HomeMy WebLinkAboutKECHTER TOWNHOMES - PDP200010 - - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
4383 Tennyson Street, #1D • Denver, Colorado 80212 • Phone: 720.465.4320
www.mccooldevelopment.com
December 23, 2020
City of Fort Collins – Community Development & Neighborhood Services
Attn: Ms. Tenae Beane, Development Review Coordinator
280 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: Kechter Townhomes, PDP200010, Round 2
3620 Kechter Road, Fort Collins, Colorado 80528
Dear Ms. Beane,
Please see the following responses to the summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing
agencies for the first resubmittal of Kechter Townhomes PDP and Subdivision Plat. In efforts to streamline
the development review process, we have included the original City comments with the Kechter Project
Team responses in red below. The following documents are included in this resubmittal:
• Revised Kechter Townhomes Project Development Plan (Site Plan and Landscape Plan)
• Architectural Drawings and Architectural Site Diagram
• Revised Subdivision Plat
• Project Legal Description
• City’s Comments with responses written on the Plat in pdf
• Quitclaim deed for the 30’ Access Easement
• Seven Land Survey Monument Records
• Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report
• Utility Plans
• Ecological Characterization Study, December 2020
• Existing Tree Removal Feasibility Letter
• Updated Traffic Impact Study, December 21, 2020
Comment Summary:
Department: Planning Services
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
08/03/2020: Developability of the land: By now, everyone involved knows about Bald Eagle use of the big
cottonwoods, documented in the local newspaper last February as a significant phenomenon with high
citizen interest. Environmental Planning staff will lead the exploration of this issue.
Response: Noted--see below under Environmental Planning’s comments for additional information.
Comment Number: 2
08/03/2020: Existing Trees: The grove of cottonwoods at the southeast corner of the property is an
extraordinarily significant feature in the area and should be protected and incorporated into a development
plan. The specific LUC requirement is 3.2.1(F). It requires protection of the trees “to the extent reasonably
Page 2 of 11
feasible and may help satisfy the landscaping requirements of this Section as set forth above. Such trees
shall be considered "protected" trees within the meaning of this Section…”
Response: The project revised the Site Plan and reduced the number of units in order to protect
and incorporate the existing trees to the maximum extent reasonably feasible.
Comment Number: 3
08/03/2020: For reference, “Extent reasonably feasible shall mean that, under the circumstances,
reasonable efforts have been undertaken to comply with, that the costs of compliance clearly outweigh the
potential benefit public or would unreasonably burden the proposed project, and reasonable steps have
been undertaken to minimize any potential harm or adverse impacts resulting from noncompliance with the
regulation.” At this point, staff requests a plan that starts with a mapping of the trees, and a plan designed
to protect as many of them as possible. It is not clear that what is gained by maximizing the site outweighs
the loss of the trees. There is one outlier on the north side of the grove that may not be as feasible to
protect as the others.
Response: The project revised the Site Plan and reduced the number of units in order to protect
and incorporate the existing trees to the maximum extent reasonably feasible.
Comment Number: 4
08/03/2020: 55 street parking spaces: Please share the diagram you mentioned
Response: Parking spaces have been added to site plan for PDP information. They will not be
striped.
Comment Number: 5
08/03/2 Driveway length: I see one driveway, lot 5, that’s well under 20 feet. A pickup or car parked there
would hang over the sidewalk, and when that happens it is a significant pedestrian and visual interruption
that must avoided. Either that unit needs to be smaller, or the detached walk should curve in and attach in
a non‑standard way as it crosses the driveway. This would need detailed design and agreement with
Engineering and Planning staff.020:
Response: We have attached walk giving the driveway a depth of nearly 19-feet.
Comment Number: 7
08/03/2020: I am not seeing clearly on the plans how the Kechter sidewalk and street trees are arra nged.
Are the trees shown behind the sidewalk? IF they can be placed in the parkway strip, that's where they
belong. Location of these street trees may be affected by resolution of the big cottonwoods.
Response: The street trees are placed in the parkway strip.
Department: Environmental Planning
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
08/04/2020: The use of the large trees by bald eagles is the main point of concern from Environmental
Planning's perspective, but the preservation of such a healthy stand of large, mature cottonwoods is a
priority as well. Regarding the eagles, more field surveys are required to adequately determine what the
Page 3 of 11
resource is ‑ a communal roost, winter raptor concentration area, communal feeding area, which trees are
being utilized, etc. The surveys necessarily have to be completed in the winter months (Decembe r ‑
February) in order to make such a determination, but some surveys may be required during other seasons
(summer, fall). Close coordination with CO Parks and Wildlife (CPW), the ECS consultant, the City
(Environmental Planning at a minimum), and potentially the federal authorities will be required to determine
acceptable survey methodologies and appropriate interpretation of data. Attention must also be paid to the
surrounding land uses, foraging areas, prey base, etc.
Response: A roosting study is currently being implemented in accordance with the Cedar Creek
Associates, Inc. memo ‘3620 Kechter Road – Bald Eagle Roost Survey Protocol’, which was sent to
Scott Benton on November 17, 2020. Information on the surrounding area is presented in the ECS
for the project.
Comment Number: 2
08/04/2020: The most disturbance to the eagles' use of the trees would be during the construction phase.
Some potential buffering scenarios outlined in CPW's Raptor Buf fer Guidelines (2020) include spatial
buffers, seasonal buffers (i.e., no construction activity from December to March), and temporal buffers (no
construction activity from the hours of 10:00 to 13:00 from December to March).
Response: Attached to the Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. memo ‘3620 Kechter Road – Bald Eagle
Roost Survey Protocol’ as Appendix A is the Kechter Townhomes Mitigation Options, which was
authored by Scott Benton. This document provides the framework for mitigation measures to be
applied to the project depending on the outcome of the roosting study. On a November 24, 2020
email, Scott Benton indicated that the mitigation measures would not apply to indoor construction
and that those activities would not be limited, but reasonable measures should be applied to avoid
necessary noise and activity outside during the roosting season.
Department: Forestry
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
08/04/2020: FOR HEARING
Thank you for completing the tree inventory. Please note that there is ash tree by the road that was not
accounted for during the site visit. The inventory will need to be updated to include the ash in the next
round.
Response: The tree mitigation has been updated to include the ash tree.
It also appears that with the connection to Quasar Way, there may be some offsite trees that will be
impacted. Inventory and mitigation of those trees will need to be coordinated with Willowbrook.
Response: The project revised the Site Plan and reduced the number of units in order to protect
and incorporate the existing trees to the maximum extent reasonably feas ible. Additionally, the
offsite parking was also eliminated to provide an additional buffer to the existing trees. Also,
Engineering has requested a ramp near the existing street tree. We have added a note that states
the ramp location is to be coordinated with Engineering and Forestry.
Comment Number: 2
Page 4 of 11
08/04/2020: FOR HEARING
Regarding the grove of cottonwood trees north of Kechter Rd, and as a follow up to Environmental
Planning’s comments, further information is required regarding the usage of these trees as potential nesting
or roosting site. We would like to have a better understanding of whether and how this grove contributes as
wildlife habitat in the following rounds. Additionally, these cottonwood trees are significant in size, location,
and placement, and they provide a range of benefits to the site. Forestry requires that significant trees
within limits of development are preserved to the extent reasonably feasible (LUC 3.2.1 (F)). In addition to
the ECS, further conversation with city staff will be required to determine the extent to which it is feasible to
retain some or all the trees in this grove.
Response: The project revised the Site Plan and reduced the number of units in order to protect
and incorporate the existing trees to the maximum extent reasonably feasible.
Comment Number: 3
08/04/2020: FOR HEARING
Per 3.2.1 (D.2.A), canopy shade trees should constitute at least 50 percent of all tree plantings. Please
incorporate additional shade tree species in the plant schedule.
Response: We have added more canopy trees to meet the required 50%.
Comment Number: 4
08/04/2020: FOR HEARING
Per LUC 3.2.1 (D(2)), whenever the sidewalk is separated from the street by a parkway, canopy shade
trees should be planted at 30‑40 ft spacing. A lot of the trees along the internal streets are spaced >50’
apart.
Response: The Landscape plan has proved as many street trees as the site will allow considering
driveway, utility separations, and stop sign clearances. A table showing the number of street trees
per linear feet of the road has been provided.
Comment Number: 5
08/04/2020: FOR HEARING
Please coordinate with light and power to obtain the streetlight and electric vault locations. With utilities and
driveway access, the parkway space on this site is fairly limited.
Response: The project team added a preliminary layout of the electric system to the plans. The
lighting layout will be provided at Final Design.
Comment Number: 6
08/04/2020: FOR HEARING
Please include City Forestry’s Street Tree Note on every page of the landscape plan where street trees are
shown.
Response: We’ve added the City Forestry’s street tree note to all landscape sheets.
Comment Number: 7
08/04/2020: FOR HEARING
Page 5 of 11
There is a detached walk and parkway space along Kechter Rd. The landscape plan is not clearly showing
the existing infrastructure. It appears that street trees are proposed behind the walk. Trees should be
planted in the parkway 30‑40 feet apart.
Response: The proposed trees have been moved to Kechter Road parkway space and spaced at 30 -
40’ intervals.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
08/04/2020: For Information:
Funds were collected from the adjacent neighborhood when it came through development to extend
Quasar and Eclipse to the property line."
Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 2
08/04/2020: For Hearing:
The existing driveway on Kechter Road should be closed since it is not being used. It was not apparent in
the utility plan set that it was being removed and replaced with curb and gutter.
Response: The revised plans more clearly note the abandonment of the driveway.
Comment Number: 3
08/04/2020: For Hearing:
Please see and address my redlines.
Response: The revised plans address the redline comments.
Comment Number: 4
08/04/2020: For Final Plan:
Please work with me and Technical Services on vacating the access easement along the western property
line. The first step in this process is reviewing and approving the legal exhibits. Feel free to reach out to me
with questions on this process or visit this website: https://www.fcgov.com/engineering/devrev.php
Response: The easement has been vacated per the attached QuitClaim Deed.
Department: Traffic Operation
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
07/31/2020: FOR HEARING
The TIS has been received and reviewed. The site traffic in the pm peak hour appears to be transposed
between inbound and outbound. Please provide an updated study with corrected numbers/analysis and
any refinements to the conclusions given the higher left turn volumes on Kechter.
Response: Thank you. Please see attached updated TIS dated December 21, 2020.
Page 6 of 11
Comment Number: 2
07/31/2020: FOR HEARING
Obviously, the neighbors are not in favor of vehicular connections at Quasar and Eclipse. If there are any
conversations regarding this, the connection to Quasar would be more helpful that the one to Eclipse in
order to access Lady Moon without significant circuitous routes. Work with the planning d epartment on the
best way forward. If vehicular connections are not made, then they should absolutely be easy, comfortable
and strong bike/ped connections.
Response: The project includes a revised Site Plan that eliminates the Eclipse connection for
vehicles. It maintains a pedestrian and bike connection.
Comment Number: 3
07/31/2020: FOR HEARING
Further conversation is needed to determine the best movements types and/or restripi ng on Kechter for the
access. At this time it is most likely that we'll recommend restriping Kechter with a center turn lane as that
is the intended function of an arterial. Please provide a striping plan so we can determine what the impact
to parking would be if the change is made.
Response: The revised submission includes a restriping plan for review.
Comment Number: 4
07/31/2020: FOR HEARING
There are areas along the internal road system where parking may need to be restricted on one side to
make the roadways usable (30 ft roadways without areas to pass one another). This is likely on the
approach to the access locations, and by the detention pond on the south end. Please clearly indicate in
the plans where parking will be restricted.
Response: There is a short section on Street C with parking on both sides, the road cannot be
widened there without affecting detention volume and the removal of existing cottonwood trees.
Parking spaces have been moved and signed no parking to allow for bypass.
Comment Number: 5
07/31/2020: FOR FINAL
The landscape plans shows trees in close proximity to stop sign locations. Please show stop signs on the
landscape plans, and ensure that trees are at least 50 ft from a stop sign for visibility.
Response: Stop signs have been added to the landscape plans. The proposed trees within the 50’
of the stop sign shall be trimmed to show clear line of site to the signs.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Topic: General
Comment Number: 6
08/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
Rain Garden B, which is being proposed for the required LID mitigation, is located on individual lots rather
than a tract. The City does not allow drainage feature that serve a subdivision to be located on individual
lots, even if a drainage easement is proposed. All drainage infrastructure needs to be located in a tract and
within a drainage easement. Also, the rain garden is severely tightly placed in between two buildings and
Page 7 of 11
in an area that seems to be open space, but may not be neighborhood and user friendly in this location.
Please revise.
Response: The revised submission includes a new Site Plan and relocated Rain Garden B, which is
not located on individual lots.
Comment Number: 7
08/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
Please provide 10 feet of separation between any tree and storm sewer.
Response: Utility conflicts with proposed trees and storm sewer have been adjusted to provide the
10’ separation.
Comment Number: 8
08/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
The quantity detention pond must follow the City's Detention Pond Landscape Standards. With a pond that
has considerable amount of retaining walls, numerous plantings including trees, shrubs, and grasses are
required to help mitigate the retaining walls.
Response: Shrub beds and trees have been added to the ponds retaining wall.
Department: Water‑Wastewater Engineering
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
08/03/2020: No comments.
Department: Erosion Control
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1
07/31/2020: For Final:
Please provide an erosion control report meeting Chapter 2 Section 6.1.4 of the Fort Collins Drainage
Criteria Manual 2019. A copy of that criteria can be found at www.fcgov.com/erosion
Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 2
07/31/2020: For Final:
Please provide an erosion control escrow meeting Chapter 2 Section 6.1.5 of the Fort Collins Drainage
Criteria Manual 2019. A copy of that criteria can be found at www.fcgov.com/erosion
Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 3
07/31/2020: For Final:
Previous projects that hook into older subdivision have shown to incur a large amount of construction traffic
how will this site prevent construction traffic from going through the neighborhood and cause complaints?
The VTC on the north does not support limiting construction vehicles from going through the neighborhood.
Page 8 of 11
Response: The revised plans eliminate the VTC on the north side. The primary construction
access for the project will be from Kechter Road.
Comment Number: 4
07/31/2020: For Final:
Please provide an erosion control escrow meeting Chapter 2 Section 6.1.3 of the Fort Collins Drainage
Criteria Manual 2019. A copy of that criteria can be found at www.fcgov.com/erosion. Upon a cursory
glance Straw Bales are not an acceptable erosion control outlet protection please select an effective control
measure. Please update details to reflect the controls that will be used on site. Also please include
perimeter controls around the lots or blocks of lots to prevent sediment migration after curb and gutter has
been installed. A full review will be conducted at the 1st round FDP please verify that the plans meet the
submittal criteria.
Response: Noted. The revised plans include a Temporary Outlet Protection detail in place of the
Straw Bales.
Comment Number: 5
07/31/2020: Information only:
Based upon the area of disturbance, State permits for stormwater will be required since the site is over an
acre and should be pulled before Construction Activities begin.
Response: Noted.
Department: Light And Power
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
08/03/2020: FOR INFORMATION:
There is an existing 25kVA single‑phase submersible transformer within an oval at the southeast corner of
the site that currently services the existing buildings and the streetlights along Kechter Road. This
transformer can be used to extend power into and through your project.
Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 2
08/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
All public electric facilities will be required to be within either public Right ‑of‑Way or a dedicated easement.
Please show the electrical routing on the Utility Plans. Please see redlines for preliminary design.
Response: The revised submission contains the preliminary design as provided.
Comment Number: 3
08/03/2020: FOR FINAL:
The services to all single‑family attached (duplex, tri‑plex, four‑plex, etc.) will be commercial services;
therefore, the applicant would be responsible for installing the secondary service from the transformer to
Page 9 of 11
the meter and would own and maintain that service. Please show all private services on the plans at Final
Plan.
Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 4
08/03/2020: FOR FINAL:
This project will need to comply with our electric metering standards. Electric meter locations will need to be
coordinated with Light and Power Engineering and shown on the Utility Plans. Residential units will need to
be individually metered. Please gang the electric meters on one side of the building, opposite of the gas
meters. Reference Section 8 of our Electric Service Standards for electric metering standards. A link has
been provided below.
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStandards_FINAL_18November201
6_Amendment.pdf
Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 5
08/03/2020: FOR FINAL:
If the internal streets are public, streetlights will need to be installed along each street. A 40 feet separation
on both sides of the light is required between canopy trees and streetlights. A 15 feet separation on both
sides of the light is required between ornamental trees and streetlights. Please coordinate the light
placement with Light & Power. A link to the City of Fort Collins street lighting require ments can be found
below: https://www.larimer.org/sites/default/files/ch15_2007.pdf
Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 6
08/03/2020: FOR INFORMATION:
If any existing electric infrastructure needs to be relocated or underground as part of this project, it will be at
the expense of the developer and will need to be relocated within a dedicated easement. Please
coordinate relocations with Light and Power Engineering.
Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 7
08/03/2020: FOR INFORMATION:
Please provide adequate space along the streets to ensure proper utility installation and to meet minimum
utility spacing requirements. A minimum of 10 feet separation is required between water, sewer and storm
water facilities. A minimum of 3 feet is required between natural gas.
Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 8
08/03/2020: FOR FINAL:
A commercial service information form (C‑1 form) and a one‑line diagram for the duplex, tri‑plex and
four‑plex buildings will need to be completed and submitted to Light & Power Engineering for review prior to
Page 10 of 11
Final Plan. A link to the C‑1 form is below:
http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils‑procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C‑1Form.pdf
Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 9
08/03/2020: FOR INFORMATION:
Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges and any system modification charges
necessary to feed the site will apply to this development. Please contact me or visit the following website
for an estimate of charges and fees related to this project:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders‑and‑developers/plant‑investment‑development‑fees
Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 10
08/03/2020: FOR FINAL:
Light & Power will require AutoCAD files of the Site Plan, Utility Plans, and Landscape Plans prior to the
Entitlement Process approval.
Response: Noted.
Department: PFA
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
08/05/2020: FOR HEARING ‑ N/A
Prior comments from the conceptual review have been resolved. There ar e no comments for PDP at this
time.
Response: Noted.
Department: Building Services
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 1
08/03/2020: Each Townhomes requires a separate building permit and are required to be fire sprinkled and
must comply with the current IRC code. The state CRS‑9‑5 accessibility will require some accessible units
be provided.
Response: Noted.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970‑221‑6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
08/03/2020: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be
done at FDP.
Response: Noted.
Page 11 of 11
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1
08/03/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide
written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets
and/or in response letter.
Response: The revised submission includes an updated plat that addresses the redline comments.
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Mark Fairchild, Century Link,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
08/04/2020: See attached letter.
Response: Noted.
Contact: Nate Ensley, FCLWD, 970‑226‑3104
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
08/04/2020: Please see our attached comments.
Response: The revised submission includes updated utility plans that address FCLWD’s
comments.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with the City in achieving community-wide housing goals and look
forward to working with you through the development review process. Please feel free to reach out to me
at 303.378.4540 or carrie@mccooldevelopment.com with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
McCOOL DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS
Carrie McCool, Principal
McCool Development Solutions
CC: Ryan Kelly, TWG Development