HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEARTHFIRE (HOFFMAN) PUD - PRELIMINARY (REVISED) - 31-95A - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSPlease feel free to call me any time. Also, please send me any revised maps and keep me informed
about the City hearing schedule so that Whiting can attend. Whiting will feel much more
comfortable when these items are settled so that we know we can co -exist with your subdivision.
Very truly yours,
Richard E. Fromm
Operations Mgr.- West
attachments
cc: Steve Olt- City of Fort Collins Planning Dept.
Tricia Beaver- Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Comm.
ref.HOFPUDI 1.WPD
wells. (If a well was replaced we would locate the new well at least 10' or 15' from the old one.
Also, the drawings are based on the drilling rig being oriented just like we plan to park our workover
rigs so that we can try to use our permanent workover anchors; different orientations might make
more sense for this open space area and for traffic flow from the access road onto the drilling pad.)
Overall, it appears that the open space area will allow for the redrilling/replacement of these wells,
but the temporary drilling pad will occupy much more of the available open space than the
permanent work pad and could destroy a lot of landscaping and fencing if this contingent use is not
factored into the design. The derrick height of these portable rigs is about 96' above ground level
so drilling should be acceptable to the Oil & Gas Commission because their recommended 150'
safety buffer is also more than 1.5 times the derrick height.
Please prepare a draft of your proposed fencing and landscaping design. Whiting will be primarily
interested in providing adequate fencing to prevent trespass and in maintaining unobstructed
ventilation to prevent accumulation of flammable or toxic gasses around our wells. (The concept
of excluding the public from this open space agreed on at our January 22nd meeting with Steve Olt
would be attractive to Whiting because locating fencing on the perimeter of the open space would
interfere the least with ventilation and provide us maximum area if we need to redrill a well.) For
safety considerations we also want a second access to the work pad; this access would be used for
evacuation and for entry of emergency vehicles such as ambulance and fire department. I think the
best emergency access route would be from Hearthfire Court to the southeast corner of the work pad
because this would be almost directly opposite the normal entry from Bill Court. We would like the
landscaping and fencing design to be inexpensive; we would also like it to be rugged and/or as
portable as possible so it doesn't have to be rebuilt if a well must be replaced.
B. Landscaping near Tank Battery -
We would like to see your landscape plans for the area just west of our oil storage tanks and
buildings to make sure that our access to these facilities and our pick-up truck route into your
subdivision are not impeded. We are also interested in what sort of fencing and gateing you plan
to install because we are concerned about people trespassing onto these facilities.
C. Relocation of Lake Water Source Pump -
Please let us know as soon as possible whether you want us to move this pump per Paragraph 9 of
our Surface Use Agreement. We are currently renegotiating our water purchase agreement with
Water Supply and Storage Company so this would be a good time for us to know your plans. Also,
even though it is your obligation to secure any necessary rights -of -ways and easements, please be
advised that Whiting wants to discuss this matter with you before you contact Water Supply and
Storage. Obviously, we would prefer to leave the pump where it currently is.
WHITING
Nof
March 4, 1996
Mr. Jim Sell
Jim Sell Design, Inc.
117 E. Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Re: Hearthfire P.U.D. Planning Items
Work Pad Area for #30-2 &30-14 Wells
Your Landscaping and Fencing Proposals
Dear Mr. Sell:
This letter is written to follow-up on the subject items.
A. Work Pad Area for 930-2 & 30-14 Wells -
Enclosed are the two work pad designs (designated as "A" and "B" on 1 "= 20' drawings labeled
Figures 1 &2) that Dale and I thought were most efficient. Both designs include an area of 10,000
W, which is the area of a 100' by 100' square. We prefer the irregular shape of design "B" over
diamond shaped design "A" because it gives us a larger staging area for well service equipment on
the northwest side of the pad. This pad area must be flat and free of any obstructions such as
landscaping because we will use it to park and rig -up heavy equipment like trucks and oil rigs. The
positions of our proposed rig anchors are also shown; these anchors are buried with a large eye for
attachment to steel cables running to the top of service rig derricks. We can countersink the eye into
a covered box below ground level, but the path of the temporary cable to the approximately 100' high
rigs must not be obstructed. Additionally, we will periodically have to test the anchors with a large
truck mounted device by pulling in the direction of the wells. Also attached are Figures 3 & 4 with
these pad designs shrunk to a 1 "=50' scale and superimposed on your latest lot plan. The anchor
locations do not encroach on any of the lots or roads; however, if your lot plan changes I want to
relocate the southeast anchor from well #30-2 an additional ten feet from the well.
If the wells are redrilled or replaced, the smallest rig we think could handle the job would require
a 120' by 180' minimum pad as shown on Figure 5; this temporary drilling pad could overlap either
of the wells if we removed production equipment. Attached are Figures 6 & 7 which show the
temporary drill pad area superimposed on your latest lot plan as if we were redrilling each of the two
WHITING PETROLEUM CORPORATION
MILE HIGH CENTER, 1700 BROADWAY, SUITE 2300, DENVER, COLORADO 80290.2301 (303) 837-1661 FAX (303) 861-4023
An IES INDUSTRIES Company
Whiting would appreciate your advising all parties receiving this letter of the Commission's position
on the following:
1. Is the provided setback distance of homes, streets, etc. from the wells adequate for safety? If it
is inadequate, to what should it be increased?
2. Will the existing setback distance preclude Whiting from using a pulling rig to service, repair,
recomplete, or deepen either of the wells? (Typical service rigs have mast heights up to 107' above
ground surface.)
3. Will the existing setback distance preclude Whiting from using a drilling rig to drill a new
replacement well or sidetrack or deepen an existing well? (Typical drilling rigs have mast heights
up to 145' above ground surface, however, it may be possible to use a "doubles" rig which would
probably be only 11 Thigh.)
4. Will the existing setback distance preclude Whiting from using hot oilers, acidizing trucks,
fracturing equipment, chemical trucks or other typical oilfield services?
5. Will the Commission grandfather these wells or any necessary deepenings, sidetrackings or
replacement wells from any future changes in regulations?
6. Will the Commission grandfather these wells or any necessary deepenings, sidetrackings or
replacement wells from any high density spacing regulations? (I assume that Whiting can get such
a waiver from the current landowner and developer but would be unlikely to get a waiver from all
affected homeowners once the development is complete.)
7. Will the Commission grandfather these wells or any necessary deepenings, sidetrackings or
replacement wells from the existing 150' property line setback rule? (I assume that Whiting can get
such a wavier from the current landowner and developer but would be unlikely to get a waiver from
all affected homeowners once the development is complete.)
8. Will any written assurances you provide to topics raised in this letter be binding on the
Commission?
Very truly yours,
Richard E. Fromm
Operations Mgr.- West
refH0FPUD9.WPD
cc: Mr. Steve Olt
City of Fort Collins Planning Department
281 N. College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Mr. Jim Sell
Jim Sell Design Inc.
117 East Mountain Avenue, Suite 200A
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
WHITING
v
February 8, 1996
Mr. Richard Griebling
Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission
1120 Lincoln Street, Suite #801
Denver, Colorado 80203
Re: Hearthfire P.U.D. (Formerly Hoffman P.U.D.)
Safety and Regulation Setback Guidelines for Wells
Dear Mr. Griebling:
Attached is an annotated map that shows the portion of the subject housing development which is
in proximity to the Fort Collins MSSU #30-2 and 30-14 wells. Well #30-2 is currently a rod pumped
oil producer and #30-14 is a water injector. This map is on the same base as the January 31, 1996
maps Whiting has received; from our February 6th conversation, I think you also have the January
31 st maps. I received a sepia of the enclosed map from Jim Sell at a January 22, 1996 meeting at
the Fort Collins City Planning Department and then made my annotations.
I annotated the enclosed map to label the wells and to adjust the relative location of the #30-14 well
to the #30-2. (I assumed that the #30-2 well is spotted correctly on the subdivision map; I located
the #30-14 based on the relative locations of the wells per Whiting's surveyor's plats which we have
field checked with a compass and a tape measure.) I whited out all details on landscaping and a 100'
square work area because these are details that Whiting and the developer will need to work out. I
also drew in 100' and 150' radii around the relocated #30-14 well. (Please note the dashed lines
inside of and parallel to some of the borders of lots 40, 41, 64, 65, 79, and 80. The dashed lines
represent the minimum setback that the developer will use in building homes.) Current thinking is
that the open area around the wells will be fenced off from the public.
This map shows that the 100' radii around the two wells does not include any streets or buildable
areas on any lots; however, the 150' radii around the two wells include the following: .
1. The paved alley between the cul de sacs at the termini of Picket Lane and Hearthfire Court:
2. A small portion of the Hearthfire Court cul de sac.
3. Buildable areas of lots 39, 40, 41, and a minuscule amount of the buildable area in lot 65.
WHITING PETROLEUM CORPORATION
MILE HIGH CENTER, 1700 BROADWAY, SUITE 2300, DENVER, COLORADO 80290.2301 (303) 837-1661 FAX (303) 861-4023
An IES INDUSTRIES Company
:]o
. ..A .
STATE OF
COLORADO
OIL&
As
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
February 23, 1996
VIA FACSIMILE 970/221-6378
DEr-ARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Roy Romer, Governor
1120 Lincoln St., Suite 801
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303) 894-2100
FAX: (303) 894-2109
Mr. Steven Olt
City of Ft. Collins Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: COMMENTS BASED ON REVISED PLAN OF 01/31/96 HEARTHFIRE P.U.D. (FORMERLY HOFFMAN
P.U.D.) AND ADEQUATE SAFETY SETBACKS FROM WHITING PETROLEUM MSSU #30-2 & 30-14
WELLS
Dear Mr. Olt:
During the February 20, 1996 meeting of the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC), the
Commissioners reviewed my letter to you of January 22, 1996 and they strongly affirmed my recommendation that
the City of Ft. Collins impose a minimum 150' safety setback from existing oil and gas wells when considering
approval of newly constructed occupied dwellings and public roads. It is the Commission's opinion the City of Ft.
Collins could compromise the safety of its residents if the minimum 150' safety setback standard is not applied.
Our staff has reviewed the revised plan dated 01/31/96 (partial photocopy attached) with respect to adequate safety
setbacks from the Whiting Petroleum MSSU #30-2 and #30-14 wells. The 01/31/96 revision has provided the
minimum 150' safety setback of roads and occupied dwellings from the northeasterly well, MSSU #30-2, provided
that construction of occupied dwellings on lots 64, 65, 79, and 80 is restricted to areas beyond the dashed circle
labeled "150' R BLDG/ROAD SETBACK" shown on the plat, and provided that alley roads within that radius are
closed to public use during future well operations involving drilling or workover rigs.
The 01/31/96 revision has not provided adequate safety setbacks from the southwesterly well, MSSU #30-14 well.
I have inscribed a solid circle labeled "150' R BLDG/ROAD SETBACK MSSU #30-14 WELL" on the attached
photocopy of the 01/31/96 revision. Further modifications to proposed lots 39, 40, and 41 would be necessary to
provide a minimum 150' safety setback. Lot 40 as proposed could not likely provide adequate area for construction
of an occupied dwelling outside of the minimum 150 safety setback.
I appreciate your willingness to consider COGCC's input in this matter. If I can be of assistance on this or any
other issue relating to oil and gas, please contact me.
Yours very truly,
Richard T. Griebling
Director
attachment
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES: James S. Lochhead, Executive Director
COGCC COMMISSION: Caroline Blackwell- Allan Hemle• Bruce Johnson- Logan MacMillian• Mike Matheson- Claudia Rebne• Marla Williams
COGCC STAFF: Richard T. Griebling, Director. Brian J. Macke, Deputy Director- Morris Bell, Manager of Engineering
Patricia C. Beaver, Manager, Environmental & Commission Affairs- Mennen Peacock, Manager of Information
0 2* IMAW W- ARr J
103 _ -- ALLEY
15 09 110 11t 12 113 114
105 a
106 16C
%kNE
` 107OPe SPA
5 116 117118 119. 2 :� . t ; 12112
37AC
1TMG
30 II3n
U
OPi74 AGE SP
AC
127128129 30 131 1%
TRACT L ALLEY OPEN W
T
SPACE
PP ox. SPAAMAC3 ' �
41 i \ 139140 '141,442 CcrTO
ss
GA
o $o STF
42
151
C) \` TNof
�� 44 So90 �
OPEN sP
45 ;5o Ac T
PP�oX. so A�ivs '' : ,
mssv
46 .i S
_� • 47,_' i 1541
48
n
Page Two
Mr. Steven Olt
January 22, 1996
The following specific issues would require modification as proposed on Sheet 2 dated
January 4, 1996'.
1. Town Center Drive, Picket Lane, and the proposed traffic circle surrounding the
existing wells would need to be significantly adjusted or rerouted to provide for
adequate 150' minimum setback between the wells and public roads. If the City
of Fort Collins were willing to close the traffic circle and short portions of the
adjacent streets during future wellsite workover rig operations, this requirement
could possibiy be avoided.
2. Development of proposed lots numbered 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 108, 115, 116, 126
and 137 would need to be restricted in such a manner as to ensure that any
occupied dwellings would be a minimum of 150' from the wells. This would be
difficult, if not impossible, to achieve for the proposed lots numbered 39, 40, 41,
108, 115, 126 and 137. It would likely be necessary to reconfigure the layout of
proposed lots to provide for the 150' minimum setback.
If the Hoffman P.U.D. were constructed as proposed, a number of problems could
result. The City of Fort Collins would be putting residents of the development in a
situation that state and industry standards would indicate to be unsafe. After
construction, the only options for remedying the situation would be very costly and
could significantly impact the property values of adjacent residents or the owners of the
referenced wells. Legitimate claims of takings of private property would likely follow
any attempt to remedy the situation that did not include adequate compensation.
I appreciate your willingness to consider COGCC's input in this matter. If I can be of
assistance on this or any other issue relating to oil and gas, please contact me.
Yours very truly,
Richard T. Griebling
Director
RTGlmbj
Enclosures
STATE OF
COLORADO DL .RTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
O' I & Roy Romer, Governor
L 1120 Lincoln St., Suite 801
♦ GAS Phone: Denver,8020C
(303) 8 0C 94-21
FAX: (303) 894-2105
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
January 22, 1996
VIA FACSIMILE
Mr. Steven Olt
City of Ft. Collins Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins. CO 80524
RE: Richards Lake Development
Hoffman P.U.D. and Adequate Safety Setbacks
from the Whiting Petroleum MSSU #30-2 & #30-14 Wells
Dear Mr. Olt:
Our staff has reviewed the Hoffman P.U.D. Preliminary Site and Landscape Plan, Sheet
2, dated January 4, 1996 (partial photocopy attached) with respect to adequate safety
setbacks from the Whiting Petroleum MSSU #30-2 and #30-14 Wells. As you know,
the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) regulates safety with
respect to new oil and gas wells being sited near existing developments. COGCC's
statutory authority does not extend to the regulation of new developments sited near
existing oil and gas wells. However, the principles involved for safety considerations
are essentially the same regardless of whether the well or the development comes first.
I would urge the City of Fort Collins to apply the same minimum safety setback
requirements in the siting of new developments near existing oil and gas wells as
COGCC applies in the siting of new oli and gas wells near existing developments.
The referenced Hoffman P.U.D. as currently proposed does not provide the adequate
150' minimum safety setback from occupied dwellings and public roads as required
under COGCC Rule 603.a.1 (copy attached). The referenced area meets the COGCC
standards for a high density area, and if application were made under COGCC Rule
603.b. leading to high density area designation, a much stricter 350' setback would be
required. I am urging the City of Fort Collins to apply only the minimum 150' safety
setback to the Hoffman P.U.D.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES: James S. Lochhead, Executive Director
COGCC COMMISSION: Caroline Blackwell- Allan Heinle- Bruce Johnson- Logan MacMillian• Mike Matheson- Claudia Rebne• Marla Williams
COGCC STAFF: Richard T. Griebling, Director- Brian J. Macke, Deputy Director- Morris Bell. Manager of Engineering
Patricia C. Beaver, Manager, Environmental 8 Commission Affairs- Marnan Peacock. Manager of Information
Fire Prevention Bureau
• 102 Remington Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
303-221-6570
303-221-6635 (Fax Number)
TO: Jim Sell Design
FROM: Roger Frasco, Deputy Fire Marshal
DATE: January 16, 1996
RE: Oil Well Location
In response to your question on distances from oil wells to residential
properties, I will reference Article 79, Section 79.1102 part (b) and (c).
Part (b) "Streets and Railways. Wells shall not be drilled within 75 feet of
any dedicated public street, highway or nearest rail of an operating railway."
Part (c) "Buildings". Wells shall not be drilled within 100 feet of buildings
not necessary to the operation of the well."
"Wells shall not be drilled within 300 feet of buildings used as s place
of assembly, institution or school."
"When wells are existing, buildings shall not be constructed within
the distances set forth in this subsection for separation of wells and
buildings."
If you have additional questions, please give me a call at 221-6570.
PROTECTING LIVES & PROPERTY
OVA
19, 1995
r. Ken Costelb
Jim Sell Designs
17 East Mountain Avenue
ort
Collins, CO 80524
[ear Ken:
ljhis letter is to advise the property owners of the Hoffman P.U.D. that the District is quite capable
61 serving this proposed development with sewer collection and treatment. The Cooper Slough
i terceptor is in place adjacent to this property and is greatly underutilized as of this date.
The District expects to complete its plant treatment capacity expansion construction program by
ttI e spring of ION, resulting in a 56% increase in capacity and an expected 20 year future
ipacity for the area.
The District also is in compliance with very strict water quality control standards, as issued by the
l .P.A. and state health department- Additionally, the District Board policy is to maintain its long
*anding financial health. Board policy, also long standing, is too provide the highest possible
*ater quality control at the least cost to the user and to serve our customer users.
incerely,
.Manager
*'101
East Larimer County Water District
June 29, 1995
Steve Olt
Community Planning
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Dear Steve:
East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) has facilities available
to serve the proposed Hoffman PUD. Specific comments related to
the project are as follows:
ELCO owns a 15' strip of land between the proposed
Hoffman PUD and Serramonte Highlands. The land was
purchased by ELCO for a roadway to the water tank and to
accommodate water lines leading to the tank. The roadway
must be maintained or replaced with an alternate access
to the water tank site. ELCO would consider
incorporating the 1.19 acre tank site into some sort of
open space if security and maintenance issues could be
resolved.
A 6" water line currently dead -ends in Corte La Paz in
Serramonte Highlands. This line must be extended to
connect to a new line in Blue Heron Way.
A drain line from the water tank day -lights at the
southwest corner of Serramonte Highlands. Drainage from
this line must be incorporated into the storm drainage
plan.
A 12" water line was installed as part of the original
Richards Lake project. This line must be extended to and
through the site within Big Sandy Way to connect to an
existing loll line in Douglas Road.
Please contact me if there are any additional questions about
ELCO's ability to serve the proposed Hoffman PUD.
Sincerely,
Webster J nes
Manager, ELCO Water District
232 South Link Lane, P.O. Box 2044 e Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 0 Phone (303) 493-2044 • Fax (303) 493-1801
THE WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE COMPANY
2319 EAST MULBERRY PHONE (303) 482-3433
P.O. BOX 1584
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522
March 19, 1996
Mr. Steve Olt
City of Fort Collins, Planning Dept.
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Re: Pending easement and leases for Hearthfire P.U.D.
Dear Mr. Olt:
This letter is to inform you on the current status of negotiations between Richard's Lake Development and
Water Supply and Storage Company (WSSC).
WSSC has agreed to grant Richard's Lake Development a drainage easement for the Hearthfire P.U.D.
project. This easement would be a blanket easement and cover all runoff issues. The details of this
easement still need to be finalized. This will be done in the near future.
Another issue that is being negotiatedn is a lease for the surface use rights for Richard's Lake which is
owned by WSSC. The Richard's Lake Development is very interested in this lease and an agreement
should be forthcoming. Also, Richard's Lake Development has shown interest in an access easement along
the north shore of Richard's.Lake. This easement would be used for trail access from Hearthfire P.U.D. to
Richard's Lake. the property involved is between the lake and Hearthfire P.U.D.
It is WSSC's opinion that an agreement, for the two easements and lease, will be accomplished in the near
future. If there are any concerns regarding these pending agreements, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Thomas K. Moore, President
THE WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE COMPANY
I
Hearthfire P.U.D.
Cost Estimate for Amenities
March 12, 1996
Traffic Circle at Village Green and Hearthfire Court
A. Pavilion
B. Concrete dance surface A=2,211 s.f. @ $3.00/s.f. 6,633.00
C. Specialty lighting around perimeter of pavilion 18,000.00
D. Trees 8 @ $350.00 ea. 2,800.00
E. Sod A=5,024 s.f. @ $0.35/s.f. 1,758.40
II Community Center
A.
Building: 3,500 s.f. @ $110.00/s.f.
385,000.00
B.
Parking: 9 spaces @ $2,000.00/space
18,000.00
C.
Tot lot playground
30,000.00
D.
Walks: 200 l.f. x 8' = 1600 s.f. @ $2.50/s.f.
4,000.00
E.
Site Lighting: 6 fixtures @ $3,000.00 ea.
18,000.00
F.
Irrigation system: 6,000 s.f. of area irrigated @ $0.50/s.f.
3,000.00
G.
Landscaping
12 shade trees @ $250.00 ea.
3,000.00
10 ornamental trees @ $200.00 ea.
2,000.00
150 shrubs @ $35.00 ea.
5,250.00
Mulch, edging, etc.
3,700.00
13,950.00
H.
Sod: 6,000 s.f. @ $0.33/s.f.
1,980.00
III Swimming Pool 275,000.00
Grand Total $778,121.40
Page 1 of 1 EAWPDOMPROJECfS162MCSTESf March 12, 1996
0.6
- 1.5
1 point
1.6
- 2.5
2 points
2.6
- 3.5
3 points
3.6
or more
4 points
Method Two Enerav Conservation Measures:
1. Long axis of building is East/West (building oriented
to south, with majority of windows on south wall) 0.2
2. Ratio of exterior wall area to interior floor area is
less than 1.5 0.3
3. Mass of exterior building walls greater than 30 lb/sq ft 0.2
4. Passive solar heating utilized by building heating system
with a minimum savings fraction of 0.4 (using orientation
that maximizes solar gain and window coverings) 3.0
5. Natural daylighting utilized, with automatic insulated
covers, with minimum R value of 2.5 0.3
6. Overall wall U value is < 0.2 C 1�
7. Overall roof U value is < 0.06 0.3 )
8. Reflective glass or film used on all windows 0.2
9. Vestibules, air locks, or revolving doors used on all
entrances 0.2
10. Automatic night/weekend temperature setback is provided O.4
11. "Free Cooling" (using outside air) used for fan systems
of less than 5000 CFM 0.2
12. Low leakage outside air and exhaust air dampers used;
1% leakage max. at 5" W.C. 0.3
13. Variable air volume system used,, with inlet vanes or
variable speed drives 0.5
14. High efficiency motors (as labeled by manufacturer)
used 0.1
15. Water-cooled condensers used for mechanical cooling
systems 0.2
16. Evaporative cooling used in lieu of mechanical cooling 0.4
f
DENSITY CHART continued
Criterion
Credit
g
If the site or adjacent property contains a historic building or place, a bonus may be earned for the following:
3% For preventing or mitigating outside influences adverse to its preservation (e.g. environmental, land
use, aesthetic, economic and social factors);
3% 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
O
0
t
If a portion or all of the required parking in the multiple family project is provided underground within the
building, or in an elevated structure
parking as an accessory use to the primary structure, a bonus may be earned as
follows:
9% For providing 75% or more of the parking in a st mcu=4
6% For providing 50 - 74% 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 dwelling units,
enter a bonus of 10%.
V
If the applicant commits t:, aroviding adequate, safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections between the
project and any of the des ins uion points described below, calculate the bonus as follows:
5% For connectir g cu 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 trail which 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-
h
Z
0
Criterion
Nbt7
zuuv reef or an existing neighborhood shopping center, or
2Wf-- ------ �-----�.g----------------
2000 feet of an approved, but not constructed nei borhoad sh m center.
650 feet of an existing transit stop (applicable only to projects having a density of at least six [6] dwelling
units per acre on a gross acreage basis)
4000 feet of an existing or approved regional shopping center
3500 feet of an_ existing _neighborhood _o_r community _park; or
3500 feet of a publicly owned, but not developed, neighborhood or community park, or community
facility (except golf courses); or
3500 feet of a publicly owned golf course, whether developed or not
2500 feet of an existing school, meeting all requirements of the State of Colorado compulsory education
laws
3000 feet of a major employment center
1000 feet of a child care center
"North" Fort Collins
The Central Business District
Credit Credit
10%
2096
1090
_ 2_0_90_
10910 ---�
--- ----
1090
2090
5%
20%
20%
A project whose boundary is contiguous to existing urban development. Credit may be earned as follows: 3090
0% For projects whose property boundary has 0 - 1090 contiguity;
10 - 15% For projects whose property boundary has 10 - 20% contiguity;
15 - 20% For projects whose property boundary has 20 - 30% contiguity;
20 - 25% For projects whose property boundary has 30 - 4090 contiguity;
25 - 30% For projects whose property boundary has 40 - 50% 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 5% bonus may be earned for every 5% reduction in energy use.
Calculate a 1% bonus for every 50 acres included in the project
fin
Calculate the percentage of the total acres in the project that are devoted to recreational use. Enter 1/2 of that
percentage as a bonus.
G
fl
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.
0If
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 S100 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
required by City Code, enter a 1 % bonus for every $100 per dwelling unit invested.
2
J%
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 30%.
(p
f
If a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for Type "A"
and Type "B" handicapped housing as defined by the City of Fort Collins, calculate the bonus as follows:
Type "A" .5 x Tvne "A" Units
Total Units
Type "B" 1.0 x Tvne "R" Iln1Ls In no case shall the combined bonus be greater than 3090
Total Units
Continued
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised September 1994
-79-
ATTACHMENT "B
ACTIVITY;
Residential Uses
DEFINITION,
H
All residential uses. Uses include single family attached dwellings, townhomes, duplexes, mobile homes,
and multiple family dwellings; group homes; boarding and rooming houses; fraternity 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 appucabie criterion must be answered "yes" and
implemented within :he development plan.
Yes No N/A
.DOES T rEE PROS=CT EARIN I'HE N2-Ta1UM PAC=, AGE � ❑
POi'i 1TS �S C.�LC'uZATED ON
Try. FOLLOWL�iG "DE:NISITY
CHART" FOR _-HE PROPOSED
DENSITY OF THE RESIDE" 1TIAL
PROJECT The required earned credit for a residential project shall be
based on the following:
60 ercenta¢e points =
6 or fewer dwelling .:nits per acre rf 1 �p`t y 3. f7 T�IAG•
60 - peroentaee points =
6 - i awetung units per ace 1
70 - 80 per_entage points =
7 - 8 dwelling units per ace
80 - 90 percentage points =
8 - 9 dwelling units perc acre
90-100 pe -enrage points =
9-10 dwelling units per acre
100 or more pe _enragc points =
10 or more dwelling nits per acre
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The Ciry of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised August 1994
- i8 -
BUSINESS
SERVICE USES
POINT CHART E
For All Criteria
Applicable Criteria Only
Criterion
Is
the
Criterion
Appliiccble
Yes No
1 II III IV
Circle
me
Correct Score
Multlpller
Points
Earned
IxII
Maximum
Applicable
Points
a. Transit Route
X
2
0
2
_
b. South College Corridor
X
X
2
0
4
63
g
c. Part of Center
X
X
12
0
3
0
6
d. Two Acres or More
X
X+
2
I 0
3
(�
6
e. Mixed -Use
X
X
2 IO
3
�
6
f. Joint Parking
1
2
0
g. Energy Conservation
X
1
&14
1 0
2
g
h. Contiguity
X
1XI
2 1
0
5
10
i. Historic Preservation
1
2
0
2
J.
1
2 I
0
k.
1
2
0
I'
1
2 (
0
Totals Zq 44-
v vi
Percentage Earned of Maximum Applicable Points V/VI = VII G%
r vn
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994
-73-
Business Service Uses (continued)
h. Is the project located with at least one -sixth (1/6) of its property boundary contiguous to existing
urban development?
i. If the site contains a building or place in which a historic event occurred, has special public value
because of notable architecture, or is of cultural significance, does the project fulfill the following
criteria?
1. Prevent creation of influences adverse to its preservation;
2. Assure that new structures and uses will be in keeping with the character of the building or
place. Imitation of period styles should be avoided; and
3. Propose adaptive use of the building or place that will lead to its continuance, conservation,
and improvement in an appropriate manner while respecting the integrity of the
neighborhood.
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994
-72-
ACTIVITY;
Business Service Uses E
DEFINITION;
Those activities which are predominantly retail, office, and services uses which would not qualify as a
neighborhood service, neighborhood convenience, or community/regional shopping center. Uses include
retail shops; offices; personal service shops; financial institutions; hotels/motels; medical clinics; health
clubs; membership clubs; standard and fast-food restaurants; hospitals; mortuaries; indoor theaters;
recreation uses; small animal veterinary clinics; printing and newspaper offices; and, other uses which
are of the same general character.
CRITERIA;
Each of the following applicable criteria must be answered "yes" and implemented within the
development plan.
Yes No N/A
1. Does the project gain its primary vehicular access from a street other than ❑
South College Avenue?
2. DOES THE PROJECT EARN AT LEAST FIFTY (50%) PERCENT OF t]
THE MA.YIMUvf POINTS AS CALCULATED ON POINT CHART
"B" FOR THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA?
a. Is the activity contiguous to an existing transit route (not applicable
for uses of less than twenty-five thousand [25,0001 square feet GLA or
with less than twenty-five [25] employees, or located in the Central
Business District)?
b. Is the project located outside of the "South College Avenue Corridor"?
c. Is the project contiguous to and functionally a part of a neighborhood
or community/regional shopping center, an office or industrial park,
located in the Central Business District, or in the case of a single user, employ or will employ a
total of more than one hundred (100) full-time employees during a single eight (8) hour shift?
d. Is the project on at least two (2) acres of land, or located in the Central Business District?
e. Does the project contain two (2) or more significant uses (for instance retail, office, residential,
hotel/motel, or recreation)?
f. Is there direct vehicular and pedestrian access between on -site parking areas and adjacent existing
or future off -site parking areas which contain more than ten (10) spaces?
g. Does the activity reduce non-renewable energy usage through the application of alternative energy
systems or through energy conservation measures beyond those normally required by the Model
Energy Code as adopted by the City? Refer to Appendix "E" for energy conservation methods to
use for calculating energy conservation points.
r
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994
-71-
Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
ALL CRITERIA I
APPLICABLE CR1TE=IA ONLY
Is ;tie =.enon lwiu the =en
acplicaelel be satisfiea7
CRITZRION = _
s l Yes INo If no, please ex
_ ..=!
zin
Al. COMMUr11TY-WIDE CRITERIA I
1.1 Solar Orter,;alion I I I I I
1.2 Comarenensive Plan I ✓I I IV11I
1.3 Wildlife Habitat I✓I. I I I I
1.4 Mineral Depcsit
1 • E=locically Sensitive Areas
I �ese.-vex+ I I I
1.c Lands cr Acricultural Imocrance
1. Enerev Ccnservation
Air Qualitv I" I I I I
1.= water Qualm I I I I
I I
0 S=wace anc I I I I I
1.12 Residential Densitv
2 NE! GHEORHOOD COMP.-71cI11 Y CRITc=1A1 I
2-1 V=-Mc:Jar. Ps^es;ran. Eike Transacra;icn I I I I I I
= 2 �uiidinc P!acam rit and Orientatic
,r,
I I I I
_ 3 Natural Features I I I I I I
2= Venicular Circuiatien anc P_rkirc I I I I I
'- c•^erge^c% .=.cc:ss I I I I I
2= man Cir Iation
arc: ,itec;ure I I I I
2:wilding Heicnt and Views I I I I I I
`2.:. Shading
I C Sciar ACCasS I I I I I I
2.1 Historic Resources I I I ► I
2.12 Setbacks I I I I I
2.13 Landscape I I I I I
2.14 Signs I I I I I
2.15 Site Lighting I I I I I I
Tie Ncise and Vibration ✓ I I I I I
2.17 Glare or Heat I I ( I
2.18 Hazardous Materials I I
A 3. ENGINEERING CRITERIA
3.1 Utility Capacity I I
3.2 Design Standards`-
3.3 Water Hazards
3.4 Geologic Hazards I I
Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
flu City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Revised94
61
3
SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
Proposal: HEARTHFIRE PUD - PRELMINARY
Description: Mixed -use development, which includes 245dwelling units (177 single
family, and 170 multi -family units)
Density: 3.17 du/acre (gross)
General Population:
177 (single family units)
x
3.2*(persons/unit) =
566
170 (multi family units)
x
2.5#(persons/unit) =
4�
TOTAL =
991
School Age Population:
Elementary: 177(units)
x
.396(pupils/unit)
= 70
170
x
.104
= 18
Junior High: 177(units)
x
.185(pupils/unit)
= 33
170
x
.050
= 9
Senior High: 177(units)
x
.166(pupils/unit)
= 29
170
x
.046
= 8
TOTAL
= 167
*Figures assume a mix of 2- and 4-bedroom single family residential
#Figures assume a mix of 1- and 3-bedroom multi family residentail.
':�YF Y•ry�
uo un
u ' r e r v r a d
¢
nvamwwm i'-'- o�
nc MAM
ROUNDABOUT COLLECTOR W/ (1 )-PARKING LANE
wm. a A uca¢n
m-[7
i
i
i
�7-
"H.. MB"
COUNTY ROAD 13 COLLECTOR W/NO PARKING
�y
urar. LL PE
r ®_
l}
W/'���
I—
1, O
LL � D
RESIDENTIAL W (t)-PARKING LANES = ff o
F- 0 0
t•1 ,tl� � � C
VY
¢ R°Mru°p' os .w ¢ m'm"ri°i °0 LJTJ
NARROW RESIDENTIAL W/ (I}PARKING LANE
K
aeon 9 ..v^"• rr�dr
77
xcria�e
¢�wm iva i ¢wn ¢mmm
i
� o n YMl
'E"
NARROW RESIDENTIAL W/NO PAMNG
nrai mrx
AEI _
RESIDENTIAL ALLEY Sheet 4 of 4
TYPICAL STREETSCAPE - CORE AREA
MEIGF4BORHOOD P-14M - CORE AREA
E
L]i
TYPICAL MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING
0
0
PERSPECTIVE VIEW - CORE AREA
Sheet 3 of 4
.
0
c�
W
O
LL .� m
2
ci
0
Q 6
.o
Wo
2�c u-
No Text
No Text
UGA BOUNDARY
DOUGLAS ROAD
zs 1130 I \
Coto
—�G
NM I,I
IVERNESS C
Q
O
T
O
LL
a icy
S
'GAWS P
f~s
I + •
w Y N I a •
1 ..
Crestview Subdivision °
1
f ,
• Y
la
W 1 Y � • N tY
- C • 'R � rc p
• ,
`U B 1
SITE
••a e s
• i qi i Y .
a • ,• • i q
O • O •,. �, ql .
• •a0
�•aaay•a.
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD��
J
a
OUT
VICINITY MAP
31-95A HEARTHFIRE PUD
Overall Development Plan
& Preliminary P U D
b
■■t■■■■■t■! ■tl
LONG PONO
Richard's Lake ODP
r1p
City Limits
MM ■ rrr■»
V nRY CCYB 1. l
03/12/96
N
1"=1000°
Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary, #31-95A
March 25, 1996
Page 8
Staff recommends approval of the Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary - #31-95A, with the
following conditions:
The developer is responsible for off -site street improvements to County Road
13, Inverness Street, and Abbotsford Street (from Douglas Road to Gregory
Road), in the form of a paved cross-section of 24' of travelway and 3' wide
shoulders on both sides, with the improvements to be determined with the
final PUD review. The developer is responsible for any improvements to
Douglas Road, based on the results of deflection testing to be done by the
developer prior to final PUD submittal. These improvements may include
patching and overlay of the existing pavement.
2. The developer must have a traffic engineer prepare a variance request for all
street design which does not meet current City street design standards. The
variance request must be part of the final PUD submittal documents.
3. The developer must do a study on the effects of urban runoff into the
wetlands, ultimately into Richards Lake, and the study must be part of the
final PUD submittal documents.
4. The north side roadway (Hearthfire Drive) should move further to the north,
along with the lots, to provide more buffer to the wetland. The layout along the
south side of the wetland should be re -thought with the final PUD to provide
more buffer, if feasible, particularly if high density residential is forthcoming.
Also, the wetland impacts of the proposed access road need to be specified
and mitigation measures specified, as well.
Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary, #31-95A
March 25, 1996
Page 7
on the wetlands, and the quality of water released into Richards Lake. Staff is
recommending a condition of preliminary PUD approval stating that:
The developer must do a study on the effects of urban runoff into the
wetlands, ultimately into Richards Lake, and the study must be part of the
final PUD submittal documents.
7. Resource Protection:
The lots along the north and south sides of the wetland area, as shown, are closer to the
wetland than would be desired; therefore, staff is recommending a condition of preliminary
PUD approval stating that:
The north side roadway (Hearthfire Drive) should move further to the north,
along with the lots, to provide more buffer to the wetland. The layout along the
south side of the wetland should be re -thought with the final PUD to provide
more buffer, if feasible, particularly if high density residential is forthcoming.
Also, the wetland impacts of the proposed access road need to be specified
and mitigation measures specified, as well.
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS:
In evaluating the request for the Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary, staff makes the following
FINDINGS of fact:
It is in conformance with the Hearthfire ODP.
It meets the All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System
(LDGS).
It scores 55% on the Business Service Uses Chart in the LDGS, exceeding the
minimum 50% required.
It scores 77% 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:
Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary, #31-95A
March 25, 1996
Page 6
provided approximately 500' south of the main entry into the development (from County
Road 13) until another primary access can be provided through the proposed Richards
Lake development to the southeast of this development. This future access will be from
County Road 11 to the east.
This developer is responsible for off -site street improvements to Douglas Road, County
Road 13, Inverness Street, and Abbotsford Street. Deflection testing must be done to
Douglas Road to determine what improvements are necessary on that street. The City and
Larimer County have determined that a cross-section of 24' of paved travelway and 3' wide
gravel shoulders on both sides represents the necessary improvements to County Road
13, Inverness Street, and Abbotsford Street. These street improvements must be made
from Douglas Road south to Gregory Road, and the paving will take place with Phase One
of the Hearthfire PUD. The traffic study states that a right turn accel/decel lane at the
intersection of Douglas Road and Colorado Highway 1 is required and must be constructed
with Phase One of this PUD. Staff is recommending a condition of preliminary PUD
approval stating that:
The developer is responsible for off -site street improvements to County Road
13, Inverness Street, and Abbotsford Street (from Douglas Road to Gregory
Road), in the form of a paved cross-section of 24' of travelway and 3' wide
shoulders on both sides, with the improvements to be determined with the
final PUD review. The developer is responsible for any improvements to
Douglas Road, based on the results of deflection testing to be done by the
developer prior to final PUD submittal. These improvements may include
patching and overlay of the existing pavement.
The developer is proposing some street designs within the project that are not in
compliance with the City's current street standards. These relate primarily to widths, radius,
and roundabouts. The developer should be prepared to make modifications to the street
width at intersections, and a detailed design of the roundabout will be required, with the
final PUD plans. Staff is recommending a condition of preliminary PUD approval stating
that:
The developer must have a traffic engineer prepare a variance request for all
street design which does not meet current City street design standards. The
variance request must be part of the final PUD submittal documents.
6. Storm Drainage:
There are water quality issues and concerns associated with this development, the impacts
Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary, #31-95A
March 25, 1996
Page 5
6,000 square feet - 17,000 square feet internally, around the wetland area and
adjacent to Richards Lake. The average lot size is about 10,000 square feet.
0.4 acre - 1.8 acres around the periphery of the development. The average lot size
is about 0.8 of an acre. These lots are designed to provide a transition from the
higher, urban density of the Hearthfire PUD to the surrounding areas. There is a
County subdivision (Serramonte Highlands) to the east with lots ranging from 1 - 3
acres in size and larger acreages in the County to the north and west of the
Hearthfire PUD. The existing oil filed is to the northeast.
A neighborhood meeting was held on May 31, 1995 at Tavelli Elementary School. A follow-
up meeting was held on July 27, 1995. The concerns expressed at both meetings focused
on the perceived incompatibility of this development to the surrounding
areas/neighborhoods in the northeast portion of Fort Collins. The density appears to be too
high, there will be significant traffic impacts to the existing County roads (volumes, speeds,
sight distance and visibility problems) in the area, impacts on existing wetlands and wildlife,
impacts on Tavelli School enrollment, and environmental and air quality issues. A copy of
the minutes is attached to this staff report.
In addition to the neighborhood meetings sponsored by the City, the applicant has
conducted numerous meetings with the neighbors to review the project as it has evolved.
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, behind Lots 39 - 41, 64
& 65, and 79 & 80. There will be a minimum setback of 150' from any public street right-of-
way and inhabitable structure. There will be landscaped earthen berms and landscaping
as physical and visual barriers between the well and surrounding homes. The oil company
will continue to maintain fencing 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 Ingle Court 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 project will be accessed from County Road 13, at the northwest corner of the
development, just south of Douglas Road. There will be a secondary, emergency access
Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary, #31-95A
March 25, 1996
Page 4
pavilion for concerts in the roundabout and community center/pool facilities); f) a
commitment to provide dwelling units for low income families (16%). 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 residential density of 3.17 dwelling units per acre and
is supported by the Density Chart.
Business Service Uses Chart of the LDGS:
The request has been evaluated against the Business Service Uses Chart and scores 55%
on the chart, earning points for: a) the project being located outside of the "South College
Avenue Corridor"; b) containing at least two acres of land; c) containing mixed uses
(commercial/business/residential); and d) reducing non-renewable energy usage (using
Method Two). The earned points exceeds the minimum of 50% required.
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.
The "core" and multi -family areas will reflect a neo-traditional style of architecture.
Additional building elevations and details will be provided and reviewed with the final PUD
plans.
Landscaping:
The developer will provide street trees along the public streets in the "core" area (higher
density and commercial/business/residential just north of Richards Lake) and along the
collector street through the multi -family area. Also, the developer will provide landscaping
in the open area, including on the earthen berms around the existing oil well.
4. Neighborhood Compatibility:
Surrounding Areas:
Lot sizes in the Hearthfire PUD will range from:
Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary, #31-95A
March 25, 1996
Page 3
Lots 50 - 84
Lots 91 - 98
There are 56 multi -family dwelling units.
16 units located in 4-plexes, approximately 1,200 square feet in size, with 1 -
3 bedrooms each.
- 40 units located in 8-plexes, approximately 1,000 square feet in size, with 1 -
3 bedrooms each. These 40 units will be affordable housing units.
There is a 2.46 acre site in the southerly portion of the project that will contain
commercial, business, and residential uses consisting of approximately 24,030
square feet of building coverage that includes 12 residential dwelling units (included
as part of the overall number of dwelling units and gross residential density). The
"residential density" in this area would be 5 dwelling units per acre. The potential
commercial/business uses will be further defined with the final PUD.
The request is in conformance with the Hearthfire ODP and has been evaluated against
the All Development Criteria, the Residential Uses Density Chart , and the Business
Service Uses Chart in the LDGS.
All Development Criteria of the LDGS:
The request meets the All Development Criteria and the residential density of 3.17 dwelling
units per acre exceeds the minimum requirement as set forth in 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 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
77% on the chart (earning 23% from the Base Criteria), earning credit for: a) a portion of
the project being within 1,000' of a planned day care center (in this phase of the PUD); b)
being in "North" Fort Collins; c) containing between 50 and 99 acres in the project; d) areas
in the project that are devoted to recreational use; e) a portion of the total development
budget being spent on neighborhood facilities not required by City Code (community
Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary, #31-95A
March 25, 1996
Page 2
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: FA-1 in Larimer County; rural acreages
S: rlp in the City; planned mixed use (Richards Lake ODP)
FA-1 in Larimer County; existing lake (Richards Lake)
E: rlp in the City, planned mixed use (Richards Lake ODP)
FA-1 in Larimer County; existing single family residential (Serramonte Highlands)
W: FA in Larimer County; rural acreages
The property was annexed into the City as part of the Country Club North Second
Annexation in January, 1984 and as all of the Jewett Annexation in July, 1987.
The Hearthfire ODP (a two phase overall development plan for 317 residential units [with
a mix of low, medium, and high densities], limited commercial/business uses, and open
space on 105.3 acres) is being reviewed concurrent with this preliminary PUD request.
There is an existing, operating oil well on the property (as part of a larger oil field) that has
been operating in its present location for over 20 years. This well will remain and will
continue to operate.
2. Land Use:
This is a request for preliminary PUD approval for 245 residential dwelling units (133 single
family units, 44 carriage house units, and 56 multi -family units) and
commercial/business/residential uses on 77.34 acres. The overall gross residential density
is 3.17 dwelling units per acre. There are four significant areas in this project:
There are 89 true single family (one unit) lots.
- Lots 1 - 35
- Lots 37 - 49
- Lots 85 - 90
- Lots 99 - 133
There are 44 duplex lots, with each including a primary single family residence and
a 1-bedroom carriage house residence above the garage (generally detached).
Lot 36
ITEM NO. 16
MEETING DATE 3/25/96
STAFF Steve Olt
-
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 is a request for preliminary planned unit development (PUD) approval for 245
residential dwelling units (133 single family units, 44 carriage house units, and 56 multi-
family units) and commercial/business uses on 77.34 acres. The gross residential density
is 3.17 dwelling units per acre. The property is located north and east of Richards Lake,
south of Douglas Road, east of Colorado Highway 1, west of County Road 11 and is zoned
rlp - Low Density Planned Residential with a planned unit development (PUD) condition.
RECOMMENDATION:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Approval with conditions
This request for preliminary PUD approval:
* Is in conformance with the Hearthfire Overall Development Plan (ODP);
* meets the All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System
(LDGS);
* scores 55% on the Business Service Uses Chart in the LDGS, exceeding the
minimum 50% required;
* scores 77% 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