HomeMy WebLinkAboutKECHTER CROSSING - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2014-08-14COMMI7!!l
RECEIVED
AUG 1 2 ?nn l
MEMORANDUM
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
TO: Matt Lafferty, Larimer County Planning Department
FROM: Matt Johnson, Development Review Engineer W/
DATE: August 9, 2007
SUBJECT: Kechter Crossing PLD/PD — Preliminary Plat Review
Post Office Box 1190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
(970) 498-5700
FAX (970) 498-7986
Proiect Description/Backaround:
This is a Preliminary Plat review of a rezoning and planned land division proposal to create 76 single
family residential lots on a 28.86 acre property. The development will have 7.09 acres of common open
space. This project is located on the south side of LCR 36 (Kechter Road), approximately t/4 mile east of
Timberline Road.
The project site lies within the City of Fort Collins Growth Management Area and will therefore need to
comply with the requirements contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between Larimer
County and the City of Fort Collins. This project is also located within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area
Plan, adopted in 1998 by the City of Fort Collins City Council and Larimer County Planning
Commission.
Review Criteria:
The intent of the Preliminary Plat submittal is to justify the feasibility of the proposal. Larimer County
Engineering Department development review staff members have reviewed the materials that were
submitted to our office under these guidelines and per the criteria found in the Larimer County Land Use
Code (LCLUC), Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), Larimer County Stormwater
Design Standards (LCSDS), and pertinent Intergovernmental Agreements.
Preliminary Design Comments:
1. The typical road section for Kechter Road on Sheet 14 shows 24 feet between the south flowline and
right-of-way most likely to match the 50 foot half right-of-way that was dedicated with the Feldman
M.R.D. Plat in 1998. Normally, only 16 feet is required between flowline and right-of-way
(LCUASS Figure 7-317). In this case, Staff would like to note that the 50 foot half right-of-way width
should remain as it may be beneficial should there ever be a future need for an eastbound right onto
Tilden Street when connections to the south are made.
2. The preliminary plat should show the 15 foot utility easement along the north site boundary per
LCUASS Figure 7-3F.
3. The east half of the proposed Tilden Street right-of-way is shown on the adjacent City owned
property and as a result is not within the platted boundary of this development. Therefore, a letter of
commitment from the City is needed with the next submittal confirming this is acceptable and a
H:\DEVREV\PLANCHK\Projects\PD's\Kechter Crossing PLD and PD\Prelim Plat Comments.doc
for a few years, we are requesting that until our property develops, your development
detain all storm water flows from the new road.
4. It is the City's practice to require the first developer in an area to
oversize stormwater pipes to handle flows for later developments. Based on this practice,
it is our expectation that this 24" pipe will be constructed by your contractors at your
cost.
If you agree to the above, please provide us with a legal description for the new
road right of way. We will need to have this approved by Council by Ordinance. An
ordinance requires two readings and has a 10-day waiting period. We also need to have
paperwork submitted two weeks prior to a meeting. As you can see, we need to allow
two months to acquire Council approval. Please let me know if you have any questions.
You can reach me at 221-6276.
Sincerely,
�A, ,
Helen Matson
Manager, Real Estate Services
cc: Joe Frank
Ken Waido
Basil Hamdan
Ted Shepard
Sheri Langenber er - RE: Kechter Crossing downstream drainage 9,
g --
From: "Matthew Johnson" <mjohnson@larimer.org>
To: <jons@jimselldesign.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 1:28:17 PM
Subject: RE: Kechter Crossing downstream drainage
No problem. I actually just got some feedback from Traci and here's
what we are thinking -
There is probably more benefit for widening to the west given the 65%
to 35% distribution so that is what we will recommend to be consistent
with the LCUASS 1.9.2.B.3.c. Since the 36' width and adequate drain
swales will not fit within the ex. ROW, an effort will need to be made
to execute slope/drainage easements from impacted properties. If the
easements are unable to be obtained, we will work with you on fitting
the widening within the existing ROW. The design will need to ensure
that future development can match into your pavement widening
improvements when they build their ultimate half -street improvements
without having to remove and replace. The sanitary trench in Kechter to
the east can be patched and no widening to the east would be needed, but
road design information will be needed to show the feasible
connections.
Also, depending on the timing of the Church improvements to Kechter,
there may be potential for you to only widen to their east property line
rather than all the way to Timberline. Or, since that portion of
Kechter is already in the city, you/city/county could discuss if there
are options for reimbursement from the city if widening to
Timberline???
Something to keep in mind too- the geotech report will need to verify
if the existing pavement sections on Kechter (east and west) are
adequate for this site's additional traffic.
Please let me know if there are any thoughts/concerns,
Matt J.
498-5724
>>> "Jon S" <jons@jimselidesign.com> 02/28/07 11:49 AM >>>
Thanks Matt - I appreciate all the time you have put into this
project.
-----Original Message -----
From: Matthew Johnson [mailto:mjohnson@larimer.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:32 AM
To: Jon S
Subject: RE: Kechter Crossing downstream drainage
Jon,
a quick update -
I had a chance to talk with the city on this issue, but would like to
run a few things by our office and get back with you hopefully this
afternoon. I am out of the office all day tomorrow and Friday morning
_.._-------- . .._.._---- ........ _...._.... _------ ........ — -
Sheri Langenberger - RE: Kechter Crossing downstream drainage Page 2
just to let you know
thanks,
matt j
>>> "Jon S" <jons@jimselldesign.com> 02/27/07 11:53 AM >>>
Looks like the existing roadway is only 24' wide (according to the
survey). From the picture I attached there does look to be a small
shoulder. If we went to 3:1 side slopes it looks like we would still
need a 63' minimum to get a 2.25' deep roadside ditch in.
The traffic report states that 65% will go to and from the west, 35%
will go to and from the east. I was originally thinking it was closer
to a 60/40 split. I guess I will need you to tell me if that really
is
too much traffic headed west and that we will need to head that
direction.
Thanks Matt,
Jon
-----Original Message -----
From: Matthew Johnson [mailto:mjohnson@larimer.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 10:58 AM
To: Jon S
Subject: RE: Kechter Crossing downstream drainage
Jon,
One other question is what is the existing width of pavement to the
west to Timberline? It has been awhile since I have been out there
and
although minimal, I think there was somewhat of a paved shoulder
already
on each side of Kechter. However, an argument could be made that if
the
ditches were graded with a 3:1 then the 36' width would fit in the 60
feet ROW.
But to answer your question- Unless the traffic study shows
significantly more bikes/vehicles going to the west rather than the
east
(which would be difficult given the schools, other development, 1-25,
etc to the east), I think the intent of the 36' requirement will be
met
if widening to the east. We touched on this a little in our meeting,
but there may need to be some widening past the west Kechter Crossing
prop line to accomodate redirects around auxilliary lanes. This will
create a wider pavement section too and consideration needs to be
given
to align any new EOA/C&G with existing street improvements along
Kechter
......... - ..... __.-_ .......... ..._ _ _.................
Sheri Langenberger - RE: Kechter Crossing downstream drainage Page 3
in both directions
Thanks,
Matt J.
498-5724
>>> "Jon S" <jons@jimselldesign.com> 02/27/07 9:15 AM >>>
Matt - I have been taking a look at the existing ROW and travel
section
to the west of the Kechter property to see if we can fit a 36' paved
section, to Timberline and Kechter. As discussed last week it sounds
like if we would need to acquire additional ROW on the west side of
the
property off Kechter road, we would be able to improve to the east
instead. The existing ROW between the property and Timberline is 60'
The Larimer County Rural Area Street Standards show a 16' wide
roadside
drainage ditch on both sides of the road. Therefore the new section
of
road west to Timberline would need to be 36' of pavement with two 16'
ditches. This is equal to 68' and would not fit in the existing ROW.
Is this reason enough to improve to the east or should I look further
into the issue?
Thanks Matt,
Jon
-----Original Message -----
From: Matthew Johnson [mailto:mjohnson@larimer.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:33 AM
To: Jon S; Rex Burns
Subject: RE: Kechter Crossing downstream drainage
Jon,
Next week is pretty full for me. How does Friday, feb 23 at 9:00am
work for you?
Rex - can you attend at this time as well?
Thanks,
matt
>>> "Jon S" <jons@jimselldesign.com> 02/14/07 5:20 PM >>>
Matt - the Kechter project has been moving forward - just very slowly.
We are at a point that I think it would be beneficial to meet as we
concluded in the attached e-mail. The main issues being:
.., - ....... ........ -..... _.. .................... ... ._ _. -
Sheri Langenberger - RE Kechter Crossing downstream drainage Page 4
-can we improve to the east rather than the west. The code seems to
suggest that it should be to the nearest intersection which would be
west, but we need to dig up the road for offsite sanitary on the east
side. Therefore it would probably be more cost effective for the
client
to improve on the east side.
-offsite drainage issues - I think we have concluded that we need to
do
all our release at the northeast corner, but we may want to run
through
the issues quickly so everybody is on the same page.
-we are looking at a shared access for the Connector Local on the east
property line. The City has apparently purchased the land to the east
and is interested in potentially sharing an entrance road here. We
are
meeting with them Friday morning and should be able to conclude
whether
this is worth pursuing.
If you are still up for meeting on these issues maybe we could try for
something early next week. Pretty sure you guys are off on Monday, so
looks like it will need to be Tuesday or Wednesday at the earliest.
Thanks Matt,
Jon Sweet
-----Original Message -----
From: Matthew Johnson [mailto:mjohnson@larimer.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 1:48 PM
To: Jon S
Cc: Matthew Lafferty; Rex Burns
Subject: RE: Kechter Crossing downstream drainage
Jon,
Good to hear from you again on this one. I agree it would be
beneficial to meet especially with regard to the street improvements
as
I could use a refresher myself.
If memory serves me, we said it will be the development's
responsibility to verify in the Drainage Report that adequate
downstream
swales, culverts, etc exist all the way to McCleland's Creek if the
plan
is to release to the NE and confirm that these facilites can handle
any
flow rate/volume increases from the new Kechter Crossing development.
If these facilities are not adequate then it will be Kechter's
responsibilty to improve them but we won't know that until the
Sheri Langenberger - RE: Kechter Crossing downstream drainage Page 5
existing
facilities are analyzed.
The County does not improve existing drainage facilities within the
ROW
so that new/potential development, as it occurs, will be accomodated
and
have adequate downstream conveyance. We generally expect new
developments to release at the 2 yr historic rate but also need to
consider any impacts from the additional volumes that are created from
the new impervious areas.
Feel free to call or email me to set up a meeting if you would like.
Matt Johnson
Development Review Services
Larimer County Engineering Department
200 West Oak Street, Suite 3000
Post Office Box 1190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
Phone: (970) 498-5724
Fax: (970) 498-7986
>>> "Jon S" <jons@jimselldesign.com> 01/04/07 12:43 PM >>>
Hey Matt. I pulled some old e-mail's out of the Kechter file. This
project has come back around with a different client and probably a
different layout. I had a couple quick questions when you get a
chance.
The first question pertains to the first attached e-mail and the 2nd
question to the second e-mail.
1. We do understand that all drainage released offsite will need to
happen out of the NE corner. The part that confuses me and that I
will
need to explain to my client is why they will need to pay for all
downstream offsite drainage improvements. If we are releasing the at
the historic rate, we shouldn't be putting additional loading on the
ditches and culverts within the ROW. If downstream culverts and
ditches
have filled in over time, wouldn't it be the County's responsibility
to
make sure that existing drainage infrastructure within the ROW has
adequate capacity? I am not really challenging the County on this
issue,
but trying to figure out the reasoning so I can get my client to
understand.
2. It may be easier to meet on this question. The client understands
that he will need to build off -site road improvements to the nearest
intersection. It was stated that this would be Kechter/Timberline.
He
is interested in exploring the idea of connected to the east instead.
Kechter, on the north side, has been built out relatively close to the
Kechter property. Assuming he only needs to do a full build -out on
one
side of the road -his hope was tie into these existing improvements. I
__ _.._. ...... _.... - . ......-
Sheri Langenberger - RE. Kechter Crossing downstream drainage Page 6
haven't really looked into this issue and it was only brought up
yesterday, but it sounds like he might get stuck building -out both the
south and north sides of the road. Let me know what your initial
reaction is to this. I think I would benefit from meeting quickly with
you to go over the offsite road improvements that need to happen and
the
500' additional design length that you talked about in the e-mail.
Thanks Matt,
Jon Sweet
-----Original Message -----
From: Matthew Johnson [mailto:mjohnson@larimer.orgj
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 12:14 PM
To: Jon S
Subject: Kechter Crossing downstream drainage
Jon,
We are open to any ideas you may have on proposed flow paths
downstream
of Kechter Crossing. As mentioned in my previous email, the Homestead
1 st filing Edelweiss Pond is undersized and developed flows from the
upstream Kechter Crossing site will not be adequately handled by this
pond nor should they pass through this pond.
Therefore, it seems the next option would be to release nearly all
drainage from this site at the 2-year historic rate (using the Urban
Drainage FAA method) to the northeast and then east along the south
side
of Kechter Road. A physical path of flow along this route would need
to
be confirmed (under driveways, etc.) to an acceptable outfall (likely
the 3 - 19"x30" HERCP under Ziegler). The capacity of the existing
swales and culverts along Kechter would need to be verified. If
upsizing and/or improvements to the existing conveyance features are
needed, then it will be Kechter Crossing's responsiblity to make them
adequate. Also, improvements should be placed so as to not interfere
with any future curb, gutter, sidewalk, etc along the south side of
Kechter.
Glen Sleughter with the City also mentioned another other option would
be to release under Kechter Road to the north along the west of edge
of
the Sage Creek development and working with the new potential
development to the west of Sage Creek Subdivision to allow your flows
to
be conveyed north to McClelland's Creek.
Thank you,
Matt Johnson, EIT
...... ........ _...... . _ ...._ .. ... ... _._ _ _ ._._............. ......... .......
Sheri Langenberger - RE. Kechter Crossing downstream drainage Page 7
Development Services
Larimer County Engineering Department
200 West Oak Street, Suite 3000
Post Office Box 1190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
Phone: (970) 498-5724
Fax: (970) 498-7986
Jon,
The transition from the ultimate road section to the existing (design
and build) can begin immediately after the east property boundary.
The
LCUASS Section 7.4.1.A.8 refers to providing 500 feet of plan and
profile design, including centerline, flowline, and cross sections,
past
the project boundaries. This design should be extended 500 feet past
the east and west project boundary. The 500' standard helps to avoid
instances where the future connection would be difficult to meet
grade,
match edge of pavement or c/g, etc.
The 500' "design to" standard also applies to the street stubs on the
east, west, and south property lines. The 500' standard may be
somewhat
excessive in this case as the surrounding properties don't seem to
vary
in elevation that much with respect to this property and are also
narrow
in nature (properties east and west). We can discuss this further if
you would like.
A 36 foot width of pavement will need to be designed and built from
this project to Timberline. The ultimate south half improvements
adjacent to this site will need to transition back to the new 36 foot
width and can do so immediately after the west property boundary. The
1998 state highway access code redirect taper criteria can be used for
transition rates.
Also, the City and County have a development meeting next week and I
will bring up the "Connector Local" street issues that came up today
and
keep you posted.
Please let me know if you have any questions on this.
Thanks
CC: <slangenberger@fcgov.com>, "Matthew Lafferty" <mlafferty@larimer.org>, "Traci
Downs" <tdowns@larimer.org>
Page 1 of 1
Sheri Langenberger
From: Lindsay Kuntz
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:41 AM
To: Sheri Langenberger
Subject: Kechter Crossing PUD
Attachments: 2463.4 City Lot Exhibits 2012-02-17.pdf; FW Questions from the City.htm; image001 Jpg
Sheri,
As discussed previously, Brinkman construction has agreed to make a number of site changes on the
City's property on Kechter Road as part of the Kechter Crossing PUD development. These
responsibilities include the relocation of fencing, driveway installation, moving a well head, moving a
shed, etc as depicted on the attached drawing and previous communications. The developer will be
granted permission to perform this work on the City's property via Revocable Permit, to be issued prior to
the start of construction of Tilden Road.
Please let me know what documentation other than this you need from me for your file for this. Also, I
am finalizing the Deed of Dedication for Tilden Street. Do you prefer that document come to you before
recording for any reason?
Thanks,
Lindsay
Lindsay A. Kuntz
Real Estate Specialist III
Real Estate Services Department
City of Fort Collins
PO Box 580
300 Laporte Ave., Bldg B
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
(970)221-6275
(970) 416-2209 (fax)
rt chins
1111 � ~.,
3/13/2012
0D'SN111001NO3
S83NIHVd NVIONNO
1Sd3
0
Aid3dOdd 1N3Odf(]V
p'
ern-'
JNISSOHO d31HOD
o
o
t
C
#
3
0
z Z_
_
W J .Ut..
w W
z
wLu
O
W
y
O
_
00
w
h'i i'
ULU
Q
�w Q O
cLU
Cn / Eel
WOw'' ww 3� 1
,.r3,
U HLij
00 0W
/ F-� O
I
''
w0 uj J LL .,
3
zw
w O
U
'
05
z
.
•uw,
o �
�
F!
o
£i
N
#; CD z
8
II
OE
x w
w '�
$
J
.'
W#w
w O.
6'QWw
a U�y
U
M�LL W
w'w Ow p C9
cn
Q Q . W
< -
U ' U _
�30 �ix, Qa
J' U
�iw'LuO ww
`
G
z�LmL
'
WZ'w Z IW
o�
�tn
U�� yl,�o,;UZ)z,.
y
LL��W rr^�Uf
0.O�OC
z0 Q\O' LLLL
0a
w
d m a W Y
U
ZW \�� Um
U 0 d'
W
W
LL.. OC LL
0
Wd 62'C 2102/LI/2 'OM0'51191HX3 107 A113 b'99V2\1f10AVl 101 A113 9I-20-2102\S119IHX3 90\NVWNNIN9 831H33N b'99>2\ONVI\S3113 13370dd\:3
separate deed of dedication will be needed with the final plat submittal for the offsite portions of
proposed right-of-way.
4. Coordination with the City of Fort Collins will be needed as this application moves forward through
the review process to determine how the new 36 foot widening along Kechter Road to the west will
connect with the Kechter Road improvements that the Jehovah's Witness Church may be making. At
this point, the City has indicated that the Church is responsible for a westbound right turn lane into
their site off of Kechter Road, but it is unknown when the Church plans to sign their development
agreement and begin construction.
5. This project's traffic will use the nearby Kechter Road and Timberline Road intersection which is
within the City of Fort Collins' jurisdiction. This office has contacted City Staff to determine their
concerns regarding any additional impacts to this intersection resulting from this site's traffic. Staff
will forward any City comments to the applicant once a response has been received.
6. The preliminary geotechnical report must analyze the existing pavement and base on Kechter Road
adjacent to this project and further to the west toward Timberline Road to determine if it is adequate
to handle the increase in traffic from this development. Appropriate improvements to the existing
Kechter Road pavement section may be needed and shall be recommended in the geotechnical report.
7. According to LCUASS 7.4.1.A.8, 500 feet of plan and profile design, including centerline, flowline,
and cross sections are required past the project boundaries. Therefore, the Tilden Street and Old
Farm Lane plan and profile drawings shall provide the additional design beyond the project boundary
to confirm that these future street connections can meet the urban area street standards. In this case,
this department is willing to review a design length that may be less than 500 feet for the Old Farm
Lane connection. However, the proposed change in grade at the Tilden Street connection will likely
require the entire 500 feet of additional design. Cross -sections can be provided with the final design.
8. Note 3 on Sheet 3 of 22 indicates to possibly abandon existing dry utilities. This note needs to be
revised to indicate that the existing dry utilities should either be removed or placed underground
(LCLUC Section 8.14.5.13). Sheet 3 of 22 also shows removal of various features located on the
adjacent City of Fort Collins owned property. This offsite work requires documentation from the
City that the proposed demolition plan is acceptable.
9. A minimum 6 foot wide sidewalk is required along the south side of Kechter Road rather than the 5
foot width that is currently shown on the typical road section on Sheet 14 (LCUASS Figure 7-317).
10. The Landscape Plan shows new trees within the sight distance triangles at the Kechter Road site
accesses. Per LCUASS Figure 7-16, the line of sight can not be obstructed at intersections.
Preliminary Drainaee & Irrieation Issues:
1. The applicant's consultants are aware that drainage agreements are needed for the portions of the
offsite storm sewer system which are not within public right-of-way. As a result, this office can not
support this proposal proceeding to the public hearings until one of the two following steps occur:
• An actual final agreement granting the easement subject to approval of the project is submitted
(this will be needed prior to final plat approval anyway).
• A letter is submitted from the impacted property owners stating that they will grant the
agreement/easement and that if the negotiations break down, it will be set for arbitration.
2. The proposed grading along the west side of the site appears to block the majority of surface flows
from the west that would otherwise sheet flow across the properties. It seems this will generate
standing water along the rear property lines of this project and cause adverse impacts to the proposed
Old Farm Lane's curb and gutter system where some offsite flows will be concentrating. Also, a
legitimate outfall needs to be in place should the properties to the west ever develop. For these
reasons, this office recommends that a swale be designed within a drainage outlot along the west
boundary which can ultimately convey the offsite runoff through the site in accordance with the
City's Mini McClelland's Basin Masterplan.
3. Portions of the Drainage Report text (Pages 7 and 14) indicate that the developed/onsite 100 year
flows will be detained and released from the site at the existing 2 year rate which conforms to the
H:\DEVREV\PLANCHK\Projects\PD's\Kechter Crossing PLD and PD\Prelim Plat Comments.doc
s
COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE
MEMORANDUM
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
TO: Matt Lafferty, Larimer County Planning Department
FROM: Matt Johnson, Development Review Engineer )W
DATE: March 28, 2008
SUBJECT: Kechter Crossing PLD/PD — Final Plat (ls` Review)
Post Office Box 1190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
(970) 498-5700
FAX (970) 498-7986
Proiect DescriptionBackaround:
This is a Final Plat review of a planned land division proposal to create 76 single family residential lots
on a 28.86 acre property. The development will have 5.87 acres of common open space and 2 outlots.
This project is located on the south side of LCR 36 (Kechter Road), approximately'/4 mile east of
Timberline Road.
The project site lies within the City of Fort Collins Growth Management Area and will therefore need to
comply with the requirements contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between Larimer
County and the City of Fort Collins. This project is also located within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area
Plan, adopted in 1998 by the City of Fort Collins City Council and Larimer County Planning
Commission.
Review Criteria:
Larimer County Engineering Department development review staff members have reviewed the materials
that were submitted to our office per the criteria found in the Larimer County Land Use Code (LCLUC),
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards
(LCSDS), and pertinent Intergovernmental Agreements.
Final Plat and Miscellaneous Comments:
1. The final plat will need to describe ownership and maintenance responsibilities for each of the
common areas and outlots. This can be done with notes on the plat cover.
2. The plat needs to call out the existing 20 foot ditch easement along the southern project boundary as
"vacated by this plat".
3. The plat labels the detention pond areas (Common Area C) as "buildable/support buildings".
Typically, areas set aside for detention / drainage purposes and more specifically, areas within the 100
year water surface level plus freeboard are non -buildable. The plat should either delineate Common
Area C entirely as non -buildable or better define the buildable areas outside of the ponding limits.
Staff's preference would be to have this area delineated entirely as non -buildable.
4. A plat note is needed which indicates what is allowed/not allowed in the sight triangle easements and
whether maintenance of these easements is the HOA's responsibility or the property owner's (see
redlines).
H:\DEVREV\PLANCHK\Projects\PD's\Kechter Crossing PLD and PD\Final P1at\Final Plat - 1st
Review.doc
5. A separate deed of dedication is needed for the offsite portions of the Tilden Street half connector —
local street right-of-way located on the adjacent City owned property. The deed should be submitted
with the next submittal so it can be reviewed by City and County staff prior to being approved.
6. The drainage easement documents for the Lindstrom property need to have signature blocks for the
grantor and grantee and needs to be notarized.
7. A temporary construction easement will be needed for the work within the adjacent City owned
property and a grading easement will be needed for the work within the property to the south of the
Tilden Street dead end. These easements will be recorded by separate document.
8. For informational purposes, the development agreement may need to contain language with respect to
what any requirements may be for this project in terms of improvements to the east leg of the Kechter
and Timberline intersection depending on the timing of what the City has planned in this location.
9. The applicant's design engineer is already aware of the following, but for informational purposes, a
cost estimate for the public improvements will be needed for review prior to final plat approval.
Separate cost estimates are needed for the off -site improvements (Kechter Road, storm sewer, and
sanitary sewer) versus all on -site improvements.
Final Engineering Design Comments:
1. This office has provided redline comments on the submitted plans in addition to this memo and are
available for pick up at the front office of the Engineering Department. Staff asks that the redlined
plans be resubmitted with the next submittal.
2. The appropriate City staff member(s) will need to sign the Demolition Plan, the Grading Plans which
show Tilden Street, and the Tilden Street Plans and Profile drawings before this office can approve
the final plans.
3. A note on Sheet 19 of 47 calls out the new driveway off of Tilden Street and into the City owned
property to be graded with a 12% slope. This seems somewhat excessive and it appears a less steep
slope could be achieved based on existing and proposed grades in this area.
4. Based on previous emails with the City, County, and design engineer as well as LCUASS Chapter 5
requirements, basement finished floor elevations will need to be at least 5 feet above the groundwater
surface since a subsurface water investigation was not prepared. After reviewing Borings B-2 and B-
3 from the September 2005 EEC Report and the proposed TOF elevations shown on the plans, it
appears that basements will likely be within 1 to 3 feet of the groundwater surface in the vicinity of
where those borings were taken. As a result, the following requirements will help ensure that each
building permit in the subdivision is issued with the appropriate stipulations regarding basement
feasibility:
• The development agreement and disclosure notice will need to contain conditions to the effect
that each lot will require a geotechnical investigation conducted by a professional engineer prior
to foundation construction and as part of the investigation, depth to groundwater shall be
determined. The condition will need to include language that basements will not be allowed if
the lowest floor (basement) elevation is within 5 feet of the groundwater surface.
5. Many areas between lots are significantly steeper than 4:1 and the grading gets fairly tight (see
redlines on Sheet 18 of 47 for specific locations). This office has seen drainage problems arise when
the side lots are narrow and the grading is steep especially when window wells, landscaping, etc are
installed. Slopes greater than 4:1 may be acceptable between lots; however it seems that the side lot
grading could be widened out and not as abrupt by slightly narrowing the building pads on these lots.
Also, individual lot grading typical details would be beneficial on the grading plans for the A Lots
versus Type B Lots and Garden level lots, etc. (refer to the City's stormwater criteria manual for
standard details).
6. It appears that the retaining wall in the northeast corner of the detention pond could be either partially
or entirely eliminated with a little re -grading of the northern portions of the pond area (see redlines on
Sheet 19 of 47).
H:\DEVREV\PLANCHK\Projects\PD's\Kechter Crossing PLD and PD\Final P1at\Fina1 Plat - lst
Review.doc
t
7. Verification needs to be provided which shows that the pedestrian foot bridges in the detention areas
will not interfere with runoff conveyance (for instance, how will clogging, debris trapping, etc be
minimized).
8. The storm sewer plans call for elliptical pipe in numerous areas where adequate cover appears to be
available for circular pipe. Unless there is a particular reason for using elliptical pipe, it seems as
though circular pipe would suffice which may also allow for smaller diameter manholes to be used.
Also, many of the downstream ends of the storm drains were not shown to have a riprap protected
outlet which is normally required.
9. Per LCUASS Figure 7-14, a minimum 8 foot wide sidewalk is required for the connection between
Copper Crest Lane and future development to the south within Outlot B.
10. The 3 inch overlay on Kechter Road shall end at Station 10+50 and the full pavement section is to be
reconstructed between Station 10+50 and 21+30 (see redlines on Sheet 24). The full pavement
section needs to be reconstructed to achieve adequate cross slope while maintaining uniform
pavement thickness across the entire section in areas adjacent to the new curb and gutter. The typical
section, plan and profile, and cross sections need to be updated accordingly.
11. The Kechter Road typical sections and cross sections need to show the aggregate base course
extending out to the catch slopes in effort to provide more stability under the new widened pavement.
12. The Kechter Road cross sections (Sheet 33-35) show multiple catch slopes which appear to create
unnecessary berms within the right-of-way. Generally, the first catch slope can tie into existing
ground as long as historic roadside and adjacent property drainage patterns are not negatively
impacted (see redlines).
13. Using LCUASS Figure 8-3, the redirect taper for the left turn bay onto Tilden Street should be 266
feet in length as opposed to 200 feet (see redlines).
14. The signage plan should show horizontal locations for the street name signs, stop signs, and speed
limit signs. Standard details for each sign panel should be provided as well. A sign is also needed at
the temporary dead end streets (Tilden Street and Old Farm Lane) which indicates to the public that
the road is planned for future extension.
Final Drainage Report Comments:
1. The Drainage Report contains tabbed redlined pages which should be revised in addition to the
comments below.
2. A discussion should be provided in the Report which indicates that the smaller storm events and
volumes will be more likely to infiltrate into the 3 wetland areas rather than actually draining from
one end of the pond to the outlet near the northeast project corner.
3. The storm sewer systems and culverts shall be sized with the assumption that tailwater conditions are
present at the downstream outlets. The report should contain descriptions of how the tailwater
assumptions were determined.
4. In general, it is difficult to determine which basins were accounted for at certain design points
throughout the project. It would be beneficial if a table was provided which shows that Basins x , y,
and z report to Design Point # and what the peak flow rates are for each of the contributing basins and
what the additive peak flow is for the design point. This information should then be easily
transferred/reviewable to the various sizing calculations in the drainage software print outs. For
example, were flows from offsite basins 901-2 and 901-3 accounted for in the sizing of Swale C-1
and C-2 and storm sewer 3 and 4?
5. The storm sewer sizing profile and spreadsheet for SD-2 appears to be missing from Appendix D in
the Drainage Report. Also, the culvert sizing calculations could not be found in the Report Appendix
(SD-1, SD-3, and SD-6).
5. Swale A-2 shown on the Drainage Plan needs to be sized using the 100 year flows from the upstream
basin along the south side of Kechter Road and offsite basin 901-1 since these flows will enter Swale
A-2. Once the upstream flows are accounted for, the 100 year water surface in Swale A-2 should not
be within the new lots on the south side of the swale.
H:\DEVREV\PLANCHK\Projects\PD's\Kechter Crossing PLD and PD\Final P1at\Final Plat - 1st
Review.doc
7. It is unclear how the design flow rate of 51.2 cfs was obtained for the sizing of Swale B near the west
site entrance.
8. A staged storage spreadsheet is needed in the report appendix which shows the actual available design
capacity of the detention pond.
9. The Drainage Plan needs to show and call out the 100 year ponding limits for the detention facility.
10. The Drainage Report needs to provide calculations for the sizing of the orifice plate opening for the
maximum allowable pond release which is the historic 2 year rate for the 100 year onsite / developed
flows. It also seems that a staged release outlet box is necessary to effectively control the detention of
the onsite volumes, but also pass the upstream/offsite flows which do not need to be detained. The
detention outlet detail should be updated accordingly.
11. An emergency spillway weir design with stabilized embankment protection is needed in the Drainage
Report and on the plans.
12. The detention outlet detail and 'drainage report need to identify the pond freeboard elevation.
13. All riprap needs to be sized in the Drainage Report according to the Urban Storm Drainage Manual
methods. Also, many of the downstream ends of the storm drains were not shown to have a riprap
protected outlet which is normally required.
14. The Drainage Report Appendix needs to include copies of the referenced tables, figures, and graphs
from the various criteria manuals, etc.
Fees & Permits:
• The Fees and Permits Comments 1-5 that were issued in the memo dated 6/28/06 from this office will
still apply as this project moves forward. Permits will not be issued until the development application
receives final approval, etc.
Staff Recommendation:
L This office prepared redlines on the submitted plans and Drainage Report and can be picked up at this
office at any time. We request that the redlined plans and report be returned with the subsequent
submittal.
2. In addition, the applicant shall provide written responses to the above comments on the next
submittal. These comments can be emailed to the applicant's consultants upon request.
3. Additional design, information, and detail will still be necessary with the final plat application prior to
our final approval.
Please feel free to contact me at (970) 498-5724 or e-mail me at mjohnson@larimer.org if you have any
questions. Thank you.
cc: 2309 Kechter LLC, Attn: Paul Brinkman, 1315 Oakridge Drive, Suite 100, Fort Collins, CO 80525
Jim Sell Design, Attn: Jon Sweet, 153 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524
City of Fort Collins, Attn: Eng. Dept, Randy Maizland, 281 N College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80522
City of Fort Collins, Attn: Utility Dept., Basil Hamdan, 700 Wood Street, Fort Collins, CO 80522
reading file
file
H:\DEVREV\PLANCHK\Projects\PD's\Kechter Crossing PLD and PD\Final P1affinal Plat - 1st
Review.doc
City's Mini Master Plan and is required by this office. However, the Detention Design descriptions
(3 scenarios on Page 11) do not seem to fully encompass what this office considers the most
crucial/necessary scenario in which onsite 100 year flows are detained and released at the 2 year
historic rate into the proposed downstream storm pipe system while upstream/undeveloped 100 year
flows are passed through the site and also released into the proposed downstream pipe. As a result,
further clarification is needed in the Scenario descriptions to ensure the correct model is feasible.
4. The proposed contours between Pond I and 2 on the Drainage Map seem to indicate that flows will
be retained in Pond 2 until the water surface reaches the 4934 elevation and can then spill into Pond
1. It should be noted that retention of any volume is not an acceptable stormwater storage method for
this project. Also, the Grading Plan calls out the bottom of pond contour as a "constant water surface
elevation". The plans and Drainage Report need to discuss what is meant by this in more detail. For
example, how is a constant water surface created if these elevations are the bottom of the pond? The
ponds need to be graded to drain minor storm water flows (min. of 0.5% with a trickle pan). Also, the
Drainage Plan shows a 4933 contour in Pond 2, but the Rough Grading Plans do not.
5. A staged storage spreadsheet based on the proposed pond contours is needed in the Drainage Report
to demonstrate the actual pond capacities. Also, the Drainage Plan needs to show and call out the 100
year water surface elevations in the proposed ponds.
6. The south side swale along Kechter Road adjacent to the northwest corner of the Homestead IS` Filing
is roughly 18 inches higher than the swale flowline to the west, which does not allow emergency
overflows from this project to continue east along Kechter Road. Therefore, our office requests that
this discussion be expanded (Page 12 of the Drainage Report) to account for where these flows report
to once they reach the driveway near the northwest corner of the Homestead I" Filing as well as any
recommendations for mitigation.
7. Based on the Geotechnical Report, groundwater was present at 8 to 12 foot depths below grade
throughout the site during testing. As a result, basements may not be feasible for various lots
throughout the site. Therefore, a note needs to be provided on the plat stating that an engineered
footing and foundation design along with an appropriate subsurface drainage system design is
required as part of a building permit application for all lots in the development.
8. A signature block for the irrigation company which owns the ditch along the south project boundary
should be provided on the plat and appropriate plans. This 20 foot irrigation easement needs to be
separate from the adjacent single family lots and Tilden Street right-of-way and must be kept within
an outlot on the plat and plans. Also, Tilden Street appears to block ditch flows from the west. More
detail is needed on the plans showing how the ditch flows will be accommodated.
Final Design Comments:
1. The Overall Utility Plan calls the existing 20 foot ditch easement which crosses through Blocks 2, 5,
11, 12 and Outlot E and F to be abandoned. Based on an email from the applicant's design engineer,
this easement was put in place with the Feldman M.R.D. plat to convey historic stormwater runoff
through the subject development and downstream to the adjacent City owned affordable housing
property. As long as all downstream users of this ditch (including any rightful users beyond the City
property) are agreeable with the proposal based on written confirmation, then the plat shall identify
this easement as being vacated rather than abandoned.
2. The final plans will need to provide further detail and complete design information for the ultimate
street section in order for any reimbursements from the City to be considered for the Kechter Road
improvements. Reimbursement eligibility for this project and other related details can be coordinated
with the City, County, and applicant as the application moves forward.
3. Right-of-way limits need to be drawn per LCUASS Figure 8-12 at the street intersections.
4. The final plat submittal will need to describe ownership and maintenance responsibilities for each of
the common areas, outlots, and easements.
5. A final pavement design report will be needed for the Kechter Road improvements. Also, the plans
will need to specify pavement type, lift thicknesses, binder grade, etc. (LCUASS Chapter 10 & 22.5)
H:\DEVREV\PLANCHK\Projects\PD's\Kechter Crossing PLD and PD\Prelim Plat Comments.doc
6. Construction traffic control plans will be needed for the Kechter Road improvements and utility
installations.
7. Roadway cross -sections will be required on 50 foot intervals for the Kechter Road improvements
(LCUASS 3.3.4.13).
8. A sidewalk should be designed within Outlot C to provide for future pedestrian connectivity to the
south. All ramps need to align with the sidewalks.
9. Individual lot grading details should be provided on the plans for Type A versus Type B lots, etc.
Also, lowest minimum floor elevations should be provided for each lot and need to be set
appropriately above groundwater levels.
10. The offsite storm sewer redlines on Sheet 11 of 22 will need to be addressed.
11. All crosspans need to be shown on the Drainage Map.
12. The Kechter Road improvement redlines on Sheets 13-15 will need to be addressed. Other
miscellaneous roadway plan and profile comments should be addressed with the final design as well.
13. The Final Drainage Report will need to include composite runoff coefficient calculations for each of
the subbasins.
14. The preliminary Drainage Report Appendix D only included inlet and street capacity calculations for
Inlet 2. The final report needs to include proper street and inlet capacity calculations at all inlet
locations in order to demonstrate that the maximum allowable in -street flows (see LCSDS Table ST-
2A) will not be exceeded in the minor and major rainfall events.
15. The 2 year flow rate for SWMM ID RD-I I in the Drainage Report Table 5: Gutter Flows (Scenario
2) is given as 1.2 cfs with a corresponding flow depth of 0.19 feet. This seems to conflict with the
rational method 2 year flow rate of 7.2 cfs (Table 1: Existing Basin 901-W) reporting to RD-11 from
the offsite basin to the west. Therefore, it appears the tables should be updated for consistency.
16. Table 1 (Drainage Report and Existing Map): Existing Basin Runoff Estimation shows 3 rows of
information for Basin RD-EX-1. It seems the Basin labels should be updated (RD-EX-I, 2, 3).
17. The storm sewer system shall be sized with the assumption that tailwater conditions are present at the
downstream outlets. The storm sewer profiles will need to show the hydraulic grade lines.
18. The final plans and Drainage Report will need to demonstrate how the pond outlet configuration will
detain the developed 100 year onsite flows and release at the 2 year historic rate while allowing the
upstream/offsite flows to pass through the site undetained into the downstream storm pipe system.
19. The detention pond will need to be sized and designed to account for water quality capture volumes in
accordance with Volume 3 of the Urban Drainage Criteria Manual. Since this site is in a City of Fort
Collins master drainage basin, the WQCV needs to be additive to the 100 year detention volume. The
ponds need to provide at least 1 foot of freeboard as well.
20. The Final Drainage Report Appendix will need to include copies of the referenced tables, figures, and
graphs from the various criteria manuals, etc.
Fees & Permits:
• The Fees and Permits Comments 1-5 that were issued in the memo dated 6/28/06 from this office will
still apply as this project moves forward. Permits will not be issued until the development application
receives final approval, etc.
Staff Recommendation:
1. The Larimer County Engineering Department can not recommend approval of this preliminary plat
proposal until the remaining Preliminary Comments stated above have been addressed and our
department has reviewed and approved the additional information.
2. This office has also prepared redlines on the submitted plans set which can be picked up at the
applicant's convenience. We request that the redline plans be returned with the subsequent submittal.
3. In addition, the applicant shall provide written responses to the above comments on the next
submittal. These comments can be emailed to the applicant's consultants upon request.
H:\DEVREV\PLANCHK\Projects\PD's\Kechter Crossing PLD and PD\Prelim Plat Comments.doc
4. The applicant should be aware that our department has based the comments on the submitted
information and once the additional information has been submitted, we may have additional
comments.
Please feel free to contact me at (970) 498-5724 or e-mail me at miohnson@larimer.org if you have any
questions. Thank you.
cc: 2309 Kechter LLC, Attn: Paul Brinkman, 1315 Oakridge Drive, Suite 100, Fort Collins, CO 80525
Jim Sell Design, Attn: Jon Sweet, 153 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524
City of Fort Collins, Attn: Eng. Dept., Randy Maizland, 281 North College Avenue, PO Box 580,
Fort Collins, CO 80522
City of Fort Collins, Attn: Utility Dept., Basil Harridan, 700 Wood Street, PO Box 580, Fort
Collins, CO 80522
reading file
file
H:\DEVREV\PLANCHK\Projects\PD's\Kechter Crossing PLD and PD\Prelim Plat Comments.doc
1
P!7r
COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE
MEMORANDUM
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
TO: Matt Lafferty, Larimer County Planning Department
FROM: Matt Johnson, Development Review Engineer
DATE: October 2, 2007
SUBJECT: Kechter Crossing PLD/PD — Preliminary Plat (2°d Review)
Post Office Box 1190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
(970) 498-5700
FAX (970) 498-7986
Proiect Description/Background:
This is a Preliminary Plat review of a rezoning and planned land division proposal to create 76 single
family residential lots on a 28.86 acre property. The development will have 7.09 acres of common open
space. This project is located on the south side of LCR 36 (Kechter Road), approximately'/4 mile east of
Timberline Road.
The project site lies within the City of Fort Collins Growth Management Area and will therefore need to
comply with the requirements contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between Larimer
County and the City of Fort Collins. This project is also located within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area
Plan, adopted in 1998 by the City of Fort Collins City Council and Larimer County Planning
Commission.
Review Criteria:
The intent of the Preliminary Plat submittal is to justify the feasibility of the proposal. Larimer County
Engineering Department development review staff members have reviewed the materials that were
submitted to our office under these guidelines and per the criteria found in the Larimer County Land Use
Code (LCLUC), Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), Larimer County Stormwater
Design Standards (LCSDS), and pertinent Intergovernmental Agreements.
Remaining Preliminary Engineering Comments:
1. The east half of the proposed Tilden Street right-of-way is shown on the adjacent City owned
property and as a result is not within the platted boundary of this development. Therefore, a letter of
commitment from the City is needed with the next submittal confirming this is acceptable and a
separate deed of dedication will be needed with the final plat submittal for the offsite portions of
proposed right-of-way. Based on the responses to Staff's previous comments, the applicant is
coordinating this issue with the City and plans to provide the letter prior to the public hearings. If this
letter is not submitted to Staff prior to the public hearing, the following condition of preliminary plat
approval shall apply: A separate deed of dedication is needed with the final plat submittal for the
offsite portions of the Tilden Street half connector — local street right-of-way.
2. Sheet 3 of 22 also shows removal of various features located on the adjacent City of Fort Collins
owned property. Based on the responses to Staff's previous comments, the applicant is currently
H:\DEVREV\PLANCHK\Projects\PD's\Kechter Crossing PLD and PD\Prelim Plat - 2nd Review.doc
seeking confirmation from the City that the proposed demolition plan is acceptable. With the
understanding that Comment #1 above will be addressed either with the letter or a deed of dedication
(provided at final design), then this office will assume that the proposed demolition plan is acceptable
with the City.
3. The applicant's consultants are aware that drainage easements are needed for the portions of the
offsite storm sewer system which are not within public right-of-way. Based on discussions at a
10/1/07 meeting, the applicant is in the process of obtaining agreements for granting the easements
from the impacted property owners and intends on providing more supporting documentation to staff
on this issue prior to the public hearings. Since the storm drainage system for this project is
contingent upon acquiring these necessary offsite drainage easements, the following condition of
preliminary plat approval is needed: Drainage easements by separate document are needed with the
final plat submittal for the portions of the offsite storm sewer system which are not within public
right-of-way.
4. The following sentence shall be a condition of preliminary plat approval: The proposed Swale along
the west side of the site needs to be shown on the final plat and final plans within an outlot set aside
for the purposes of storm drainage and shall be separate from the adjacent lots (not within an
easement). An outlot is needed to prevent landscaping, fencing, etc from occurring within an area
that is meant for drainage to flow properly without obstruction. Also, regular maintenance of the
Swale will be important and maintenance responsibilities can be better defined in the development
agreement, covenants, etc for outlots as opposed to easements which cross through individual lots.
5. The preliminary geotechnical report analyzed the existing pavement section and base along Kechter
Road adjacent to this project and further to the west toward Timberline Road. The report
recommends a 3-inch asphalt overlay to handle the short term total traffic volumes including site
generated traffic increases and will accommodate a 20 year pavement design life. Therefore, this
office can accept this proposed pavement section improvement. (LCUASS 1.9.2.B.3.c — page 1-19)
Final Design Comments:
1. Based on information from the design engineer, the 2 existing ditch easements which cross west to
east across the project were put into place with the Feldman M.R.D. for the sole purpose to serve
these 2 Kechter Crossing properties and do not exist to provide service beyond this project's
boundaries. As long as the entire easements are within the platted boundary of the project, then the
plat can serve as the sole easement vacation document for the subject easements. The plat needs to
call the existing 20 foot ditch easement along the south boundary "vacated by this plat". Also,
various plan sheets call this 20 foot ditch easement to be vacated by separate document and can be
revised accordingly.
2. Based on the Geotechnical Report, groundwater was present at 8 to 12 foot depths below grade
throughout the site during testing. As a result, basements may not be feasible for various lots
throughout the site. Therefore, a note needs to be provided on the plat stating that an engineered
footing and foundation design along with an appropriate subsurface drainage system design is
required as part of a building permit application for all lots in the development.
3. The right-of-way limits need to be drawn on the plat per LCUASS Figure 8-12 at the Kadenwood
Trail and Kechter Road intersection.
4. The plans should show and call out the end of construction to the east for the Kechter Road
improvements (see redlines on Sheet 15 of 22).
5. Drainage flows from Kechter Road should not enter the site's curb and gutter system. Therefore, a
crosspan is likely needed at the Kadenwood Trail and Kechter Road intersection as long as the
crosswalk is pushed back exclusive of the crosspan.
6. Area inlets which tie into the new 24 inch storm line are shown on Sheet 11 of 22 in the Kechter Road
swales. All flows which report to these inlets will need to be accounted for and confirmation is
needed that the storm system will not surcharge.
H:\DEVREV\PLANCHK\Projects\PD's\Kechter Crossing PLD and PD\Prelim Plat - 2nd Review.doc
In addition to the provided top of foundation elevations, the Drainage and Grading Plans need to
clearly define any required minimum floor/lowest opening elevations for the individual lots.
Groundwater depths and 100 year stormwater surface elevations should be considered when
determining the lowest openings.
This department issued various final design comments for informational purposes with the previous
preliminary plat submittal that will still apply with any subsequent final design submittals. We also
prepared various redlines on the submitted plans that can be addressed with the final design as well.
Fees & Permits:
• The Fees and Permits Comments 1-5 that were issued in the memo dated 6/28/06 from this office will
still apply as this project moves forward. Permits will not be issued until the development application
receives final approval, etc.
Conditions of Preliminary Plat Approval:
The following conditions of preliminary plat approval are in lieu of the "Remaining Preliminary
Engineering Comments" stated above in this memo.
1. A separate deed of dedication is needed with the final plat submittal for the offsite portions of the
Tilden Street half connector — local street right-of-way.
2. Drainage easements by separate document are needed with the final plat submittal for the portions of
the offsite storm sewer system which are not within public right-of-way.
3. The proposed swale along the west side of the site needs to be shown on the final plat and final plans
within an outlot set aside for the purposes of storm drainage and shall be separate from the adjacent
lots (not within an easement).
Staff Recommendation:
1. With the understanding that the "Conditions of Preliminary Plat Approval" listed above are accepted,
the Larimer County Engineering Department can support a recommendation of approval for this
preliminary plat proposal.
2. This office has also prepared redlines on the submitted plans and were given to Jim Sell Design on
10/1/07. We request that the redline plans be returned with the subsequent submittal.
3. In addition, the applicant shall provide written responses to the above comments on the next
submittal. These comments can be emailed to the applicant's consultants upon request.
4. Additional design, information, and detail will still be necessary with the final submittal prior to our
final approval.
Please feel free to contact me at (970) 498-5724 or e-mail me at miohnson@larimer.oriz if you have any
questions. Thank you.
cc: 2309 Kechter LLC, Attn: Paul Brinkman, 1315 Oakridge Drive, Suite 100, Fort Collins, CO 80525
Jim Sell Design, Attn: Jon Sweet, 153 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524
City of Fort Collins, Attn: Eng. Dept, Randy Maizland, 281 N College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80522
City of Fort Collins, Attn: Utility Dept., Basil Hamdan, 700 Wood Street, Fort Collins, CO 80522
reading file
file
H:\DEVREV\PLANCHK\Projects\PD's\Kechter Crossing PLD and PD\Prelim Plat - 2nd Review.doc
Operations Services
�11/Lv
Real Estates Services
City of Fort Collins
Mr. Alan Strope
2309 Kechter, LLC
3201 E. Mulberry Street, Unit B
Fort Collins, CO 80524
February 8, 2008
Re: Development of 2309 Kechter
Dear Alan:
At the conclusion of our meeting on November 71h, staff met to discuss your
requests of dedicating road right-of-way on our property at 2313 Kechter E. Road and to
share in the costs of oversizing the stormwater pipe to 24". After our meeting, City staff
discussed your request and the various options. In evaluating your request, we
considered what would be required of any development going through the planning
process with the City of Fort Collins and the time period before the City's land may be
developed.
It was our decision to recommend to City Council that the City dedicate the
needed area for the road. This recommendation is contingent upon your agreement to do
the following items:
1. Move the existing fence, at your cost, prior to road construction. Our
existing tenant has horses on the property; therefore, careful coordination will be required
to minimize their inconvenience during fence move and road construction. You will be
responsible to repair any damage down to the fence during the move. Based on our
meeting, it is our expectation that none of our buildings will need to be moved for this
road.
2. You will be responsible for the costs to construct this road. This new
road shall be constructed in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards — Connector Local Street. The specification sheet is attached for your
reference. The current standard calls for water and sewer mains to be located under the
street and for electrical conduit to be placed in the six foot parkway. As I am sure you
are aware, all developers constructing public improvements within the City of Fort
Collins are required to provide a five year maintenance and repair guarantee on said
improvements. You are probably aware of this maintenance and repair guarantee that is
included in all plats within the City of Fort Collins, but if you are not you could contact
Sheri Langenberger in the City Engineering Office to get this language. She can be
reached via email at slap eg—nberger�dfcgov.com and her phone number is 221-6605,
extension 7140.
3. Developers are responsible to detain storm water flows for one-half of
abutting roads into a detention pond. Since our property is not expected to be developed
117 north MasonStreet - P.O. Box 580 -Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 - (970) 416-2276 -FAX (970) 416-2209