HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEARTHFIRE PUD - RESUBMITTED PRELIMINARY (REMAND FROM CITY COUNCIL) - 31-95C - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSFire Prevention Bureau
102 Remington Street
—Fort Collins, CO 80524
OAah_oril,
970-221-6570
970-221-6635 (Fax Number)
TO: Steve Olt
Planning Department
FROM: Roger Frasco G
Deputy Fire Marshal
DATE: September 11, 1996
RE: Hearthfire Preliminary PUD
When Hearthfire PUD was first presented to the Planning and Zoning Board,
a number of questions arose about the safety to residents of area from the
operating oil well within the project. Since then, the applicant has
submitted to me the revised site plan and a report entitled "Report on HZS
and Related Risks" dated August, 1996, which was prepared by United
Resource Safety Ltd.
This report analyzes the risks to residents of the proposed development and
the surrounding neighborhoods from hydrogen sulphide associated with the
production of petroleum from Whiting Oil Corporation's Muddy Sandstone
Unit. On -site visits were conducted and Whiting Oil Corporation's
operations were reviewed. Flow tests were taken at two locations, and gas
samples were collected at both flow -test sites as well as at the well located
within Hearthfire PUD. This information provides a basis for calculating a
safety radius for H2S if a well were to rupture.
Based on my review of the report, it is my opinion that safety issues raised
in connection with Hearthfire PUD have been adequately addressed on the
site plan, particularly with regard to the distances provided between any
housing and the operating well and storage tanks.
PROTECTING LIVES & PROPERTY
September 3, 1996
Mr. Gary Diede
Group Leader
Transportation, Operations and Projects
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: Hearthfire P.U.D. street lighting
Dear Gary:
As you know there have been numerous meetings pertaining to this issue. In general the
surrounding neighbors are concerned about fugitive light from the Hearthfire
development. In order to respond to this concern the applicant is requesting a variance to
the existing street lighting standards. If a variance is granted he intends to develop a
street lighting plan that will address the important safety as well as neighborhood
compatibility issues.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, o
j�r'uL� 4
`James L. Sell
JIM SELL DESIGN INC
cc Steve Olt
;�,,Sell De
117 .M°""'auCoA * at)"
3 � 192t
5. Project note #9 is incomplete; it should indicate that lot #110 is also restricted by the well setback
distance.
6. Per your August 14th meeting with Dale Walters I understand that the easement on the north side
of Hearthfire Drive between the two wetlands will be increased from 10' to 25' wide. This will
provide adequate room for pipelines, electrical service and a rig access road to our #30-11 and 30-13
wells.
Our comments on your July 8th letter are as follows:
1. We think the plans should include another opening in the east side of the berm around the well
pad area to provide better ventilation for safety purposes; Dale Walters made this comment to Jim
Sell on Thursday August 8th. (This is item #8 in your letter.)
2. The gravel trail access route described in item #3 of this letter and as item #9 in your letter will
be used as required by our oilfield operations without restriction to number of times it is used per
year. We hope we have to use the trail very infrequently because such well work typically is costly
maintenance for us, but we make no promises on how often rigs or other heavy equipment will be
used.
We think it is very important to coordinate our Oil & Gas infrastructure with the planned Richards
Lake PUD so that the arrangements we make in the Hearthfire PUD such as utility corridors will
connect smoothly to the corresponding arrangements in Richards Lake. We understand that you
have been retained by the Richards Lake developer; we welcome a planning meeting at the earliest
mutually convenient date which we hope will be before the next City meeting on Hearthfire.
I hope you find these comments constructive. Whiting feels that this project has come a long way
in planning for coexistence between surface development and mineral extraction. Please keep me
informed about the schedule for any City meetings on either PUD because Whiting has a vital stake
in these projects and has a right to attend; my understanding is that the next Hearthfire meeting is
set for September 23rd.
Very truly yours,
Richard E. Fromm
Operations Mgr.- West
ref..HOFPUD15.WPD
cc: Mr. Steve Olt
City of Fort Collins Planning Department
281 N. College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
T
August 20, 1996 WHITING
Mr. Tom Dugan
Jim Sell Design Inc.
117 East Mountain Avenue, Suite 200A
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Re: Hearthfire PUD
Comments on July 18th Map and your July 8th Letter
Integration of Plans with Richards Lake PUD
Dear Mr. Dugan:
This is written to respond to your July 8th letter and to comment on the latest subdivision map
Whiting has seen.- We also want to start a dialog with the developer of the Richard's Lake PUD so
that oilfield planning is consistent for the two developments-.
The latest Preliminary Site and Landscape Plan we have is dated July 19, 1996. Our comments on
this plan are as follows:
1. We assume that our existing dirt road from the battery to Douglas road will still be available for
our use for pick-up trucks, as an emergency access, and for use by crude oil trucks if the other access
is blocked.
2. We assume that the 25' wide access easement from Hearthfire Drive(?) just north of our tank
battery will be the primary route for crude oil tanker trucks and that the paved road will, be suitable
for this use. This access will also be used for pick-up truck access by our employees who will use
the various subdivision paved roads for routine monitoring of our wells and facilities.
3. The access route for heavy oil service vehicles such as pulling rigs will be the crushed rock trail
which exits County Road #13 just south of lot #18. These vehicles will turn south between lots #78
and 79, cross Town Center Drive, and then travel between lots #73 and 108 to reach the #30-2 and
30-14 wells.
4. We think the buried utility corridor between lots 30 & 28 and 31 & 32, then between the wetland
and lots 24 & 25, and then connecting with our current buried piping SE of lot 23 is satisfactory.
We assume that the existing piping would be used until it intersects the vehicle route discussed in
item #3 above, NE of lot #83. From here we prefer the utilities to continue following the vehicle
route to the well pad. After the well pad we would like the utilities to pass between lots 110 and 111
to reach the Water Supply and Storage easement between your development and Richards Lake; I
understand that you have already made this change to your map. From this point our utilities would
travel down the Water Supply and Storage Easement to reach wells and electrical service in the
proposed Richards Lake PUD.
WHITING PETROLEUM CORPORATION
MILE HIGH CENTER, 1700 BROADWAY, SUITE 2300, DENVER. COLORADO 80290-2301 (303) 837-1661 FAX (303) 861.4023
ONE PARK TEN PLACE, SUITE 390, HOUSTON, TX 77084-5063 (713) 578.2025 FAX (713) 578-6830
An IES INDUSTRIES Company
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Post Office Box 1190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
(970)498-7010
Fax (970) 498-7006
September 5, 1996
Planning and Zoning Board Member
c/o Gwen Bell
Chair, Planning and Zoning Board
2329 Stonecrest Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80521
SUBJECT: Hearthfire PUD
The Board of Larimer County Commissioners would like to endorse the efforts of the neighbors
and development team to reach a workable solution for the Hearthfire PUD. Their efforts over
the past year have included sponsoring neighborhood meetings, attending numerous county and
city functions, as well as meeting with the development team and various staff offices. This is
the kind of constructive involvement and cooperative planning effort that Larimer County is
trying to promote through the Partnership Land Use System.
We support the request for a density variance worked out by the neighborhood and developers of
the new Hearthfire PUD submittal. The lower density will make this project_ more compatible
with the surrounding county developments, serve as a "soft edge" for the Nrban Growth Area,
and reduce the impact of traffic on the limited county infrastructure in this area. The parcel of
land comprising the Hearthfire PUD is unique in character. Bordered by a lake, surrounded by
established rural acreage properties, it includes two wetlands, in addition to a producing oil field.
The combination of all of these factors indicates a need for flexibility, in order to produce the
best land use by respecting the characteristics of this specific site.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
John Clarke
Chair
cc Mayor Ann Azari
Bob Blanchard, Current Planning
,-Steven Olt, Current Planning
ILI PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
08/26/1996 14:40 3034987711
LARIMER
COUNTY
ONE;
MEMO
LAR CO PLNG
To: Steve Olt, IFt. Collins Planning
From: Robert Helmick, Lurimer County Planning
Date: August 9, 1996
RE: Hearthfire PUD
PAGE 01
PLANNING DIVISION
P.O. Box 1190
Fart Collins, Colorado 80622.1190
Planning Department (970) 498-7883
Building Department (97o) 4W7700
Far (070)49s&7717
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the revised PUD plan. As you are aware we have
Previously commented on a prior proposal at this site. The revised plan appears to respond to a number
of the neighborhood and local concerns which were identified in the earlier review. The significant
community outreach and discussions which apparently influenced this plan are to be lauded.
The focus of our prior comments related to off site road improvements and a concern with consistency in
application of those standards. Although, the plan information submitted does not reference off site
improvements, the applicant, neighborhood, city and county staff have met and apparently discussed the
need for and appropriateness of off site roadway improvements. it is our position that the developer
should participate in necessary off site improvements and in the planned reconstruction of the Douglas
Read/Highway I improvements, currently planned as a part of the Eagle Lake and Terry Cove county
developments.
In reviewing the plan, only a single primary access and limited emergency access to the site exist. There
area number of stub roads which will apparently provide additional access. What is the timing of
allowing for through traffic at these additional access points? Should the number of lots which can be
developed W limited until a safer system of access to the site is provided? We are concerned that 145
lots relying upon only a single access point presents a life safety hazard.
The consideration of the waiver to the density requirements raises interesting policy questions. In
particular, does approval of the lower density in this location establish a trend for the north end of the
UGA? If this is the case, has the City taken a comprehensive view of the trend that this potentially
establishes. It is our understanding from the neighborhood that this lower density is the preferred
pattern, and this plan responds to the concerns of this community.
Thank you again for allowing the county to comment. We look forward to continued cooperation
between the City and the County. Please call if you have any questions.
4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
2. Sources Subject to Section III. D.
Roadways
(i) Unpaved
(B) General Requirement
Any owner or operator responsible
for construction or maintenance of
any (existing or new) unpaved
roadway which has vehicle traffic
exceeding 200 vehicles per day in
attainment areas... (averaged over M
consecutive 3-day period) from
which fugitive particulate emissions
will be emitted shall be required to
use all available, practical methods
which are technolo ig cally feasible
and economically reasonable in order
to minimize emissions resultingfrom
rom
the use of such roadway in
accordance with the requirements of
Section III.D. of this regulation.
(C) Applicable Emission Limitation Guideline
The nuisance emission limitation
guideline shall apply to unpaved
roadways. Abatement and control
plans submitted for unpaved
roadways shall be evaluated for
compliance with the requirements of
Section III.D. of this regulation.
(D) Control Measures and Operating
Procedures
Control measures or operations
procedures to be employed may
include but are not necessarily
limited to, watering, chemical
stabilization, road carpeting, paving,
suggested speed restrictions and
other methods or techniques
approved by the Division.
d. Control Plans
Each control elan shall include all
available practical methods which are
technologically feasible and
economically reasonable and which
reduce, prevent and control fugitive
particulate emissions from the source
or activity into the atmosphere. Any
source required to submit a control
plan may ask for a "control plan
conference" with the Division, and if
so requested the Division shall hold
such a conference for the purpose of
advising what types of control
measures and/or operating
procedures will meet the
requirements of this section.
(iv) The Division shall approve any plan
submitted under this Section III.D.,
unless the Division determines that
the plan does not meet the
requirements of Section III.D.
e. Enforcement
(i) It shall be a violation of this
regulation... if the owner or operator:
(A) Fails to submit a
control plan (or
revision of an existing
plan) within sixty (60)
days....
(B) Owns or operates a
source or activity for
which the Division
has disapproved a
control plan....
(C) Fails to comply with
the provisions of an
approved control
plan.
AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION
REGULATION NO. 1
Emission Control Regulation for Particulates....
EXCERPTS REGARDING FUGITIVE DUST FROM UNPAVED ROADS (I-AUG-96)
D. Fugitive Particulate Emissions
General Requirements
Existing Sources
(i) Every owner or operator of a source or activity
which is subject to this Section III.D. shall employ
such control measures and operating procedures as
are necessary to minimize fugitive particulate
emissions into the atmosphere through the use of all
available practical methods which are
technologically feasible and economically reasonable
and which reduce, prevent and control emissions so
as to facilitate the achievement of the maximum
practical degree of air purity in every portion of the
State.
c. Emission Limitation Guidelines for Submission of Control
Plan.
If the Division determines that a source of activitv which
is subject to this Section III.D. (whether new or existing)
. is operating with emissions that create a nuisance: it
shall require the owner or operator of that source or
activity to submit a written plan to the Division for the
control of fugitive particulate emissions within the time
period specified in Section III.D.
As used herein. "nuisance" shall mean the emission of
fugitive particulates which constitutes a private or public
nuisance as defined in common law, the essence of which
is that such emissions are unreasonable interfering with
another person's use and enjoyment of his property. Such
interference must be "substantial" in its nature as measured
by a standard that it would be of definite offensiveness,
inconvenience. or annovance to a normal Derson in the
community.)
Commui._.y Planning and Environmental ,._rvices p mcyc,ed paper
Natural Resources Department
City of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 1, 1996
TO: Kerri Aschbeck
Steve Olt \
FROM: Brian Woodruff, Environmental Planner
SUBJECT: HEARTHFIRE PUD -- SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY CONTROL
COMMISSION REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO FUGITIVE DUST FROM
UNPAVED ROADS
The owner/operator of an unpaved road (Larimer County, in this case) must use all
"available, practical, technologically feasible, economically reasonable" methods to
minimize fugitive particulate emissions.
2. Applicable to unpaved roads with more than 200 vehicles per day (averaged over a 3-day
period).
3. Techniques may include, without limitation, watering, chemical stabilization, road
carpeting, paving, speed restrictions, or other techniques approved by the Colorado Air
Pollution Control Division (APCD).
4. In addition, if the APCD determines that dust from the roadway is creating a nuisance,
then the owner/operator is required to file a "fugitive dust control plan," and must satisfy
the APCD that all appropriate control techniques are being used.
281 N. College Ave. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6600 • FAX (970) 224-6177
uarm.uu
IM
sw
m. �eepvue L<M o.0 •,M e.na u« .... nn
r� w.
<Ir
..11 a et e..nlnpr,ne m«m41. Mvro«I of en,. m««
rl.n n� enn u!r en.. ,„t Llan� nml nnrrn.0 of enn.n
4.,..
.n.
.r w nw.nw, u rr
l.ne ..«, e.am. er e«rlu«. tn•<, .nr rnm.. Ynn
urn w
�
n... r,•! ,. nmm.tl .<m.exm ao .M µr«.M1nr.n.
-
n.,\,e/1]!. <f M
pr„«<«n, nN <rllrel. nt W ll.nntl It •Iey nl
u,<e1nn..M aemr nl«.ne Clrr Pllelo .m «.Mnrn•.
w
a iyl. rr
•
r
•
•
n.,rl. frllr L.,
a .wl. r�ur r
vr«
urn
1•
sett N,Y
/•
r
L
•
n.w4 wn.r
)i rWY frLLr n�
urn
•/u«
1
nl«
p
IM ,IgI<w11l.�
l.,\
Vrn
I )�
nW.
•.e
r Y�rlrw
vA
. IM M <r 1., WI wlo ...1. S.4rn
11) tl u `rust r Y Y•<b«I r.�,<W. �[•W,G WY
rtY,eY llrr . � et <l.•�S <•rn fr.. e r
Ixf n Yte r.wr. r �o .n i <W:<�<n .<"<trnwr• LM„�...<n
en..0 a.. ,. x.. rq...... ,«aw r al.wn< nr
.<r m
a.... a,« Iwww .we.n,a .w. r.ne •.I 4 vp MLturn
OWNERS SIGNATURE
M ..e!..,�w�L�..,.�n. ,�b[s✓M1�l .ten r •M'. errYLr.•..
ATTORNEYS SIGNATURE
, rr.ne .M .,,,..... r......... •.r.1M. an W r..ruw.
4111'•w u •rnr, -I 1 y al+u 4•r.r r.w.rn.ni
PLANNING A ZONING
BOARD APPROVAL
r! .M M tY rt�w r• L1� \.<N .t b e1y <I r<,< 411 w.
.n,...4. n n � M M .a. ,•�
..n... _ r
LANDSCAPE BUFFER
W/ BETIMING AND PLANT MATERIAL.
r OPEN SPACE CORRIDOR ACCESS TO LAKE
// 5kggAMI1NIE ItlllgI.AN05
__. 1gn,oY.eern5s, � i
cDUI p\im gElpgrs rnsr
2 nstmomswq
wncnE
l
114<,n.< '1 IV 10
VICINITY MAP
BIKE/PEDESTRIAN TRAIL
OPEN SPACE CORRIDOR/
DRAINAOEWAY
vi
DETENTION POND
MAJOR ENTRY
HA1O mKf£Ip
AT1 ME n NTNp
BIKE/PEDESTRIAN TRAIL
EXISTING TREES
-•— DETENTION POND
'CNARDIS LAKE ROAD
Commt: y Planning and Environmental
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 24, 1996
To: Planning and Zoning Board
From: Steve Olt Ay
Re: HEARTHFIRE ODP/PUD
rvices
The following is a brief synopsis of the land uses as shown on the 184 acre (+/-) Richards Lake
Overall Development Plan (copy attached), and its relationship to the Hearthfire ODP, that was
approved by the Planning and Zoning Board in 1986:
* 628 single family homes @ 5.6 dwelling units per acre .................................... 111.5 acres
- generally, located on the westerly 3/4 of the ODP, adjacent to the Hearthfire ODP
* 264 apartment/townhome units @ 15.5 dwelling units per acre ........................ 17.0 acres
- located on the east portion of the ODP, along County Road 11
* commercial or 135 apartments........................................................................... 7.5 acres
- if residential, 18.0 dwelling units per acre
- located at southeast corner of ODP, along County Road 11
* commercial......................................................................................................... 7.5 acres
- located at southeast corner of ODP, along County Road 11
* proposed city park site....................................................................................... 8.0 acres
- located in the middle of the ODP
* proposed elementary school site....................................................................... 10.0 acres
- located in the northwesterly portion of the ODP
* open space (excluding proposed park site) ....................................................... 10.0 acres
* major streets...................................................................................................... 9.5 acres
181.0 acres
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750
FAX (970) 221-6378 TDD (970) 224-6002
31. It is dangerous to make a left turn off"of Douglas Road onto
Hwy 1. People living on Hwy 1 and on Douglas Road need
to be notified of these meetings, also.
38. I feel you ought to seek a variance for lower density now.
A. We cannot do that at this time or we will be dropped from
this process.
39. Can we have more of a one-on-one meeting with you before you
submit your plans?
A. Yes.
40. You will be looking at a long and very expensive legal
battle if you try to run a road through our development at
Serramonte.
41. We will have a discussion about the fire lane access road
with the county engineers and fire chief.
1
26. What will be the price range of this proposed housing?
A. The ones with detached garages will run from $120,000 to
$150,000.
27. What are the your plans to run the utilities to this site?
A. Boxelder Sanitation District will operate there and also
Elco Water District.
28. I would like you to keep the proposed fire lane right where
you have it.
29. Douglas Road should be the access into the site road.
30. We have been contacted by the adjacent developer concerning
a cooperative effort to connect their project with ours by a
common street.
31. Will city services like Transfort come clear out to this
proposed project?
A.
32. Can county officials attend these meetings?
A. It didn't occur to me to invite them tonight, however, they
will be involved in the process of this project.
33. Can the present oil company out here drill more wells?
A. No. They have stated to me that their oil fields are within
eight years, at best, of running out.
34. Are you, as a developer, able to address issues like
contamination to the wetland area that could occur if this
construction goes on?
A. Natural Resources will be contacted and studies will be
done.
35. What about the railroad tracks? The more people you place
out here, the more people that will be going over those
railroad tracks.
36. How large of a road needs to be built to accommodate this
project? Is Douglas Road large enough to handle the added
volume of this development and what is the present traffic
count on Douglas Road?
A. Douglas Road is presently at 2,300 trips per day and is
designated at 45 mph and able to handle 10,000 trips per
day.. It is large enough to handle the volume.
15. What is the impact of the school district on this property?
A. The school district says today there is the capacity to
accommodate any and all children from this project that
would enter Poudre R-1 School District.
16. Who asks for a variance concerning this project?
A. The applicant does.
17. I happen to own land within the green colored area you have
designated for open space for possibly a trail.
18. Are you going to be paving county roads that are adjacent to
the proposed site?
A. The city will determine off -site improvements as they are
warranted.
19.. Where are the closest apartments or townhomes to this
development?
A. Adriel Hills.
20. Will there be adequate parking spaces for this development?
A. The city will require an adequate amount.
21. Could you possibly not have your access road out onto
Douglas Road?
A.
22. Will there be a -buffer along the Serramonte Highlands area?
A. That very well could be a possibility.
23. Will this be a gaged community?
A. No.
24. Is this site owned by one person?
A. Yes, Kathy Hoffman.
25. What would be the minimum number of units per acre you, as a
developer, would be satisfied with?
A. I do not know that at this time. Maybe we'd know that in
approx. two weeks time.
5. When was this area annexed into the City?
A. I'm not sure. I will have to research that.
6. I think it was annexed right before Anheuser Busch was
built.
7. How do the points on the point chart work and what are the
bonus points?
A.
8. What has to occur for the City to voluntarily annex a
property without public input?
A. You have to surrounded on three sides by city owned
property.
9. What is the urban growth area, and will the City review the
urban growth development?
10. Do you ever analyze the differences between county versus
city land and the number of houses in the county on an
acreage oppose to what is built in the city?
A. The compatibility issue is a bit of a gray area.
11. Are there existing roads on this site and will the city
maintain these roads if there are?
A.
12. Is there a cooperative effort between city and county as far
as the zoning regulations go and are the guidelines
different?
A.
13. Does the city take into consideration surrounding areas and
what is there?
A. Yes.
14. I hope the city will recognize all the hours and work that
some of us neighbors have put into coordinating issues
between the city and the county. Have you read our list of
items?
A. I am not aware of any such document. Please mail me a copy.
of it.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES.
PROJECT: Hoffman P.U.D.
DATE: May 31, 1995
APPLICANT: Richards Lake Development Company
CONSULTANT: James Sell, Jim Sell Design
PLANNER: Steve Olt
The potential developer is proposing a residential project
(tentatively named Hoffman P.U.D.) that may contain approximately
257 lots on 85 acres. The development would consist of a mix of
84 townhomes, 118 conventional single-family homes, and 62
single-family homes with detached garages containing a secondary
living flat. The property is located north of Richards Lake
(Reservoir No. 6) at the east end of Inverness Road. The
existing land uses surrounding this site are Serramonte Highlands
to the east, Richard Lake to the south, Cherrywood Acres and
large acreages to the north, and large acreages to the west.
QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS
1. We would like you to mail us the information forms about an
upcoming development happening in our area sooner than one
week before these neighborhood meetings are suppose to take
place. I received mine in the mail today, the day of this
meeting.
2. My notice of this meeting was obviously not mailed to me
through the post office, but put in my mailbox by a
neighbor.,
A: We can give you at least two weeks notice in the future of
these meetings. Some of you were not on the list generated
by APO Colorado and given to Jim Sell, the consultant.
3. The preliminary P.U.D. process is critical. Do not wait, as
neighboring homeowners, until the hearing for getting your
input heard.
4. Is this proposed project considered high density?
A. No.
DENSITY CHARTIcontinued
Criterion Earr:cd
Credit
S Uthe site or adjacent property contains a historic building or place, a bonus may be earned for the following:
3% For preventing or mirigating outside influences adverse to its preservation (e.g. environmental, land
use, aesthetic. economic and social factors);__
39c For assuring that new structures will be in keeping with the character of the building or place, while
avoiding total units;
H 3% For proposing adaptive use of the building or place that will lead to its continuance, preservation, and
improvement in an appropriate manner.
Z t If a portion or all of the required parking in the multiple family project is provided underground, within the
Obuilding, or in an elevated parking structure as an accessory use to the primary structure, a bonus may be earned as
00 follows:
9% For providing 75% or more of the parking in a structure; .
6% For providing 50 - 7490 of the parking in a structure;
3% For providing 25 - 49% of the parking in a structure.
U If a commitment is being made to provide approved automatic fire extinguishing systems for the dwellingunits,
enter a bonus of 10%.
V If the applicant commits to providing adequate, safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections between the
project and any of the desindtion points described below, calculate the bonus as follows:
5% For connecting to the nearest existing City sidewalk and bicycle path/lane;
5% For connecting to any existing public school, park and transit stop within the distances as defined in this
Density. Chart;
5% For connecting to an existing City bicycle trailwhich is adjacent to or traverses the project.
TOTAL
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised September 1994
79a -
IN
Maximum Earned
Criterion Credit Credit
2000 feet of an existing neighborhood shopping center; or
2090
a
- ------------ — — — — — —
2000'feet----of--an-a rov -but-not--co-n-structed-----neighborhood-----shopping-center.
----
1090
-----
b650
feet of an existing transit stop (applicable only to projects having a density of at least six i6] dwelling
a
209,
units per acre on gross acreage basis)
C
4000 feet of an existing or approved regional shopping center
1090
3500 feet of an existing neighborhood or community or
d
_park; _
3500 feet of a publicly owned, but not developed, neighborhood or community park, or community
1090
iLU
facility (except golf courses); or
(A
350o feet of a publicly owned golf course, whether developed or not — — — — — — —
1090
Q@
.
2500 feet of an existing school, meeting all requirements of the State of Colorado compulsory education
10%
m
laws
f
3000 feet of a major employment center
20%
1000 feet of a child care center
590
h
"North" Fort Collins
20%
The Central Business District
2090
A project whose boundary is contiguous to existing urban development. Credit may be earned as follows:
30%
Og'o For projects whose property boundary has 0 - 1090 contiguity;
10 - 15% For projects whose property boundary has 10 - 2096 contiguity;
15 - 20% For projects whose property boundary has 20 - 3090 contiguity;
20 - 25% For projects whose property boundary has 30 - 4096 contiguity;
25 - 30% For projects whose property boundary has 40 - 5096 contiguity.
k
If it can be demonstrated that the project will reduce non-renewable energy usage either through the application of
alternative energy systems or through committed energy conservation measures beyond those normally required by
City Code, a 596 bonus may be earned for every 5% reduction in energy use.
Calculate a 1% bonus for every 50 acres included in the project
/L
M
_
Calculate the percentage of the total acres in the project that are devoted to recreational use. Enter 1/2 of that
bonus.
percentage as a I .? 0 0
n
If the applicant commits to preserving permanent off -site open space that meets the City's minimum requirements,
calculate the percentage of this open space acreage to the total development acreage and enter this percentage as'a
bonus.
If part of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood public transit facilities which are not
otherwise required by City Code, enter a 2% bonus for every $100 per dwelling unit invested.
p
If part of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood facilities and services which are not otherwise
H
required by City Code, enter a 196 bonus for every $100 per dwelling unit invested. ojeq Gy�1 pp
'�
q
If a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for low
income families, enter that percentage as a bonus, up to a maximum of 3090.
OIf
r
a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for Type "A"
Type "B" handicapped housing defined
m
and as by the City of Fort Collins, calculate the bonus as follows:
Type "A" .5 x �" j
Total Units
In no case shall the combined bonus be greater than 30%
Type "B" 1.0 x T= " R" Unitq
Total Units
Continued I
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised September.1994
-79-
ATTACHMENT "B"
ACTIVITY;
Residential Uses
DEFINITION;
OMER
�M�i
IHI
All residential uses. Uses include single family attached dwellings, townhomes, duplexes, mobile homes,
and multiple family dwellings; group homes. boarding and rooming houses; fiatetniry and sorority
houses; nursing homes; public and private schools; public and non-profit quasi -public recreational uses
as a principal use: uses providing meeting places and places for public assembly with incidental office
space; and child care centers.
CRITERIA,
The following applicable criterion must be answered "yes" and
implemented within the development plan.
Yes No N/A
1. DOES THE PROTECT EARN THE —i Mv[L1M PERCENTAGE
POINTS AS CALCLLATED ON THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY
CHART" FOR THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE .USMNTTAL
PROJECT? The required earned credit for a residential project shall be
based on the following:
60 ercentaa points = 6 or fewer dwellinz units e'r acre
6
S2 g 4c-
- percentage points = we g trims per acre
70 - 80 percentage points = 7.- 8 dwelling units per acre
80 - 90 percentage points = 8 - 9 dwellingunits per acre '
90-100 percentage points = 9-10 dwelling units per acre
100 or more percentagc points = 10 or more dwelling units per acre
Lana tievetopment l;uldance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised August 1994
-78-
Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
ALL CRITERIA I
s g APo L1C.eL_ CRITERIA ONLY
ete7etsOats:nee-enon w1uhee
acptnisf
CRITE: 10N sat
Nag
If no, please explain
Al. COMMUNITY -WIDE CRITERIA. I I
1.1 Sclar Orientation I I I I I I
1.2 Comprehensive Plan I I I I I
1.3 Wildlife Habitat I I I I I
1.4 Mineral Depcsit I I I ( I
1•6==clocically Sensitive Areas I resrr+%ea I I
1.c Lands cf Agricultural Imoorance I r?�er -ed I I 1
1.7 Enemy Conservation I I I I I I
1.8 Air Quality I I I I I I
1.� water Qc:ality
c;
0 a.vace and N/=_saes
11 111L r(`on x,I
1.12 Residential Density
I I l f 1 1
2. Nc'Gi-!EORHOCD COMP.�TIcILITY C,RIT`=c4a I
2.1 Vehicuiar. Pedesaran. Bike Transoonetion I I I I ?C I 1
I
2 °uiicinc Pace ent znd Orient_ticr, 1
2. I 1 i 1
Natural Features I I I I I
2 4 Venicular Circulation and P_rkirc
2.:, E,rnergerc/ Ace:ss
I I I
2.. rsd�strian Circu-lation I I I I I I
:2.? .ter:,iiec:ure I I I I I
wilding Heignt and Views
- I I IX I I I
2.6: Shading I I I
2.1C lzclarAc::ass I I ) I
2.11 Historic Resources I I
2.12 Setbacks I I I I I
2.13 Landscape I I
2.144 Signs I I I I I
2.115 Site Lighting I I I I I
2.16 Ncise and Vibrztion I I X Q
2.17 Glare or Heat I I I I I
2.18 Hazardous Materials I I I I
A 3. ENGINEERING CRITERIA I I
3.1 Utility Capacity I x
3.2 Design Standards I I I
3.3 Water Hazards VxjrL
3.4 Geologic hazards I I
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins. Colorado. Revised , h 1994
- 61 - A UG I
Issues Associated With
THE HEARTHFIRE PUD - PRELIMINARY
1. Urban - rural interface ... land use compatibility.
2. Traffic impacts to existing rural county roads ...
increased volumes, speeds, sight visibility
concerns.
3. What off -site street improvements, if any, will
this development be responsible for?
4. Potential impacts to existing wetlands, both on -
site and off -site. How to mitigate water quality
concerns.
5. Interface with, and mitigation measures for, the
existing oil well and associated equipment, both
on -site and off -site.
6. Potential impacts to existing wildlife.
appropriateness of this intensity, as well as the need
for mitigation, must be interpreted in the context of the
neighborhood's character."
We submit that given the characteristics of the property and
the neighborhood, a development of 315 dwelling units (or more than
twice the number proposed with the variance) creates an intensity
(people, traffic, lights, noise, etc.) that cannot fit within this
neighborhood's character.
ADDENDUK TO DENSITY VARIANCE REQUEST
Section 29-527K of the Land Development Guidance System (the
"LDGS") states that a variance may be granted by the Planning and
Zoning Board (the "Board") based on specified grounds if the Board
determines that the variance would not be detrimental to the public
good or impair the intent and purposes of the LDGS. The variance
request submitted on August 5, 1996 addressed the grounds for a
variance. This Addendum addresses the relationship of the variance
to the purposes of the LDGS.
This section of the LDGS is found at Section 29-526B and lists
13 major purposes, many of which are not applicable to a density
issue or a variance request (see, e.g., #1 which requires
compliance with all planning policies of the City, which no
variance by definition could meet, or #8 seeking reduction of
energy consumption and demand which really relates to design not
density issues). The variance request advances, or is consistent
with, the following stated purposes:
(2) To encourage innovations in land development
and renewal.
(5) To avoid the inappropriate development of lands
and provide for adequate drainage and reduction of flood
damage.
(9) To minimize adverse environmental impacts of
development.
(10) To improve the design, quality and character of
new development.
(11) To ensure that development proposals are
sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods.
The facts which demonstrate that the variance complies with
the above -referenced. purposes are set forth in the August 5th
request. In addition, it should be noted that one of the most
fundamental purposes of the LDGS, discussed throughout the
-document, is that of neighborhood compatibility. Urban density may
work well in a variety of contexts throughout the City but not in
this unique area, which is surrounded on three sides by developed
County acreages with a lake, large wetlands and oil and gas wells
thrown into the neighborhood mix as well. The impact from the
intensity of urban density development is very different on a
neighborhood with large developed County lots, rural uses, County
infrastructure and lack of street lighting. As is stated in the
introduction to the LDGS Review Criteria [D(1)(d)]:
"There are also criteria that deal with attributes
that relate to the intensity of activity of the proposed
land use, such as noise, lighting, and traffic. The
u
ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR,
RAMSEY D. MYATT
ROBERT W. BRANDIES. JR.
RICHARD S. GAST
LUCIA A. LILEY
J.BRADFORD MARCH
LINDA S. MILLER
JEFFREY J. JOHNSON
MARCH & MYATT, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
110 EAST OAK STREET
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524-2880
(970) 482-4322
TELECOPIER (970) 482-3038
August 28, 1996
ARTHUR E. MARCH
1909-1981
MAILING ADDRESS:
P.O. BOX A69
FORT COLLINS. CO 80522-0469
Mr. Steve Olt
Planning Department
City of Fort Collins VIA HAND DELIVERY
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
RE: Hearthfire PUD/Addendum to Density Variance Request
Dear Steve:
As we discussed, enclosed is an Addendum which addresses the
"Purpose" section of the LDGS.
LAL/glr
Enclosure
cc: Bill Yunker
Jim Sell
Brigitte Schmidt
Kathleen Kilkelly
Sincerely,
MARCH & MYATT, P.C.
E
51
A erialip
EXHIBIT
1 11,11
I , V W-
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.
3
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.
Equal 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
2
July 17, 1996
Planning and Zoning Board
City of Fort Collins, Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins CO 80524
RE: Hearthfire P.U.D. (Refer to Color Brochure submitted March 8, 1996.)
Dear Board Member:
Hearthfire P.U.D. is a 105 acre development proposal located on the north shore of Richard Lake, near the
northern edge of the City's Urban Growth Area boundary. Access from the site to downtown is
approximately eight minutes. The site is surrounded on two sides by existing low density county
development ( please refer to exhibit "A" ). The planning principles used in the overall concept for the
development are based upon the neo-traditional style of planning, using a central core area with a
neighborhood center and a street system based on grids and alleys. The higher densities are located near
this neighborhood core with lower densities near the perimeter of the project. All of the residential uses
within the development are within walking distance to the neighborhood center and the recreational
amenities of the project.
The Hearthfire P.U.D. Preliminary Site Plan and ODP were submitted to the City on June 19, 1995, and
have been in the review process since that time. In December and again in February, the residential point
chart was modified; however, we have been directed by the City's Planning Staff to meet the requirements
of the point chart that was in existence at the time of this submittal. A copy of it is attached for your
reference ( please refer to exhibit "B" ). The revised submittal also meets the requirements of the current
point chart.
As the land planner for the project, we have held a total of seven neighborhood meetings.
The primary concern of the neighborhood relates to the density, of which there are two components:
Visual impact
This was mitigated by relocating the higher density housing away from the
existing neighborhood and replacing it with large residential estate lots up
to one and one-half acres in size and landscaped open space.
Traffic impact
The projected traffic impact of this plan is well within acceptable safety
standards at full development based upon the traffic study submitted with
the proposal and the City's Traffic Engineers recommendation. The psycho-
logical impact is of greater concern and the only remaining method of affect-
ing a significant reduction in traffic is to reduce density.
Based on the neighborhood concerns, the developers have agreed to a density reduction to as low as 1.7
dwelling units per acre. It is up to the Planning and Zoning Board to determine the appropriate density for
this site. We believe that a variance isjustified based on the unusual circumstances related to surrounding
JUSTIFICATION FOR DENSITY VARIANCE FOR HEARTHFIRE PUD
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 Hearthf ire 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,
July 19 1996
Mr. Steve Olt
City of Fort Collins Current Planning
281 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
RE: Hearthfire P.U.D.
Variance Requests
Dear Steve,
The Developers of the Hearthfire P.U.D. are hereby requesting the
following variances with the submittal of the revised Preliminary
P.U.D.
t. Request for a reduction in overall gross density from a
required minimum of three du/acre to 1.39 du/acre.
2. Request for reduction in the required number of street lights
from the city standards to a maximum of two lights as
shown on the Preliminary Site and Landscape Plan.
The developer will provide justificpon for the+@Quests prior to the
revision resubmitted deadline pf August 7, 1996.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Tom Dugan
cc: Lucia Liley
Hearthfire Submittal
Sell-
n11
FaE- C;crto 80521
CW)484.1921
ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR.
RAMSEY D. MYATT
ROBERT W. BRANDIES. JR.
RICHARD S. GAST
LUCIA A LILEY
J. BRADFORD MARCH
LINDA S. MILLER
JEFFREY J. JOHNSON
MA13CH & MYATT, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
110 EAST OAK STREET
FORT COLLINS. COLORADO 80524-2880
(970) 482-4322
TELECOPIER (970) 482-3038
August 5, 1996
ARTHUR E. MARCH
1909-19BI
MAILING ADDRESS:
P.O. BOX 469
FORT COLLINS, CO 90S22-0469
Mr. Steve Olt
Planning Department
City of Fort Collins VIA HAND DELIVERY
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
RE: Hearthf ire PUD/Justification for Density Variance Request
Dear Steve:
On July 19th, Jim Sell's office submitted the revised
preliminary plan for Hearthfire PUD along with a request for a
density variance of 1.4 dwelling units per acre. In that letter,
which is attached, it was stated that the justification for the
request would be submitted prior to August 7, 1996. The enclosed
document is intended to be the justification for the density
variance. The street lighting request is an administrative process
handled by the City Engineer and will be submitted directly to Gary
Diede. Please let me know if you would like a copy of that request
for your files.
Please let me know if you need anything further in connection
with the density variance.
By:
LAL/glr
Enclosure
cc: Bill Yunker
Jim Sell
Sincerely,
MARCH & MYATT, P.C.
land use. However, the plan as submitted, is sensitively designed to buffer all higher densities from the
surrounding county developments and is in compliance with neighborhood compatibility criteria outlined
in the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS).
Other issues that need to be addressed relate to Phasing criteria:
"Fringe" development
This project is close to the north edge of the Urban Growth Area boundary. However, it is less
than one half the distance from the core of the city than the southern UGA boundary and about
the same distance north as the Foothills Mall is south (please refer to exhibit "A").
"Leapfrogging"
There is virtually no available land for development between the Hearthfire site and Old Town.
Hearthfire is contiguous to Richard Lake, the Country Club, Longs Pond and urban level county
development that is contiguous to urban level city development.
(please refer to exhibits "C", "D" and "J").
Why is this project appropriate at this time?
1. Aside from any discussion of vested rights, this project incorporates many of the positive design
components now being incorporated in the CITY PLAN (please refer to exhibits "E" through "F").
2. It is an infill project surrounded by existing county development.
3. It is contiguous to the Richard's Lake P.U.D. which has already installed sewer and water mains to its
first phase previously completed on Richard Lake. Richard's Lake P.U.D. has nearly 400 prepaid
sewer taps (please refer to exhibit "L").
4. All utilities are available (please refer to exhibit "C").
5. The site will take its primary access from Douglas Road which is classified as a minor arterial.
Minimal improvements, if any, will be required to accommodate the additional traffic from the
Hearthfire P.U.D.
6. The redevelopment of north College Avenue is starting to gather momentum. This project will
proved additional shoppers to utilize the new facilities, as well as provide a positive signal to
potential redevelopment interest.
7. The GOALS AND OBJECTIVES of the LAND USE POLICIES PLAN have encouraged growth in
north Fort Collins since the mid 70s when it was obvious that the city was expanding rapidly to the
south. Today, the southern edge of development extends nearly to Loveland (please refer to exhibit
"D" and "M"). When the Anheuser-Busch brewery site was approved, the city and county helped
pay for a highway interchange on Interstate 25. Finally, about 10 years ago, the Richard's Lake
P.U.D. was approved and began to develop. Unfortunately, only phase one was completed due to a
downturn in the housing market. The Hearthfire P.U.D. offers a unique style that incorporates fresh
ideas consistent with those forthcoming in the latest revisions of our design guidelines. Access is five
minutes from the evolving shopping center on North College Avenue without the need for major
improvements of the existing arterial connection.
I encourage you to take the time to review all of the reference material that has been submitted and feel
free to contact me personally with any questions that you may have.
Sincerely, JIM SELL DESI('iN INC.
��G Off/
''/v"l,
ames L. Sell, President
JLS/Isf
enc.
SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
Proposal: #31-95C HEARTHFIRE PUD -PRELIMINARY
Description: 147 single family residential development on 105.39 acres.
Density: 1.39 du/acre (gross)
General Population:
147 (single family units) x 3.3*(persons/unit) = 485
School Age Population:
Elementary: 147 (units) x .27 (pupils/unit) = 40
Junior High: 147 (units) x. 15 (pupils/unit) = 22
Senior High: 147 (units) x .17 (pupils/unit) = 25
TOTAL = 87
*Figures are based on a mix of 2, 3 and 4-bedrooms per unit.
w
r,
VICINITY MAP 05/06/96
#31-95C Hearthfire PUD "
Preliminary
1"=1000'
MEMO
w
....... . .
EA
- m -- - - - - -rl
I
Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary, #31-95A
September 23, 1996
Page 16
3. 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.
Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary, #31-95A
September 23, 1996
Page 15
The proposal meets the All Development Criteria of the LDGS, with the exception
of Criterion A-1.12 Residential Density. The applicant has requested a variance
to this criterion.
A variance to All Development Criterion A-1.12 Residential Density of the LDGS
can be supported based on: (1) Conditions peculiar to the site; and (3) Equal to or
better than.
The proposal scores 82% on the Residential Uses Density Chart in the LDGS,
exceeding the minimum 60% required to support a residential density of fewer than
6 dwelling units per acre.
RECOMMENDATION:
Density Variance Request:
Staff recommends approval of the applicant's Density Variance Request to allow a gross
residential density of 1.395 dwelling units per acre based on: (1) Conditions peculiar to the
site; and this plan being (3) Equal to or better than plans incorporating the provision for
which the variance is being requested (the previous Hearthfire ODP, with a gross density
of 3.01 dwelling units per acre, and the previous Hearthfire PUD, with a gross density of
3.17 dwelling units per acre).
Preliminary PUD:
Staff recommends approval of the Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary - #31-95A, with the
following conditions:
The Developer shall submit plans for all off -site improvements and the
improvements required to County Road 13 with the final PUD utility plans.
2. 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.
Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary, #31-95A
September 23, 1996
Page 14
traffic speeds on the street. Specifics of the design can be worked out on final utility plans
without changing the proposed layout for this proposed development.
6. Storm Drainage:
Since this project is adjacent to Richards Lake and has an on -site wetland, the staff is
recommending 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 following is a customary staff condition
in situations in which a project is located next to wetlands and/or a lake:
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.
7. Resource Protection:
Issues regarding wetland disturbance and mitigation and the treatment of the wetland area
have not been fully resolved; therefore, staff is recommending a condition of preliminary
PUD approval 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.
Changes to lot layouts and street alignments in some areas may be necessary based on
the ultimate configuration of the wetland.
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS:
In evaluating the request for the Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary, staff makes the following
Findings of Fact:
The proposal is supported by numerous policies in the City's adopted Land Use
Policies Plan (LUPP);
Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary, #31-95A
September 23, 1996
Page 13
be constructed in the future when traffic volumes and surrounding development make it
necessary to provide neighborhood connectivity.
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. The final design of all off -site improvements
including the configuration of the gravel shoulders and drainage ditches must be submitted
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 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.
Staff is recommending the following condition of preliminary PUD approval:
The Developer shall submit plans for all off -site improvements and the
improvements required to County Road 13 with the final PUD utility plans.
The Developer is proposing a roundabout within the project. A detailed design of the
roundabout must be included in the final PUD plans. Modifications to lot sizes and/or the
shape of lots in the area adjacent to the roundabout may be required to match the final
design required for the roundabout.
The curve radii (400' and 500') on the developer -proposed collector street serving the
development from Douglas Road are less than City standards. The developer's engineer
submitted an analysis of the design to the City Engineering Department for their review.
The City engineering staff has found that the proposed design will work for the anticipated
Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary, #31-95A
September 23, 1996
Page 12
decrease the additional traffic volumes associated with this development. The Hearthfire
developer will be responsible for off -site street improvements to Douglas Road and County
Road 13, as a minimum, and possibly to Inverness Street and Abbotsford Street, as well.
The reduced density will enable the developer to provide more separation and buffering
to the wetland areas, which could result in a more substantial wildlife corridor. The Poudre
R-1 School District has indicated that there is space available in the District for the students
to be generated by this development. The elementary school children will not go to Tavelli
Elementary School, however, because it is already at capacity.
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.
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 72 & 73,
107 through 111, and the park/open space area. There will be a minimum setback of 150'
from any public street right-of-way and inhabitable structure. 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. 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:
The Developer proposes to take 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 proposes to 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. However, the
Engineering staff recommends that the proposed street and lot layout on the west edge of
the Hearthfire PUD development be modified to include a provision for right-of-way for a
future local street connection to County Road 13. That way, a local street connection could
Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary, #31-95A
September 23, 1996
Page 11
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. A variance request and a lighting plan were submitted to the City's Director
of Engineering for review and the request has been approved. City Code allows for the
Director of Engineering to approve a variance to the public street lighting standards.
4. Neighborhood Compatibility:
Surrounding Areas:
Lot sizes in the Hearthfire PUD, adjacent to surrounding areas, will range from:
6,400 square feet - 22,000 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 46% of the total
lots.
* 0.40 acre - 0.97 acres around the periphery of the development. The majority of the
lots in these areas range between 27,000 square feet (0.62 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, west, and east of the
Hearthfire PUD. These areas represent approximately 24% of the total lots.
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.
Environmental and air quality issues.
A copy of the minutes of the May 31 st meeting is attached to this staff report. The current
development proposal addresses the concerns of the neighborhoods by reducing the
number of dwelling units by almost 50% over the previous plan, which will significantly
Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary, #31-95A
September 23, 1996
Page 10
Based on our review of the proposal and how it addresses the variance criteria, staff is
recommending approval of the applicant's Density Variance Request to allow a gross
residential density of 1.395 dwelling units per acre based on: (1) Conditions peculiar to the
site, and this plan being (3) Equal to or better than plans incorporating the provision for
which the variance is being requested (the previous Hearthfire ODP, with a gross density
of 3.01 dwelling units per acre, and the previous Hearthfire PUD, with a gross density of
3.17 dwelling units per acre).
The Residential Uses Density Chart of the LDGS:
This request was submitted to the City for development review in June, 1995 and is subject
to the Density Chart that was in effect at the time. That chart requires a minimum total
score of 60% to support 6 or fewer dwelling units per acre, but it does not require a
minimum amount of points being earned from the Base Criteria.
The request has been evaluated against the Residential Uses Density Chart and scores
82% on the chart (earning 20% from the Base Criteria), earning credit for: a) being in
"North" Fort Collins; b) containing more than 100 acres in the project; c) areas in the
project that are devoted to recreational use; and d) a portion of the total development
budget being spent on neighborhood facilities not required by City Code (community
pavilion for concerts in the roundabout and community center/pool facilities). The required
minimum earned credit for a residential project is 60 points for a project of 6 or fewer
dwelling units per acre. This request proposes a gross residential density of 1.395 dwelling
units per acre and is supported by the Density Chart.
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 - Preliminary, #31-95A
September 23, 1996
Page 9
The Purpose section of All Development Criterion A-1.12 Residential Density in the LDGS
states that "the overall average residential density requirement is intended to set a baseline
density standard for all residential developments, as well as encourage variety". Also
contained in this criterion is a Neighborhood Compatibility section that states "special care
should be taken to respect the context of the site and the character of surrounding existing
neighborhoods. Intensification and redevelopment must be balanced with a strong
sensitivity to protecting existing neighborhoods". Further, the Natural Resource Protection
section of the criterion states that "the protection and conservation of major creeks, riparian
and wildlife habitat, slopes and other sensitive environmental features should be
considered and conserved in the location, design, configuration and mix of housing types
and densities".
Putting this project into context with the surrounding areas and neighborhoods, the
Hearthfire PUD is at the northernmost point of the existing City limits and, essentially, is
at the Urban Growth Area boundary for Fort Collins. It is a "point of land" that is bordered
on the north and west by larger, unsubdivided acreages in Larimer County and to the east
by an existing subdivision (approved by and still in the County) consisting of 1 to 3 acre
lots. There are two potentially affected existing wetland areas (both between 6 and 15
acres in size), one being in the north -central portion of this development and one being just
off -site to the north. There is an existing, operating oil well on the property (as part of a
larger oil field, with several other operating oil wells and a tank battery off -site) that has
been operating in its present location for over 20 years. This well will remain and will
continue to operate for an indefinite period of time.
This property was annexed into the City as part of the Country Club North Second
Annexation in 1984, with the "donut hole" Jewett portion annexed in 1987. These
annexations were a result of a series of annexations that took place in the area primarily
between June, 1983 and February, 1984. The result is the property is an extension of the
City limits, in the form of a somewhat narrow piece of ground, north to the northern Urban
Growth boundary and the property is almost completely surrounded by acreages and
subdivisions in Larimer County. There is a low probability that any of the surrounding
properties will redevelop in the near future. There is a series of wetland areas adjacent to
and on this property that provide a natural corridor for wildlife and help maintain the open
feeling of the area. There are existing oil wells in the area, with one operating well located
in the southwest portion of this property. The proposed lower density for this project will
enable the developer to integrate this development into the existing area, provide the
desired setbacks and mitigation to the existing wetlands, and provide sufficient separations
and buffering between the existing oil well and the proposed residential units. Also, the
Hearthfire PUD as planned will provide a good transition between the existing lower density
County uses and the Richards Lake ODP/PUD, a proposed mixed -use development within
the City limits, to the south and east of Hearthfire.
Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary, #31-95A
September 23, 1996
Page 8
south and east of the Hearthfire PUD site. The Hearthfire PUD is located so
as to provide comparably -sized urban lots in the southern portion of the
project to those proposed in the northwestern portion of the Richards Lake
project and then transition into the northern portion of the project with large
estate lots which are more compatible with the larger County acreages to the
north, east, and west of Hearthfire.
The applicant has submitted an addendum to the Density Variance Request that
addresses the relationship of the variance to the Purposes of the LDGS that are found in
Section 29-526B and lists 13 major purposes, many of which are not applicable to a
density issue or a variance request. The applicant contends that the variance request
advances, or is consistent with, the following stated purposes:
(2) To encourage innovations in land development and renewal.
(5) To avoid the inappropriate development of lands and provide for adequate drainage
and reduction of flood damage.
(9) To minimize adverse environmental impacts of development.
(10) To improve the design, quality and character of new development.
(11) To ensure that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing
neighborhoods.
Staffs Response to and Recommendation on the Density Variance Request:
Reasons (2) and (4) of the Variance Procedures as set forth in Section 29-526K are not
applicable to this development proposal in that no undue hardship with regard to solar
orientation or access is being demonstrated and substantial benefit to the City in the form
of a defined community need or alleviation of an existing problem are not being
demonstrated.
Reasons (1) and (3) are applicable to the applicant's density variance request:
(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.
(3) That the plan as submitted is equal to or better than such plan incorporating the
provision for which a variance is requested.
Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary, #31-95A
September 23, 1996
Page 7
Conditions peculiar to the site
The property 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.
There are existing wetland areas both on -site and immediately adjacent off -
site, as well as the project being adjacent to Richard's Lake. Sensitivity to,
and preservation of, these natural areas should dictate a different treatment
and density than a property without these features. The net residential
density would be closer to 1.9 dwelling units per acre if the sensitive areas
were subtracted from the gross acreage.
There are existing oil and gas wells both on -site and just off -site. While oil
and gas wells operate safely and compatibly with residential neighborhoods
in many areas, density is a significant factor in being able to develop a
project because of the site constraints associated with their operation.
Constraints may include sufficient setbacks from wells, adequate berming
and buffering (landscaping, fencing, etc.) to protect the residential uses from
the impacts of the wells, and the preservation of access roads and utilities
for the operation of the oil and gas wells.
There is a significant amount of equestrian activity on and around the site.
This use is better accommodated with lesser density and correspondingly
less vehicular traffic, noise, and other urban impacts. This plan, with reduced
density, allows the incorporation of this equestrian use throughout the project
by providing pedestrian/bicycle/equestrian trails and connections to adjacent
streets and trails.
(3) That the plan as submitted is equal to or better than such plan incorporating the
provision for which a variance is requested.
Equal to or Better Than
The key compatibility issue with the surrounding neighborhoods has been
density. A density reduced to the level proposed allows a better plan which
is sensitive to, and compatible with, existing conditions of the site and
neighborhoods.
The proposed plan is better because it provides a necessary transition
between all of the lower density County uses and the Richards Lake
ODP/PUD, a proposed mixed -use development within the City limits, to the
Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary, #31-95A
September 23, 1996
Page 6
All Development Criteria of the LDGSNariance Request:
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 1.395 dwelling units per acre; therefore, a
variance to this criterion has to be granted by the Planning and Zoning Board before the
Board would be able to approve or deny the development proposal.
Section 29-526K in the LDGS empowers the Planning and Zoning Board to grant variances
to the provisions of Section 29-526 of the City Code. Variance requests may be granted
if the Board determines that the granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to
the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of this section, and if the applicant
demonstrates:
(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, or
(2) That by reason of exceptional conditions or difficulties with regard to solar
orientation or access, undue hardship would be caused to a subdivider by the strict
application of any provisions of this section, or
(3) That the plan as submitted is equal to or better than such plan incorporating the
provision for which a variance is requested, or
(4) That the granting of a variance from the strict application of any provision would
result in a substantial benefit to the City by reason of the fact that the proposed
project would help satisfy a defined community need (such as affordable housing
or historic preservation ) or would alleviate an existing problem (such as traffic
congestion or urban blight), and the strict application of such a provision would
render the project practically unfeasible.
Applicant's Density Variance Request:
The applicant has requested a variance to All Development Criterion A-1.12 (a copy is
attached to this staff report) based on the following, 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 provision of this section.
Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary, #31-95A
September 23, 1996
Page 5
#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 distance to 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:
#12 Urban density residential development usually at three or more units to the
acre should be encouraged in the urban growth area.
#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.
#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 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.
Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary, #31-95A
September 23, 1996
Page 4
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:
#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 criterion 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.
#39 The City should direct traffic efforts to promote improved traffic and
pedestrian circulation and public transit to areas north and northeast of the
City.
#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.
Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary, #31-95A
September 23, 1996
Page 3
and, therefore, eliminates the need for an ODP on the property. The project will be
developed in several phases over a period of time. There are three significant areas in this
project:
Around the park/open space/community building site and the street roundabout.
The lots are internal to the site and range from 7,400 square feet - 11,000 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 30% of the total lots.
Around the wetland area and adjacent to Richards Lake. The lots range from 6,400
square feet - 22,000 square feet in size, with the majority of the lots being between
12,000 - 16,000 square feet in size. These areas represent approximately 46% of
the total lots.
Around the periphery of the development. The lots range from 0.40 acre - 0.97
acres in size, with the majority of the lots in these areas being between 27,000
square feet (0.62 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, west, and east of the Hearthfire PUD. These areas
represent approximately 24% of the total lots.
The request has been evaluated against the LUPP and the All Development Criteria and
the Residential Uses Density Chart in the LDGS.
Consistency with the City's Land Use Policies Plan:
While the LUPP is not the major regulatory document for a PUD review, it is appropriate
to review the consistency/inconsistency of this development proposal with the LUPP. 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.
Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary, #31-95A
September 23, 1996
Page 2
with a proposed gross residential density of 1.395 dwelling units per acre, requires
a density variance to be granted.
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 Hearthfire Overall Development Plan (ODP) and the Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary were
denied by the Planning and Zoning Board on March 25, 1996. These decisions were
appealed to City Council by the Richards Lake Development Company. Issues and
concerns expressed and discussed at the public hearing were about the overall residential
density of the project, the relationship of the residential lots to the existing oil well, impact
on the schools, and increased traffic volumes on the existing County roads in the
surrounding area.
City Council heard the Hearthfire ODP and Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary appeal on June
18, 1996. Council remanded the items back to the Planning and Zoning Board for further
discussion. This current submittal is the result of Council's remand, and represents the
request of the developer, that incorporates a significant downsizing of the number of
dwelling units and directly affects the gross residential density of the development.
2. Land Use:
This is a request for preliminary PUD approval for 147 single family residential dwelling
units on 105.36 acres. The overall gross residential density is 1.395 dwelling units per acre.
The preliminary PUD documentation includes street and lot layout for the entire property
ITEM NO. 8
MEETING DATE 9/23/96
STAFF Steve Olt
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary - #31-95A
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 project was remanded to the Planning and Zoning Board for additional consideration
during City Council's June 18, 1996 hearing of the appeal of the Board's denial of the ODP
and preliminary PUD.
This is a request for preliminary planned unit development (PUD) approval for 147 single
family residential dwelling units on 105.36 acres. The gross residential density is 1.395
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 conditions
This request for preliminary PUD approval:
Is supported by numerous policies in the City's adopted Land Use Policies Plan
LUPP ;
meets the All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System
LDGS , with the exception of Criterion A-1.12 Residential Density;
scores 82% on the Residential Uses Density Chart in the LDGS, exceeding the
minimum 60% required to support a residential density of fewer than 6 dwelling
units per acre;
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT