HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEARTHFIRE PUD, 1ST FILING - FINAL - 31-95D - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSPoudre School Distric*'10-17-96 0:57 3034903524-+ 9704823038;ti 2
EXHIBIT
C
n
POUDRt1
SCHOOL
DISTRICT
October 17, 1996
March & Myatt PC _
Attn: Lucia Lilley
110 East Oak
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: HEARTHFIRE PUD
As you requested, I have enclosed the estimated student population that this subdivision
will generate. Also enclosed is the estimated cost to transport these children to different
locations. There are several factor; that may change the schools that these children will
attend:
1). The year and density of the subdivision
2). The enrollment of Tavelli Elementary at any given time
3). The enrollment of surrounding elementary schools
4). Possible boundary changes of attendance areas
At this time the figures that I have provided are only estimates. If I can be of further help
please contact me at 490-3509.
Sincerely,
W2gett
nager
FAX NO. y-/U 404 citij
�5-96 TOE 12�53 PM 31M SFIL DESIGN INC. 3034903' 010 484 24434 3
SENT DY On1dr School Distri�r.10EXHIBIT -
B
Monday, October 14.1996 �-
Ann. devdopmeat at Riclurrds Latta Road. And CR 11. At *U dM the
Below is the tranapoatatiear am w9mate for the ymposed is at the eecoa Rk 1ave1 whhln the existing route. An
numbers took good for being able to absorb the saw etudes schools- 17ro esd>aated otWta are:
additional route would be nodded in order to service any of tiw proposed elemeetarY
If rho E7omentery Scbool Is Lash:
23 Milea/dsy @ S0.50/mib'
1 Lour/day (9 S 113WIL r =
If the Elemariary, School is Moore:
25 Mrlas/Day @ S0.5U/milo-
l.o5hours/dsy@ 511.50lmilc-
If the Elementary School is Laurel:
23 Miledda @ 50.50/mrlo'
1,03 houtalday @ 511.50/mile
If the Elementary School is New"":
S11.50/day
$t 1.50/60 - 34140:OQ/yetr
S23.001day X 18o days
$12.301day
$12.081day S24_WdgX 180 days -
SS4
512.50Iday
$11.881day .54469
$24.83/day X IN days
31.3 Miledday ® $0.50/mile = S15.75/d8y
1.32 Hours/day ® 511.50hnile' 15.9Nds X 180 drys - S5M7.d01y�
If the Junior High is Caebe LaYa►dra: to the run Cost would be:
Add apprordmarebf 2 miles a day to an wdnl g route, would add appmximatcly 6 mi°U� a day
2.0 milodday @ $0.50/mile 0 S1,00/day
0.1 bourdday ® Sll.50Awurw- St.15/day
S2.151day x'so days - 5387.00Iyetr
If the Junior High is Lincoln:
Add approximately 1 miles a day to an existing route. would add appmxtmsdely 3 minutoa a day to the tun Cou would be:
I.0 moo/day ® S0.30/mUt = S0.50/day
0.05hoors/day(§ S11.50/mrlc- $0.55/day s189.00/yar
51.05/dq x 190 drys =
TieHiPb Sal waddbepoadrc
to would add approxlrustely 3 minutes a day to the run. Cost would be'
Add appraxtlowly 1 miles a day to as cdsting '�' SO.SO/day
1.O.mileddq @ S0.5o/mild 50,3S/dow
ud
0.05 bwdq ® 511.50/mik S199.00IYW
SLOSIdq X 180 drys-
If you bave aqy yueWona, give me a call-490-3576
Bruce
cc; Richard King, Ron Spiea.
�)CT-1`_-96 T11 Il'F5 41: :C343335,
1 � -.- . .... _ ,�„•.err �.
OCT-1`_-96 TH 11:54 AM 204303524 P. 2
SCHOOL BUSSING INFORMATION/COSTS
Ron Daggett, - Property° Manager for PR- I; was contacted to
determine the number of students generated from the development and
potential cost impact related to bussing.
Exhibit A is Mr. Daggett's summary of students from this
development. This shows a total of 88 students for all three
levels (elementary, junior high and high school) at full build out.
Exhibit B shows the bussing cost per student at each level
based upon the different schools which might be attended. This
table shows very minimal bussing costs at the junior high and high
school levels since routes already exist with capacity to service
the development. An additional bus route would be needed at the
elementary level which, depending on the particular school, would
cost between $4,140 and $5,567 per year.
In conversations with Mr. Daggett, he stressed that it is not
certain that any of the students from this development will be
bussed or, if they are bussed, for what period of time. Since
boundary changes occur annually, it may be decided that these
students, along with students from Richards Lake PUD will be sent
to Tavelli Elementary while students from some areas who currently
attend Tavelli may be sent to the new Harris/Laurel Elementary or
elsewhere within PR-1. Numerous factors affect this decision on
bussing. See letter from Mr. Daggett dated October 17, 1996
(Exhibit C).
If warrants are met with the prevailing posted speed, then
this turn lane should be implemented. This recommendation is
also stated on page 4 of the site access study.
00
CM
U)
O
co
•
0
cc
a
0
0
U
•
0
g
W
0
J
TY
U
J
W
MEMORADNUM
d
Ch
O
TO: Bill Yunker, Richards Lake Development Co.
Tom Dugan, Jim Sell Design
Co Fort Collins Planning Department
6
o) FROM: Matt Delich
"' DATE: January 3, 1997
SUBJECT: Hearthfire PUD - Response to staff comments
(File: 9643MEM5)
co
O
N
WStaff requested an evaluation of the turn lane
o requirements at the Douglas/Hearthfire intersection. Since
rn
this intersection will remain within the administrative
control of Larimer County, it is appropriate that Larimer
oCounty Access Policy criteria be used to evaluate the need for
= turn lanes on Douglas Road at the Hearthfire access. The
a_ Larimer County Access Policy uses the graphs provided in the
State Highway Access Code. The approach volumes to be
considered at the subject intersection are the average of the
morning and afternoon peak hour traffic forecasts.
In the short range future, an eastbound right -turn
deceleration lane is required at the Douglas/Hearthfire
intersection. This is stated on page 4 of the "Hearthfire PUD
Site Access Study," July 1996. It is restated in the
conclusions on page 5, along with the dimensions of this
auxiliary lane. The operations analysis (Table 3) indicates
that the Hearthfire Access Road has both a northbound right -
turn lane and a northbound left -turn lane. These movements
will operate at level of service A. If these lanes were
z combined, they would still operate at level of service A.
w Therefore, it is a judgment call whether separate turn lanes
z are required. If there is right-of-way available, then the
z separate lanes can be implemented, but if there are
W constraints, then they should not be implemented. Based upon
o the traffic forecasts, delays to the northbound traffic
a exiting the site will be less than 5 seconds per approach
vehicle. No other turn lanes are required at this
0 intersection in the short range future.
a
tl)
Z
Using the long range traffic forecasts shown in Figure
F 10 of the cited report, no additional road improvements are
necessary at the Douglas/Hearthfire intersection. The need
for a westbound left -turn lane is on the threshold of being
warranted at the posted 45 mph speed. Since this is a twenty
F year forecast and the posted speed on Douglas Road could be
reduced, a left -turn lane was not recommended. At 40 mph, a
westbound left -turn lane would clearly not be warranted. As
development occurs in this area, traffic should be monitored.
TABLE 2
2015 Peak Hour Operation
Level
of Service
Intersection
AM
PM
Terry Lake/Douglas
(stop sign)
EB LT/T
B
D
EB RT
A
A
WB LT/T/RT
C
C
NB LT
A
A
SB LT
A
A
CR 13/Douglas (stop
sign)
NB LT/T/RT
A
A
SB LT/T/RT
A
A
EB LT
A
A
WB LT
A
A
Abbotsford/Gregory
(stop sign)
SB LT/T/RT
A
A
EB LT
A
A
Country Club/Lemay
(all way stop)
EB
B
B
WB
A
A
NB
A
C
SB
A
A
Douglas/Site Access
(stop sign)
NB LT
A
A
NB RT
A
A
WB LT
A
A
TABLE 1
2000 Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Intersection AM PM
Terry Lake/Douglas (stop sign)
EB LT/T B C
EB RT A A
WB LT/T/RT B C
NB LT A A
SB LT A A
CR 13/Douglas (stop sign)
NB LT/T/RT A A
SB LT/T/RT A A
EB LT A A
WB LT A A
Abbotsford/Gregory (stop sign)
SB LT/T/RT A A
EB LT A A
Country Club/Lemay (all way stop)
EB B A
WB B A
NB B B
SB B A
Douglas/Site Access (stop.sign)
NB LT A A
NB RT A A
WB LT A A
operating conditions. From a traffic operations perspective, all
of the intersections meet City of Fort Collins standards.
Improvements
The road improvements that will be done by this development
are:
1. Widen Douglas Road from the site access road to SH1. This
widening will provide a 36 foot width for Douglas Road,
including striped bicycle lanes on both sides of the street.
2. Construct a site access road from the property to Douglas
Road. This access road will be a collector street that will
intersect with Douglas Road approximately 1200 feet east of
CR13.
3. County Road 13 will be paved adjacent to the site to a width
of 24 feet, with a sidewalk on the project side (east) of the
road.
4. If not already built as part of the Richard's Lake Development
to the southeast, a collector street will be constructed that
connects to CR11. This connection will occur when the
Hearthfire PUD reaches 90 dwelling units.
In addition to the above, the following road improvements are
planned and/or designed to be constructed in the near future:
1. Improvements to the SH1/Douglas intersection include the
provision of auxiliary lanes on a number of legs of this
intersection. These improvements are being funded by private
developers and Larimer County.
2. Improvements to the US287/SH1 intersection include
realignment, geometric, and signal changes. The improvements
are intended to improve the operation at this intersection.
This intersection improvement will be completed prior to
occupancy of any dwelling unit in the Hearthfire PUD. This
improvement is funded by public entities, primarily the
Colorado Department of Transportation.
Traffic Impacts
The Hearthfire PUD will impact area streets and intersections.
Prior to the completion of the street connection to CR11 (through
the Richard's Lake Development), the site generated traffic will
utilize Douglas Road and CR13. Most of the "attractions" for
future residents of Hearthfire will be in and toward the central
area of Fort Collins. This includes the downtown area, CSU, and
points to the south along College Avenue. Based upon travel time
studies, the shortest route is via Douglas Road/SH1/College Avenue.
Some traffic will use CR13/Gregory/Lemay because of a perceived
lower travel time. This was considered in the traffic study.
Other Traffic
In conducting operational analyses at various intersections
and on various road segments, traffic from other known proposed
developments are included as part of the background traffic.
Background traffic is defined as traffic that is or will be on the
road system that is not attributed to this (Hearthfire PUD)
specific development. In addition, some growth of the existing
traffic is also included. This is generally done by factoring the
existing traffic by an annual percentage rate, typically 2-4
percent depending upon location. This allows for isolated homes
that are not part of a larger known development.
Level of Service
The concept of level of service uses qualitative measures that
characterize operational conditions within a traffic stream and
their perception by motorists and passengers. The descriptions of
individual levels of service characterize these conditions in terms
of such factors as speed, travel time, delay, freedom to maneuver,
traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. Level of
service is designated by letters A through F. Level of service A
represents the best operating conditions and level of service F
represents the worst operating conditions. There is also a range
of operating conditions within each level of service category.
The City of Fort Collins has established level of service D
as the minimum acceptable level of service at signalized
intersections, with the exception of arterial intersections along
commercial corridors and intersections with activity centers. The
minimum acceptable level of service at arterial intersections
within these areas is level of service E.
Tables 1 and 2 show the intersection level of service in the
respective short range and long range futures with the improvements
described below. As can be seen in these two tables, the operation
at the key intersections is acceptable, with most movements in
level of service categories A and B, which represent the best
z
W
o:
U
J
W
C
7
V
CO
O
LO
6
cD
6
rn
to
W
O
N
0)
co
co
0
ti
O
z
0
x
n.
a
z
Cr
w
w
z
E5
15
0
a
a
H
ca
a
F-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Yunker, Richards Lake Development Co.
Jim Sell, Jim Sell Design
Fort Collins Planning Department
FROM: Matt Delich�
DATE: November 25, 1996
SUBJECT: Hearthfire PUD supplemental traffic and improvement
study (File: 9643MEM4)
This memorandum documents additional traffic engineering
requested by the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board as
part of the approval of the Hearthfire PUD. This memorandum
addresses the following:
- Trip generation,
- Impacts to,CR13 and Douglas Road,
- Other traffic,
- Level of service,
- Improvements.
Trip Generation
The Hearthfire PUD is proposed to consist of 148 single
family detached dwelling units. By City of Fort Collins
traffic study guidelines, the reference document Trip
Generation, 5th Edition, ITE is used to determine the expected
vehicle trips to/from a proposed development. The single
family dwelling unit use is the highest residential trip
generator from the reference document. It is expected that
the trip generation for the Hearthfire PUD will be as follows:
Daily - 1415 trip ends
Morning Peak Hour - 109 trip ends
Afternoon Peak Hour - 150 trip ends
Questions are often raised whether the trip factors in
the cited reference are applicable to land uses in Fort
Collins and Northern Colorado. When the opportunity presents
itself, City staff and I collect traffic data on existing
developments to determine the reliability of the data
contained in Trip Generation, 5th Edition. To accomplish
this, traffic count information must be collected at all
access driveways/streets in order to isolate a given existing
land use. Based upon data collected, the trip generation
factors contained in the cited reference do reflect the
traffic characteristics of a given land use. These types of
analyses have been conducted locally for residential land
uses, light industrial land uses, and commercial/retail land
uses.
TO: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEMBERS
January 8, 1996
The Northeast Neighborhood Coalition supports the final approval
for the Hearthfire PUD, Phase 1. We have made substantial
investments of time and energy to come to a workable compromise on
this project. The agreements and memorandum of understanding made
between the NENC and the Hearthfire development team remain
satisfactory. We will continue to work with the development team
and the City towards acceptable solutions for the remaining phases
of the project.
NAME ADDRESS
r t gD J� � � f"
Qozn C-Jxl-"-2s v. f mG(�las � l-f—aCLu�s YOCfPZ4
i
.Activity -.A: ALL- DEVELOPMENT CRIT1.ERIA .`. .
ALL CRITERIA
, APpucAeLE.CRiTE=lA ONLY
. .. ••.
CRITERION
Is :fie cn-tenon
a.epllcaclei
'3
WUthe crteno
be satisfeo?
Yes No
If no please exclain
Al. COMMUNI T Y-WIDE C.RITERIa
1.1 Sclar Orientation
1.2 Comorehensive Plan I I
1.3 .. Wildlife Habitat
1 .. Mineral Deocsii
1.S _d:,locically Sensitive Areas I rzierve14
1.; Lads -.f Agricultural lmocrancs r�s2r- ed
l
I
I
I
I -
1.7 Erierav Conservation
1:8 Air Quality
" 1 .G Waicr Quality
i0 S wace =rd W=_stec I I
I X,I
I.
-� 1 11 NNalkerConservation
1.12 ResidentialDensity
I
I
I wa"e
r. _. NE!GHEORHOOD COMP.�,'TIEILI 7 `( CRI I -1
2. ; Vehicuiar. Ps^estnan. Bike T r=nsoonation
I I I I
I
2 °uiidinc P!acenant and Orientaticn
I I I
I
I
= Natural i=e=tures
I I
I
I
2•4 Venicular Circuiation anc. Parkinc_
I 4
I
I I
2.5 Emergency Access -
I _ I I:.I
i
I
2.91 Pedestrian Cicc`.aation
11 I
I 1
2.7 Arnitecture
I I
I
I
I
=' Euilding Lieignt End Views
'2 Shading
I DPI
I
i
2 10 Sclar Access
I —jx I
I
I
I
2.1 ; Historic Resources
2.12 Setbacks
2.13 L andscaee
I I
I
I I
-2.14 Sicns
2.1 , Site Lighting
2.16 Ncise and Vibration
I "I
2.17 Glare or Heat
2.18 Hazardous Materials
I
I'
A 3. ENGINEERING CRITERIA :
3.1 Utility Capacity
I .
3.2 -- Design Standards
3.3 Water Hazards
a ;
•
,. r
T. 44z�Geologic Hazards f =;` %
;a
X }
4•
Land Development Guidance Syitetn fdr.Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins; Cotoradb'. Revised h 1994
61,.
A..
SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
Proposal: #31-95D Hearthfire PUD,1st Filing - Final
Description: 91 single family residential lots on 66.15 acres.
Density: 1.37 du/ac (gross)
General Population:
91 (single-family units) x 3.2*(persons/unit) = 291
School Age Population:
Elementary: 91 (units) x .396 (pupils/unit) = 36
Junior High: 91 (units) x .185 (pupils/unit) = 17
Senior High: 91 (units) x .166 (pupils/unit) = 15
TOTAL = 68
*Figures assume a mixture of 2 and 3 bedroom single family residential units.
Le 74ZW WIN i-n
test Berme
xd6ur•ra
MEW RFRAPx�
vuh A F"m�!
eim=ru- .cede
.FF�F
LANDSCAPE CONClFf
L4NDeC4Pe C4TRQO1
RAMT LOT
�.�
..w.
..
DvCID TIIEES
.....�
....�
nrrrYL�a%�Y9w�wrrlw,,.lwMr
.�....rr'rii II.Y.IIYr WIY.N...r.T..w.,..,
M�0..6.,..W'r4.. �w.I �.�.w.w,.rl.I r,y.,Y+I,aews. �+w
C�`'�•`� Mr �
-
L3��.R
1�6iiia"M'
Y.`wr.rrP..�, r�r+w rlrrYrrA,r f,y.,
�.rrrr%r+wr+�ui,rwr+r,r.t�werArr
FwAwAwu bu. a.r.YMrlr�r.�+.,,.r
+rlTwwwin.ri+^.MrrrwwM lr.rw. Y.T.Yt
wr. ^^"'^"�
s�+rw..rww... u.�M ii/P�wL'S14^'�
J
:E g�JY �•-.
�'I..�•- �I
LYat.P'LTL, 4�rO
I.i,r..erwewc ar�
�
,0��-�
w�w� wwH. .rYrrl.rr ..��,yr
rw��.�Y,�v.Y.1+,r1.Y.Y��4i
i.ry�•�r~w��Wrrw X.o P4r �n ��•
...�r �uw
ii�r'w ••�
� ^�`T:�.u.
iiu.� uu._
w+�. W^Y
rr. r wer'Tu+�i+iirw�.r rr���r
rs..r �r.rwrr
,Y1.4 b+.�ar.r.w...y W+r... Y.TW Y.W P..1
•r••••�•
EVEPGPfa iR65
m�
IBM
�mn mo.ev.
yw�acw
,Y
r. Sheet 1 of 4 I .40 ♦4. "~1
+
,
I
EMU
I.1 �
1
,(
! oawYeu�i '
i
I$
I+
40,
KMAWNG a ZONING APPROVAL
NOTES
Mr <
-'
V4�
VVETLANDS
ATTORNM CMTFICATR
OWNERS CSRTFKATKM
LANOSCA -AS"ANCM3
L M FM � -=-i MM
PFOACT NOTES
VICIETY MAP
PROJECT STATISTICS
5L
SOLAR OFSVTATION
Sh"t 2 of 4
41 .Z40
fi
27
19
70 00 as
06
0.4
PJr-H RD'S LAKE Plic.
4
ICI
VICINITY MAP 05/06/96
#31-95D HEARTHFIRE PUD "
1st Filing - Final
1"=1000'
171
innll6-- =111� nn • ��_ �
Hearthfire PUD, First Filing - Final, #31-95D
January 27, 1997 P & Z Meeting
Page 8
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Hearthfire PUD, Final - #31-95D, with the following
condition:
The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit development
final plan upon the condition that the development agreement, final utility
plans, and final P.U.D. plans for the planned unit development be
negotiated between the developer and City staff and executed by the
developer prior to the second monthly meeting (March 24, 1997) of the
Planning and Zoning Board following the meeting at which this planned
unit development final plan was conditionally approved; or, if not so
executed, that the developer or the City staff, at said subsequent monthly
meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. The Board shall not
grant any such extension of time unless it shall first find that there exists
with respect to said planned unit development final plan certain specific
unique and extraordinary circumstances which require the granting of the
extension in order to prevent exceptional and unique hardship upon the
owner or developer of such property and provided that such extension can
be granted without substantial detriment to the public good.
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. 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 the Board
elects to table the decision, it shall also, as necessary, extend the term of
this condition until the date such decision is made.)
If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as
extended, as applicable), then the final approval of this 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.
For purposes of calculating the running of time for the filing of an appeal
pursuant to Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, the "final
decision" of the Board shall be deemed to have been made at the time of
this conditional approval; however, in the event that a dispute is presented
to the Board for resolution regarding provisions to be included in the
development agreement, the running of time for the filing of an appeal of
such "final decision" shall be counted from the date of the Board's
decision resolving such dispute.
Hearthfire PUD, First Filing - Final, #31-95D
January 27, 1997 P & Z Meeting
Page 7
the review process staff and the developer' consultants will improve on the design
elements in a manner that will maximize the benefits to the water quality. The report
also recommends that wetlands disturbed by site development and construction
activities be replaced at a ratio of 1.5 to 1 meaning that for any one unit of disturbed or
filled wetlands 1.5 units of compensatory would be created as recommended by the
City Natural Resources Department. Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, a finding
of fact that this condition of preliminary PUD approval has been met by the developer.
7. Resource Protection:
Issues regarding wetland disturbance and mitigation and the treatment of the wetland
area were not fully resolved with the Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary. Therefore, the
project was approved with a condition stating that:
Wetland disturbance and mitigation measures will be resolved at time of final
PUD review. Wetlands to be disturbed will be replaced at a rate of 1.5 to 1. The
ultimate disposition of the wetland pond area will need to be resolved with the
final PUD through submittal of a detailed plan for the area. Preliminary PUD
approval does not imply that modification of the wetland area is acceptable to
City staff.
The developer has submitted a mitigation plan that staff has reviewed. The plan
appears to be adequate and, therefore, the Natural Resources Department feels that
the condition of preliminary approval has been met.
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS:
In evaluating the request for the Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary, staff makes the following
Findings of Fact:
Is in conformance with the Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary that was approved by the
Planning and Zoning Board on September 23, 1996;
It meets the All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance
System (LDGSI, with the exception of Criterion A-1.12 Residential Density. A
variance to the minimum density requirement of 3.0 dwelling units per acre was
granted by the Board with the Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary approval.
The three conditions of preliminary PUD approval have been addressed and
met.
Hearthfire PUD, First Filing - Final, #31-95D
January 27, 1997 P & Z Meeting
Page 6
the Urban Growth Area, City Transportation staff is requiring that the portion of the
roadway described above be paved to at least 24 feet in width and that curb, gutter,
and sidewalk be constructed on the east side of the road which adjoins the PUD, as is
typically required with developments adjacent to unimproved City streets in accordance
with City Code. No curb and gutter is being required on the west side of County Road
13 at this time since the ultimate roadway width required will depend on surrounding
future development. Since County Road 13 will eventually be annexed into the City,
the Transportation staff believes it is important to require that the portion of the road
adjoining the property be improved to City standards at the time of development of the
Hearthfire PUD. None of the improvements aforementioned in this paragraph will
happen with the First Filing of the Hearthfire PUD. They will have to be done with
the Second Filing, which abuts County Road 13.
The second portion of the aforementioned condition of preliminary PUD approval will be
addressed with the submittal and review of the Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing.
The curve radii on the (primary access) collector street serving the development from
Douglas Road are less than City standards. The City engineering staff has found that
the proposed design will work for the anticipated traffic speeds on the street. A
variance to the street standards was granted with the Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary
approval.
6. Storm Drainage:
Since this project is adjacent to Richards Lake and has an on -site wetland, there was a
condition of preliminary PUD approval to ensure that, with the final Site Plan and
engineering for the project, there will be no negative impacts on the wetland or quality
of water released into Richards Lake. The condition stated that:
Concurrently with submission of final PUD documents the developer shall submit
a detailed study based on the final plan and engineering, analyzing the effects of
urban runoff into the wetlands and ultimately into Richards Lake, along with an
adequate mitigation plan to deal with negative impacts if needed.
As required by this condition of approval, the developer did submit a wetlands
mitigation report and a water quality study aimed at assessing the impacts of the
development on the overall water quality in the receiving waters. The report
recommended the use of vegetation strips, wetland buffers, level spreaders and sand
filters to minimize the impact of the development on the receiving waters' quality. As
correctly stated in that report the elimination of all impacts of development on water
quality is impractical and nearly impossible. The report is a good start that shows the
willingness of the developer to address the water quality issue. It is hoped that through
Hearthfire PUD, First Filing - Final, #31-95D
January 27, 1997 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
Vehicular access by the oil company, for operations and maintenance purposes, will be
provided from Town Center Drive and Hearthfire Court (emergency access only) in the
residential development.
The Colorado Gas & Oil Commission, Whiting Oil (the operating company), Poudre Fire
Authority, and the developer have all been involved in this process to assure that the oil
well and residential development can co -exist compatibly.
5. Transportation/Enoineerin
The Developer will be taking access for this development from Douglas Road,
approximately 1,200 feet east of the intersection of Douglas Road and County Road 13.
The Developer also will construct a secondary emergency access approximately 1,300
feet south of Douglas Road on County Road 13, where County Road 13 curves to the
west and becomes Inverness Drive. The emergency access is proposed to remain in
place until another primary public street connection can tie in on the east side of the
Hearthfire PUD, through the proposed Richard's Lake development, east to County
Road 11. The City Transportation staff supports the access locations as proposed.
The Hearthfire PUD is required to construct off -site street improvements to Douglas
Road in accordance with City Code requirements. The Code requires that Douglas
Road be improved to a 36 foot wide pavement section (at arterial street pavement
depth) from the proposed access point on Douglas Road west to Colorado State
Highway 1. In addition, the roadway must be designed to include gravel shoulders a
minimum of 2 feet in width and sufficient to support the pavement section. Plans for the
design of all off -site improvements, including the configuration of the gravel shoulders
and drainage ditches, have been submitted and staff is reviewing the plans. The design
and widening of Douglas Road is workable; however, if the design changes and is not
feasible because necessary easements cannot be obtained, then the project could be
delayed and/or possibly have to go back to the Planning and Zoning Board. This
partially addresses the condition of preliminary PUD approval that states:
The Developer shall submit plans for all off -site improvements and the
improvements required to County Road 13 with the final PUD utility plans.
County Road 13 is required to be improved adjoining the west side of the Hearthfire
PUD from the intersection with Douglas Road south to the southern property line of the
PUD The road is currently a gravel road and the right-of-way is in the Urban Growth
Area. Larimer County has recommended that the roadway remain gravel at this time
and that some widening be done to the shoulders in addition to collecting funds from
the Developer to be used for future paving. However, because County Road 13 is in
Hearthfire PUD, First Filing - Final, #31-95D
January 27, 1997 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
Street Lighting:
The applicant is proposing to provide a significantly lower level of street lighting in this
development than would normally be implemented along public streets in residential
neighborhoods. City Code allows for the Director of Engineering to approve a variance
to the public street lighting standards and a variance was approved by Director at the
time of preliminary PUD review and approval.
4. Neighborhood Compatibility:
Surrounding Areas:
Lot sizes in the Hearthfire PUD, First Filing that are adjacent to surrounding areas will
range from:
6,400 square feet - 21,000 square feet around the wetland area and adjacent to
Richards Lake. The majority of the lots in these areas range between 12,000 -
16,000 square feet in size. These areas represent approximately 43% of the total
lots.
0.48 acre - 1.12 acres around the northeast periphery of the development. The
majority of the lots in this area range between 26,000 square feet (0.60 acre) -
35,000 square feet (0.80 acre) in size. These lots are designed to provide a
transition from the higher, urban density of the Hearthfire PUD to the surrounding
areas. There is a County subdivision (Serramonte Highlands) to the east with
lots ranging from 1 - 3 acres in size and larger acreages in the County to the
north and east of the Hearthfire PUD. This area represents approximately 12% of
the total lots.
Existing Oil Well:
There is an existing, operating oil well on the property that will remain and continue to
operate. It is located in an open space area near Richards Lake, adjacent to Lots 37 &
38, 50 through 55, and the park/open space area. The Site Plan provides for a
minimum setback of 150' from any public street right-of-way and inhabitable structure.
Also, the Site Plan states that Lot 53 shall not be issued a building permit until the 150'
oil well setback restriction is removed for this development.
There will be 6' - 8' high landscaped earthen berms as physical and visual barriers
between the well and surrounding homes. The oil company will continue to maintain the
existing 6' high chain -link fence around the well to prevent public access into the site.
Hearthfire PUD, First Filing - Final, #31-95D
January 27, 1997 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
Around the wetland area and adjacent to Richards Lake. The lots range from
6,400 square feet - 21,000 square feet in size, with the majority of the lots being
between 12,000 - 16,000 square feet in size. These areas represent
approximately 43% of the total lots.
Around the northeast periphery of the development. The lots range from 21,000
square feet (0.48 acre) - 49,000 square feet (1.12 acres) in size, with the majority
of the lots in this area being between 26,000 square feet (0.60 acre) - 35,000
square feet (0.80 acre) in size. These lots are designed to provide a transition
from the higher, urban density of the Hearthfire PUD to the surrounding areas.
This area represents approximately 12% of the total lots. There is a County
subdivision (Serramonte Highlands) to the east, with lots ranging from 1 - 3 acres
in size, and larger acreages in the County to the north and east of the Hearthfire
PUD.
All Development Criteria of the LDGS:
The request meets the All Development Criteria with the exception of Criterion A-1.12
Residential Density, which asks the question: On a gross acreage basis, is the
overall average residential density at least 3 dwelling units per acre? The
proposed gross residential density for the Hearthfire PUD is 1.38 dwelling units per acre
and a variance to this criterion was granted by the Planning and Zoning Board with the
Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary approval.
3. Design:
Architecture:
The architecture for the single family residences is not being reviewed at this time.
Typically the City does not review building elevations for single family homes unless
there appears to be specific reason to do so.
Landscaping:
The developer will provide street trees along the public streets in the "core" area (higher
single family residential density just north of Richards Lake) and along the collector and
local streets. Also, the developer will provide landscaping in the open areas, including
on the earthen berms around the existing oil well.
Hearthfire PUD, First Filing - Final, #31-95D
January 27, 1997 P & Z Meeting
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: rip 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.
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.
The Planning and Zoning Board approved the Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary on
September 23, 1996 for 147 single family residential lots on 105.36 acres and granted a
variance to the minimum residential density requirement of 3.0 dwelling units per acre.
2. Land Use:
This is a request for final PUD approval for 91 single family residential lots on 66.15
acres. Included in the gross acreage is a park site that contains a community building,
swimming pool, and picnic shelter. The overall gross residential density is 1.38 dwelling
units per acre. It is in conformance with the approved Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary.
There are three distinct areas to this project:
Around the park/open space/community building site and the street roundabout.
The lots are internal to the site and range from 7,800 square feet - 17,000
square feet in size. This is a gridded street area, somewhat neo-traditional in
nature, with the majority of the lots being between 8,000 - 9,500 square feet in
size. This area represents approximately 45% of the total lots.
ITEM NO. 16
MEETING DATE 1127/Q7
STAFF StPvP Olt
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Hearthfire PUD, First Filing, Final - #31-95D
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 final planned unit development (PUD) approval for 91 single family
residential lots on 66.15 acres. Included in the gross acreage is a park site that contains
a community building, swimming pool, and picnic shelter. The gross residential density
is 1.38 dwelling units per acre. The property is located north and east of Richards Lake,
south of Douglas Road, east of Colorado Highway 1, and west of County Road 11. It is
zoned RLP - Low Density Planned Residential and rlp - Low Density Planned
Residential with a PUD condition.
RECOMMENDATION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Approval with a condition
This request for final PUD approval:
Is in conformance with the Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary that was approved by the
Planning and Zoning Board on September 23, 1996;
meets the All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System
LDGS , with the exception of Criterion A-1.12 Residential Density. A variance
to the minimum density requirement of 3.0 dwelling units per acre was granted
by the Board with the Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary approval.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT