Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEARTHFIRE PUD - RESUBMITTED PRELIMINARY (REMAND FROM CITY COUNCIL) - 31-95C - LEGAL DOCS - VARIANCE REQUESTC an approved ODP with urban density development. The largest lots within this development are to the north, adjacent to Hearthfire PUD. Hearthfire PUD is perfectly situated to provide comparably - sized urban -type lots in the southern portion of its development and then transition into the northern portion with large estate - type lots which are more compatible with the larger County acreages to the north, east and west. This type of transitioning would seem to address recent comments made by several Planning and Zoning Board members and City Council members concerning the need for a "softer" edge on some of the City's boundaries. With the requested variance, the project would also seem to be conceptually supported by the City's newly -adopted Structure Plan (see attached Exhibit "B") which has denoted much of the northern Urban Growth Area, including this site, as "Urban Estate" while placing the area to the south, which includes Richards Lake PUD, into"Low Density Mixed -Use Residential". Finally, Larimer County, into which this site largely intrudes, has reviewed the revised plan with reduced density and is in favor of it. and preservation of, these natural areas dictate a different treatment and density than with a parcel without these features. It should be noted that the net developable area of the project at the density proposed is 1.9 dwelling units per acre rather than 1.4 dwelling units per acre calculated on a gross -acreage basis. In addition to the wetlands and the lake, oil and gas wells exist both on and off site, a condition believed to be unique to this northern area of the City and its Urban Growth Area. While oil and gas wells operate safely and compatibly with residential development in many areas of Colorado and throughout the United States, density is clearly a significant factor in being able to develop a• project because there are many site constraints associated with the operation of oil and gas wells. These include sufficient setbacks from the wells, adequate berming and buffering to protect the residential uses from the -impacts of the wells and preservation of access roads and utilities for the operation of the oil and gas wells. It is obviously much more difficult to compatibly accommodate urban density development when this condition is present. Finally, there is a significant amount of equestrian activity around the site. This use is much better accommodated with lesser density and correspondingly less traffic, noise and other impacts from urban development. The revised plan with reduced density has allowed the incorporation of this equestrian use throughout the project by providing pedestrian/equestrian trails and connections. Taking into account the combined effect of all of the noted existing conditions, a density variance would not only seem justified but preferable to a strict adherence to an urban density policy which would place twice the number of proposed units in an area not well -suited to that level of density. Ectual to or Better Than Neighborhood compatibility of the project has been the major issue: How to make a project with 3.0 dwelling units per acre fit onto a site and into a larger neighborhood with all of the conditions noted above. The key compatibility issue has been density. A density reduced to the level proposed permits a better plan which is sensitive to, and compatible with, existing conditions of the site and the neighborhood. The neighborhood fully supports the requested density variance and believes it to be the only way that a project could be compatible with the. unique combination of features of this northern area. The proposed plan is also better because it provides a very necessary transition between all of the lower density, rural County uses and the Richards Lake PUD, a proposed City development to the south of the site (see Exhibit "A"). The Richards Lake project has F l I "B" i JUSTIFICATION FOR DENSITY VARIANCE FOR HEARTHFIRE PU The applicant is requesting a variance from Chart A-1.12, Attachment A to Section 29-526 of the City Code requiring that the overall average residential density, on a gross -acreage basis, be 3.0 dwelling units per acre. The requested variance is for a gross acreage overall density of 1.4 dwellings units per acre, for a total of 147 residential units on this 105-acre parcel. Section 29-526K of the City Code permits the Planning and Zoning Board to grant variances from the provisions of the LDGS if the applicant can demonstrate one of four grounds for the variance. The plan for Hearthfire PUD, as submitted with the density variance request, meets the following tests, either of which is sufficient for the granting of a variance: (1) That by reason of exceptional topographical, soil or other subsurface conditions or other conditions peculiar to the site, undue hardship would be caused to a subdivider by the strict application of any provisions of this section; (2) That the plan as submitted is equal to or better than such plan incorporating the provision for which a variance is requested. Conditions Peculiar to the Site There are a number of conditions of the site and its surrounding area which support the granting of a density variance, particularly when the conditions are considered as a whole. The project is adjacent to the northern boundary of both the City limits and the City's Urban Growth Area. It is essentially a "finger" of land reaching into an entirely rural area, being surrounded on three sides by established County development, much of which consists of large County acreages of a distinctly rural character. This fact is well illustrated in the attached aerial photo which has superimposed a computer -generated image of the project into the area (see attached Exhibit "A"). Given the site configuration and the nature and character of the surrounding uses on three sides, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to accommodate urban density development on the site and have it be considered compatible with the, large surrounding neighborhood of a very different density and character. This problem is made even more difficult by existing conditions on the site as well as constraints imposed by off -site conditions. There are three wetland areas, two on -site and one immediately adjacent to the project. All of these will be preserved as important wetland linkages to the larger ecosystem. The project is also adjacent to Richard's Lake. Sensitivity to, 2 Igo � .. i - - �I�`�: � �•v` ��— VW wzzCJ •- y ..,� mil' � _ _ _— �4 ��� _ ��� � ••• �� ��, w 1 r � , rT---- 6 WE <v 1 a„. , 0 PLANNING h 20NM APPROVAL PLANT NOTES Yh1Hter.e w � C! �� ..• _..—...r_...r_�... ..._—�.� �........,—...�.._�..—._..�.. 1111L1R as�vla , a.. _.•—emu. �•rr.rr lff,tllFi 7 '1/ •�� WETLANDS ,•rr . \�—fir •—.YO._� ymbAmo �,� � VI —•_-i-.�..ar< \- \ M _,..error.— Ar I.wrw— _�—e•r ' 112 r _•rr•—• ._srs_ rrr M ��sw.�..— � __rws r• �_� Cn+116 fi f!'E.�LZ pIT• 1 \ . �./ \� \/ 1tad .1 4 OWNER'S CERTIFICATION ••r„ �•••_.•�_�..r_...— �` . / 1114 !•r e r PLANT KEY POPAU PROJECT ECT Nr—._n NOTES �( r r �• — ...—.-.. r. .r VICINITY MAP PROJECT STATISTICS _ I r._..+... SOUR ORIENTATION1-17 I ' — W --- sheet 2 of 2 TYPICAL ARCHITECTURAL STYLE STREET SECTIONS OF COMI-IUNITY AND POOL BUILDINCTS ° \ COLLECTOR STREET RESIDENTIAL WITHOUT PARKING LOCAL STREET I- /\ EO'1l. NL Y4 j lyE� E, I it ', , ('"-" .. c - • opy • IIO - ®Op` T�� tee•. loo:(�° �� , .•. a � - - - •e+rii J a 1 , W1% N1 �7'• �Ay, 1� • • z ` s :z ' • .fir' • , � _ . « �� c., ' ., ,. , _ fir �� `�• S lS •� , ..,` R Mr. Gary Diede August 5, 1996 Page 3 Thank you for your continuing cooperation. Sincerely, LAL/glr Attachments cc: Bill Yunker Jim Sell Mr. Gary Diede August 5, 1996 Page 2 to 1.4, permitting much larger lots which would be more compatible with the neighborhood and more suitable to the unique conditions of the site and its surrounding rural environment (see attached Exhibit "B" - Justification for Density Variance). A street lighting variance is justifiable for largely the same reasons as those for the density variance: It is simply inappropriate to require full urban standards in a largely rural area with the unique conditions detailed in Exhibit "B". The project sits on a somewhat higher elevation than surrounding properties, especially where the largest lots are planned, a situation that worsens the problem of City street- lights in the project --they will be very visible to neighbors. Street lights at the required intervals would have a negative visual impact in this rural setting. The County residents in this area consider City street lights to be very undesirable. These residents fully support and encourage the granting of this street lighting variance. A traffic study has been done showing minimal traffic and acceptable levels of operations on streets within the project. The plan provides for a significant network of pedestrian/equestrian trails through the site. In connection with the granting of this variance, the developer is willing to offer the following conditions: (1) A full written disclosure of the street lighting variance to all purchasers of lots within the Hearthfire PUD; (2) Covenant provisions ensuring that all future owners are aware of the lighting variance and requiring that in the event the owners successfully petition the City for additional street lighting the cost must be borne by th homeowners' association; �� is �„fu �•+" 6* /71-1 6_111 M.,-c /,�j�,T•..y ,f nut.-%�+ o-e.Z.�.o ,ate /j ri,.c.-.v.., (3) The street lighting will be noted on the PUD Site Plan so that any changes will require an amendment to the PUD, thereby ensuring that neighbors will have an opportunity to be heard on the issue; and (4) The Covenants will require that each residence has a lighted street address, visible from the nearest street. I will be out of the office until August 12th. If you have questions regarding the requested location of the street lights shown on Exhibit "A" or any other questions, please call the project planner, Jim Sell, at 484-1921. I will call you after I get back regarding the status of this request. ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR. RA M S EY D. MYATT ROBERT W. BRANDES, JR RICHARD S. GAST LUCIA A. LILEY J. BRADFORD MARCH LINDA S. MILLER JEFFREY J. JOHNSON MAIRC$ & MYATT, P.C. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 110 EAST OAK STREET FORT COLLINS. COLORADO 80824-2880 (970) 482-a322 TELECOPIER (970) 482-3038 August 5, 1996 ARTHUR E. MARCH 1909-1981 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 489 FORT COLLINS. CO BOS22-0489 Mr. Gary Diede Engineering Department City of Fort Collins VIA HAND DELIVERY 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado RE: Hearthfire PUD/Request for Variance from Street Design Criteria Dear Gary: As has been discussed with City staff on several occasions, the developer of Hearthfire PUD is requesting a variance from the City's Street Design Criteria (the "Criteria"), approved in July 1986 and on file in the City's engineering office. Section 1.02.01 of the Criteria permits a variance from its regulations under certain circumstances. "As with any design criteria, occasions may arise where the minimum standards are either inappropriate or cannot be justified economically. In these cases a variance to these criteria shall be considered. Written request for each variance should be directed to the City Engineer." on behalf of the developer, I am requesting a variance from Section 1.02.05 of the Criteria related to Street Lighting Standards. The request is to reduce the required number of street lights to two lights at the intersection locations indicated on the attached Exhibit "A". The basis for the request is that it would be inappropriate to fully comply with. City lighting standards in an area that is essentially surrounded by existing large -lot, rural County development which has no street lighting of any kind. A density variance for Hearthfire PUD has been requested which would reduce the required density from 3.0 dwelling units per acre