13 and
Douglas Road in the City of Fort Collins (Figure 1). As will be presented, this preliminary
analysis first evaluates existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic conditions assuming current
lane geometrics and traffic control at the intersections of County Road 13/Douglas Road,
Colorado State Highway 1/Douglas Road and County Road 11/Serramonte. The second
analysis evaluates year 2000 conditions without the project. The third analysis is year 2000
plus project analysis. Project traffic is generated, distributed and assigned to the year 2000
traffic.
Project Description
The proposed project consists of 142 single-family residential dwelling units and 147 multi-
family residential dwelling units. Sixty-three of the multi -family dwelling units are located
above the garages of sixty-three of the proposed single-family as noted on the site plan. The
project site is located north of Richard's Lake. The boundaries of the site are Douglas Road
on the north, County Road 13 on the west, existing residential development on the east, and
Richard's Lake to the south. Primary access to the proposed project will- be via a proposed
residential street on the west edge of the site which will tie into County Road 13. Secondary
access will be via a connection to the proposed Richards Lake development, southeast of the
proposed project, available upon completion of the Richards Lake development.
Existing Conditions
Roadway Characteristics: Currently, Douglas Road is a two lane paved facility with a
posted speed limit of 35 mph. As a part of this development, improvements will be made
to Douglas Road. County Roads 13 and 11 are two lane gravel graded facilities with posted
speed limits of 30 mph. Colorado State Highway 1 is a two lane paved facility with a posted
speed limit of 45 mph. In the vicinity of Douglas Road/SH1, the shoulders on Colorado State
Highway 1 are very wide and used as right turn lanes by travelers.
Hoffman Traffic Impact Analysis
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction............................................................. 1
Project Description....................................................... 1
Existing Conditions....................................................... 1
Existing Plus Cumulative Year 2000 Conditions ................................... 4
Project Impacts (Trip Generation, Distribution, Assignment) .......................... 6
Level of Service Analysis ................................................... 9
Other Potential Impacts ................................................... 10
LIST OF FIGURES
,J 1. Project Location 12
2. AM/PM Peak Hour Existing Traffic Volumes ................................. :. 13
3. AM/PM Peak Hour Year 2000 Cumulative Traffic Volumes ........................ 14
4. AM/PM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes ................................... 15
5. Project Trip Distribution ................................................. 16
6. AM/PM Peak Hour Existing + Cumulative + Project Traffic Volumes ................. 17
LIST OF TABLES
A. Existing Levels of Service ................................................ 3
-` B. Cumulative Level of Service .............................................. 5
C. Project Trip Generation ................................................. 7
D. Existing + Cumulative + Project Levels of Service .............................. 9
�v
APPENDIX:
A. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
B. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
tA
MERRICK & COMPANY
• � n ii'
t .'re raa L "�vR'V
f
t
i
y
+
a i
C
rl I
i r
t
Draft
HOFFMAN PUD
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
June 19, 1995
MER'RICK & COMPANY
1
i
Y I
� -'s' • ti ,
�,� r 9 5 �.
+4.� � a ,a P 4�.
Is y i
r e „
A Commitment to Progress
LARIMER COUNTY COLORADO
July 6, 1995
Mike Ludwig
City of Fort Collins
Planning
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
RE: Richard's Lake PUD
Dear Mr. Ludwig:
Engineering Department
(970) 498-5700
FAX (970) 498-7986
Post Office Box 1190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
Engineering Services Manager
Elaine W. Spencer
I have reviewed the development proposal and traffic impact report for the Richard's Lake PUD and have the
following comments regarding the impact of this development on roads maintained by Larimer County which
currently provide the only access to this property.
1. The Traffic Impact Analysis estimates that 40% of the 2400 trips generated by this development will go
south. All of the trips to the south will use Inverness and Abbotsford Roads to either Richard's Lake Road or
Gregory Road. Both of these roads are gravel and the additional traffic will require that the roads be paved.
2. The traffic continuing south will continue along Abbotsford Road to Gregory Road, south on Gregory to
Country Club and then south on Lemay to areas within the city adding 710+ trips to this route. Following are
the concerns I have with adding traffic to this route.
The traffic impact study does not address the impact of traffic from this development on the
intersection of Gregory/Lemay/Country Club Road.
The intersection of Abbotsford and Gregory is a T-intersection with poor sight distance for vehicles
on Abbotsford turning either right or left onto Gregory.
These roads are all narrow with no provision for bicycles or pedestrians. We already receive
numerous complaints about speeding on Gregory Road; congestion at the school with busses,
pedestrians, bicycles and cars; increased traffic on Lemay south of Country Club, etc. The traffic
added by this development will exacerbate these existing problems since the street infrastructure in
this area simply is not adequate to handle this additional traffic.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please call me at 498-5714 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Elaine W. Spencer
Engineering Services Manager
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
John Clarke Janet Duvall Jim Disney
District I District 11 District III
Commui._.y Planning and Environmental Z. _vices ,«.cleeo•on
Natural Resources Department
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: July 26, 1995
TO: Steve Olt, City Planner
FROM: Brian Woodruff, Environmental Planner
SUBJECT: Unpaved road access to Hoffman PUD
At your suggestion, I looked up state regulations regarding control
of fugitive dust emissions from unpaved roads. The relevant
material is found in Air Quality Control Commission Regulation 1
(emission control regulation for particulates ... for the State of
Colorado), Section III (particulates), Subsection D (fugitive
particulate emissions). My summary of the relevant portion of the
regulation follows.
If vehicle traffic exceeds 200 vehicles per day, then the
owner or operator responsible for construction or maintenance
has to submit a "fugitive dust control plan" to the Air
Pollution Control Division for its approval. The plan must
include dust control measures to minimize emissions resulting
from the use of the roadway. Control measures "may include
but are not necessarily limited to, watering, chemical
stabilization, road carpeting, paving, suggested speed
reductions, and other methods or techniques approved by the
Division."
I gather that Hoffman PUD would add about 1000 vehicles per day on
the unpaved access roads to the south, and therefore the County, as
owner/operator, would have to submit a fugitive dust control for
those roads. According to Elaine Spenser's letter of July 6, the
County thinks the additional traffic requires that the access roads
be paved. The ultimate resolution of the matter depends upon what
the County proposes, and what the Air Pollution Control Division
accepts, as a suitable fugitive dust control plan.
281 N. College Ave. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6600 • FAX (970) 221-6378
A Commitment to Progress Board of County Commissioners
(970) 498-7010
FAX (970) 498-7006
:gat . W X , K Post Office Box 1190
Is Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
LARIMER COUNTY COLORADO
September 19, 1995
Gary Carnes
Chair, Planning and Zoning Board
City of Fort Collins
2950 Querida St
Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
SUBJECT: Richard's Lake PUD
The Board of County Commissioners is concerned about the impact of this proposed development on existing
county infrastructure. The impact of traffic from this development will seriously impact county roads in this area
and funding is not available within the County budget to address this impact.
These roads are all narrow, within confined rights of way, have no shoulders, and there is no provision for bicycles
or pedestrians. We already receive complaints about speeding, accidents, congestion at Tavelli school with school
busses, pedestrians, bicycles, and autos all using the same space, and increased traffic on Lemay south of Country
Club Road. Engineering staff and the Sheriff s Department met with homeowners near Tavelli school just last week
to discuss problems with traffic congestion around the school and safety for students walking to school.
The traffic added by this development will exacerbate these existing problems because the street infrastructure
simply is not adequate to handle the existing traffic.
We therefore request that the Planning and Zoning Board deny the Richard's Lake PUD or require that the
developer be responsible for mitigation of all impacts of adding trips to these roadways as mentioned above.
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
!J
Jim Di
Chair
c: Mayor Ann Azari
.,Mike Ludwig
richard2.doc
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
John Clarke Janet Duvall Jim Disney
District I District 11 District III
i
.03
ell
INN'.
u�
IVA
4�
-
INNII``�'�.
PLANNING & ZONING APPROVAL
WETLANDS
OWNER'S CESTFICATION�
v�nsw�air
PROJECT
STATISTICS
a
aw
�wl.oew.*aeWeNiu
aeowrw.
u+
r
IWme
ywm
c
r,
v
iauoewem
a.oewm aalxnlu
.oe.00mm aeWM11K
)W
m
rwm
u
)u
nen.cealn aemW.K
a.oe4nu
u
vwm
w wm
a
N
."
ww o�oerm aeoert�K
� �m ae.wmu
¢a
sv
• I.+re
rwm
n)
em.mK
v,
sa wm
.N..e )
J
M
4W-
NIpN.ppLT aAWdfIK.
rF
). WIIM
'.
iu•
imu aemea'u
a
m Ixm•
rer
imK .oa.ae
SERREMONTE.e^'w'�e°min'"`'""n'e�m'..m""'°"""'.""o°'""."' w'
HIGHLANDS,�� �R
VICINITY MAP
�nro.�tt ia. .o,m
PKAGN
.nuac
ium
WYELLf90-V
W eeA eN£l� SP!
PLAN
PROJECT NOTES
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
o.•awu�
OGKLGRI@li
rt.M4Ul rs
W.'
L
OTL
UGA BOUNDARY
DOUGLAS -••D
25 1 30
SITE
_
- -71
GRAYS P
6
7E
OUT
-Serramonte Highlands f�
/ l IMO
I
n
LONG POND
Richard's Lake ODP
rlp
City Limits
VICINITY MAP 03/12/96
31-95A HEARTHFIRE PUD
Overall Development Plan :=:::•�:
& Preliminary PUD •::� �••=1000•
Hearthfire Overall Development Plan, #31-95
March 25, 1996 P & Z Hearing
Page 6
5. Transportation:
This development will be accessed from County Road 13, at the northwest portion of the
ODP, and from County Road 11 through future development in the approved Richards
Lake ODP, to the southeast.
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS:
In evaluating the request for the Hearthfire ODP, staff makes the following findings of fact:
It is considered to be in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
It is supported by policy #'s 12, 14, 15, 16, 26, 27, 39, 41, 46, 47, 52, 75, 76, and
79a,b,d,e of the LUPP.
It is not supported by policy #'s 22, 49, 50, and 79c of the LUPP.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Hearthfire Overall Development Plan - #31-95.
Hearthfire Overall Development Plan, #31-95
March 25, 1996 P & Z Hearing
Page 5
#49 The City's Land Use Policies Plan shall be directed toward minimizing the
use of private automobiles and toward alleviating and mitigating the air
quality impacts of concentrated use of automobiles.
#50 Mass transit should be used as a tool which leads development patterns,
rather than following growth.
#79 Low density residential uses should locate in areas:
C. Within walking distance to an existing or planned elementary school.
The following policies are not applicable to this request being that they are general, growth
management and environmental protection -related, and locational policies for specific land
uses that are not relevant to this individual development: #'s 1-11, 13, 16-21, 23-25, 28-38,
40, 42-45, 48, 51, 53-74, 77, 78, and 80-97. There are just 97 stated policies in the LUPP.
There is no requirement, nor is it the intent, that a development be supported by all of the
policies. A representative balance should be accomplished.
3. Desion:
The Hearthfire Overall Development Plan is designed, through its layout and placement
of the various elements of the proposed development, to provide transitions and buffers
to the existing low density and rural residential development to the north, west, and east
of this property through the use of larger lots and lower densities.
4. Neighborhood Compatibility:
A neighborhood meeting was held on May 31, 1995 at Tavelli Elementary School. A follow-
up meeting was held on July 27, 1995. The concerns expressed at both meetings focused
on the perceived incompatibility of this development to the surrounding
areas/neighborhoods in the northeast portion of Fort Collins. The density appears to be too
high, there will be significant traffic impacts to the existing County roads (volumes, speeds,
sight distance and visibility problems) in the area, impacts on existing wetlands and wildlife,
impacts on Tavelli School enrollment, and environmental and air quality issues. A copy of
the minutes is attached to this staff report.
In addition to the neighborhood meetings sponsored by the City, the applicant has
conducted numerous meetings with the neighbors to review the project as it has evolved.
Hearthfire Overall Development Plan, #31-95
March 25, 1996 P & Z Hearing
Page 4
#39 The City should direct traffic efforts to promote improved traffic and
pedestrian circulation and public transit to areas north and northeast of the
C ity.
#41 The City should encourage residential development in the northeast,
particularly giving special consideration to the undeveloped industrially zoned
land in the area adjacent to the existing residential neighborhoods.
#46 Conservation of resources and energy shall be addressed by land use, site
planning, and design criteria.
#47 The City should encourage, by suitable incentives, the use of non-polluting
altrnative energy sources in all types of development.
#52 The City shall pursue possible cooperative re -use arrangements for sharing
water with agriculture.
#75 Residential areas should provide for a mix of housing densities.
#76 Density bonuses should be provided to developers who provide low and
moderate income housing.
#79 Low density residential uses should locate in areas:
a. Which have easy access to existing or planned neighborhood and
regional/community shopping centers;
b. Which have easy access to major employment centers;
d. Within walking distanceto an existing or planned neighborhood park
and within easy access to a community park;
e. In which a collector street affords the primary access.
This request is not supported by the following policies:
#22 Preferential consideration shall be given to urban development proposals
which are contiguous to existing development within the City limits or
consistent with the phasing plan for the City's urban growth area.
Hearthfire Overall Development Plan, #31-95
March 25, 1996 P & Z Hearing
Page 3
Consistency with the City's Land Use Policies Plan:
The adoption of the Land Use Policies Plan was based on the Existing Land Use Report
(November, 1977) that contains detailed statistics on the functional and economic uses of
land within the City. The report's basic purpose was to establish an understanding of the
existing pattern of land and to present an analysis of land use problems to be utilized in
the land use planning process. The Land Use Policies Plan is divided into three chapters:
Chapter I presents definitions of the terms and phrases which are commonly used
in the document.
Chapter II presents the policies of the enabling resolution and an
explanation/discussion of the intent of each policy.
Chapter III presents a listing of additional policy packages, programs, and projects,
along with a schedule for completion of the items required by the policies presented
in the document.
The policies contained in the Land Use Policies Plan provide decision -makers with initial
guidelines to evaluate land use issues in a manner which will assure a continued high
quality of life in Fort Collins.
This request is supported by the following policies:
#12 Urban density residential development usually at three or more units to the
acre should be encouraged in the urban growth area.
#14 Urban development standards shall apply to all development within the urban
growth area.
#15 Development in the urban growth area should be consistent with
development policies set forth in this plan.
#26 Availability of existing services shall be used as a criteria in determining the
location of higher intensity areas in the City.
#27 Developments with requirements beyond existing levels of police and fire
protection, parks, and utilities shall not be allowed to develop until such
services can be adequately provided and maintained.
Hearthfire Overall Development Plan, #31-95
March 25, 1996 P & Z Hearing
Page 2
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: FA-1 in Larimer County; rural acreages
S: rip in the City; planned mixed use (Richards Lake ODP)
FA-1 in Larimer County; existing lake (Richards Lake)
E: rlp in the City, planned mixed use (Richards Lake ODP)
FA-1 in Larimer County; existing single family residential (Serramonte Highlands)
W: FA in Larimer County; rural acreages
The property was annexed into the City as part of the Country Club North Second
Annexation in January, 1984 and as all of the Jewett Annexation in July, 1987.
The Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary is being reviewed concurrent with this ODP request. It
consists of 245 residential dwelling units (133 single family units, 44 carriage house units,
and 56 multi -family units) and commercial/business/residential (12 dwelling units) uses on
77.34 acres. The overall gross residential density is 3.17 dwelling units per acre.
There is an existing, operating oil well on the property (as part of a larger oil field) that has
been operating in its present location for over 20 years. This well will remain and will
continue to operate.
2. Land Use:
This is a request for approval of a two phase overall development plan (ODP) for 317
residential units (with a mix of low, medium, and high densities), limited
commercial/business uses, and open space on 105.3 acres located north and east of
Richards Lake, south of Douglas Road, east of Colorado Highway 1, and west of County
Road 11.
The request has been evaluated against the various elements of the City's Comprehensive
Plan, including the LUPP. Section 29-526.F.(3)(c) of the City Code states that the overall
development plan will not be reviewed on the basis of the specific design standards and
criteria contained in the Land Development Guidance System, but rather on the basis of
conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
ITEM NO. is
,N MEETING DATE 3/25196
STAFF Steve Olt
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Hearthfire Overall Development Plan - #31-95
APPLICANT: Jim Sell Design, Inc.
117 East Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, CO. 80524
OWNER: Richards Lake Development CO./Colorado General Partnership
1412 Richards Lake Road
Fort Collins, CO. 80524
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for approval of a two phase overall development plan (ODP) for 317
residential units (with a mix of low, medium, and high densities), limited
commercial/business uses, and open space on 105.3 acres located north and east of
Richards Lake, south of Douglas Road, east of Colorado Highway 1, and west of County
Road 11. The property is zoned rip - Low Density Planned Residential with a planned unit
development (PUD) condition and RLP - Low Density Planned Residential with no
conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This request for ODP approval:
Is considered to be in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan;
is supported by policy #'s 12, 14, 15, 26, 27, 39, 41, 46, 47, 52, 75, 76, and
79a,b,d,e of the Land Use Policies Plan (LUPP);
is not supported by policy #'s 22, 49, 50, and 79c of the LUPP;
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT