Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutKECHTER TOWNHOMES - FDP210002 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSApril 28, 2021 City of Fort Collins – Community Development & Neighborhood Services Attn: Ms. Tenae Beane, Development Review Coordinator 280 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524RE:Kechter Townhomes, FDP210002, Round Number 2 Please see the following responses to the summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for the second resubmittal of Kechter Townhomes FDP 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 redbelow. The following documents are included in this resubmittal: Revised Kechter Townhomes Final Project Development Plan (Site Plan and Landscape Plan) Revised Architecturals Revised Subdivision Plat (and Responses to the TS Redline Comments) Revised Utility Plans (and Responses to FCLWD’s Comments) Revised Variance Request Letter Revised C-1 FormsComment Summary:Department: Engineering Development ReviewContact: Dave Betley, 970221-6573, -dbetley@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/16/2021 03/16/2021: For Approval: Have any turning radius been run for delivery trucks, garbage trucks, of fire engines? The curvature built into the knuckles does not appear to meet the LUCASS standards. A Modification to the standards may be needed if the the engineer is looking to design the knuckles out of conformance with LUCASS. The Engineer will need to supply supporting documentation for modification of design such as turning radius of vehicles listed above.Response: See Sheet L4.2 for fire truck turning exhibits.Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/16/20214/22/21: UPDATED FOR APPROVAL: Applicant Expanding the Modification to include all of the driveways. Response: Attached please find an updated variance request letter clarifying that the request applies to all of the driveways.03/16/2021: For Approval: The driveway widths individually do not meet the minimum width of 12 feet. In verifying on the plans, it appears that the minimum width is less than 11 feet. The combined driveway width is equal to a width of 21 feet, which is less then the minimum width of 24 feet as designated by LUCASS Standards. Response: Attached please find an updated variance request letter clarifying that the request applies to all of the driveways.Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/16/20214/22/21: UPDATE FOR APPROVAL: Expanding on the explanation. 03/16/2021: For Information: Please discuss the issues of ground water intrusion and utilities. The soils report states that at one point that all bore holes had water intrusion up to twelve feet. The sewer line ties into the Kechter main at approximately this elevation. There are also locations where some of the underground utilities are at depths of ten feet. The trenching details for the wet utilities calls for a granular backfill. This could promote migration of groundwater in utility trenches, which could lead to premature base failure of the roadway subbase. The engineer needs to discuss the protection of the subbase and the impacts of groundwater and include if check dam design and if needed subdrains. Response: Northern Engineering reviewed the Geotechnical Report Associated with the project(Soil and Foundation Investigation Multi-Family Residence, March 1, 2021 prepared by CTL Thompson) and the proposed sanitary sewer trench is approximately 2-ft above the ground water encounter in the closest test hole (4887 vs 4885). Due to the depths of the utilities, sub-drains will not daylight and are not feasible. Additionally, based on the groundwater relative to the utilities, they don’t appear to be warranted. If groundwater is encountered during excavation for the sanitary sewer, the contractor will need to implement the necessary dewatering mitigation measures, including obtaining a CDPHE groundwater discharge permit. Additionally, the contractor may install clay check dams in the trench after consulting with City and FCLWD inspectors. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/18/202104/18/2021: For Approval: Second Request; The Engineer was asked how a design would address groundwater. Will measures be taken in the utility trenches? Will a dewatering system be needed. The previous question requested the engineer to discuss how this would be addressed. How will the engineer handle this issue? Acknowledged does not provide how the engineer will address the issue if it becomes an issue. Will the Engineer provide a redesign if necessary?Response: See above.Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 04/18/202104/18/2021: For Approval: The cross pan located at Owl Hoot Drive and Wheel House Way has a cross slope of 8.75%. The maximum allowable cross slope within the LUCASS standards is 2.4% Can you please explain this discrepancy and adjust the design to meet LUCASS Standards. Response: The cross slope label was incorrect. The revised plans include the correct cross slope which is within LUCASS Standards.Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 04/19/202104/19/2021: For Approval: Please rewrite the variance for the driveways to include all driveways that do not meet compliance. The current variance is written to sounds as if only a couple of driveways are out of compliance when in fact all of the driveways are out of compliance. The LUCASS criteria for multifamily driveways is 24' while the minimum driveway widths are 12' for -single family homes. The variance should cover all driveways within the subdivision do not meet the minimum criteria. Please adjust accordingly. Please supply a list of the the driveways that are out of compliance and the aspects of the driveways that are out of compliance. This will help supply information for buyers of these units and document transparency in the design of the subdivision. This issue was brought up in previous comments. Response: Attached please find an updated variance request letter clarifying that the request applies to all of the driveways.Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 04/19/202104/19/2021: Can duplexes have a combined water service or does each unit require a different water meter? Response: Yes, the project is proposing to serve each building with a single service and meter.Department: Erosion ControlContact: Basil Hamdan, 970222-1801, -bhamdan@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion ControlComment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/12/202104/21/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: The City Manager’s development review fee schedule under City Code 7.52 was updated to include fees for Erosion Control and Stormwater Inspections. As of January 1st, 2021, these fees will be collected on all projects for such inspections. - The Erosion Control fees are based on; the number of lots, the total site disturbance, the estimated number of years the project will be active and the Stormwater Inspection Fees are based on the number of LID/WQ Features that are designed for on this project. Based on the proposed site construction associated with this project we are assuming 54 lots, 4.68 acres of disturbance, 2 years from demo through build out of construction and an additional 2 years till full vegetative stabilization due to seeding. Which results in an Erosion Control Fee estimate of $3,934.14. Based on 2 bioretention/rain gardens and 1 extended detention basins, the Stormwater LID/WQ Inspection fee is $ 880. I have provided a copy of the spreadsheet used to arrive at these estimates for your review. The fee will need to be provided at the time when erosion control escrow is deposited.Response: Acknowledged. Thank you.Department: Stormwater EngineeringContact: Wes Lamarque, 970416-2418, -wlamarque@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/11/202104/19/2021: AMENDED COMMENT:If the retaining wall design is to be delayed, please add a note on the Grading Plan that a design and building permit will be required before construction. Also, please add a sample detail & crosssection of the retaining wall documenting the aesthetics on the Landscape or Utility Plans. This is needed to ensure the detention basin is meeting the City's Detention Pond Landscape- Standards.Response: The revised plans include the requested note, cross section, and detail.03/11/2021: FOR APPROVAL:The retaining walls for the detention pond needs to be designed during Final Plan and not at a later date.Response: The revised plans include the requested note, cross section, and detail.Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/19/202104/19/2021: FOR APPROVAL:There are two rain garden details in the Utility Plan Set. Please remove Detail 600. This detail is also not consistent with the City's Standard Detail.Response: The revised plans no longer include Detail 600.Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/19/202104/19/2021: FOR APPROVAL:Please add the detailed design information in the table for the EDB Outlet Structure Detail.Response: The revised plans included the requested information in the table.Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/19/202104/19/2021: FOR APPROVAL:The City would like to discuss options with the Forebay detail. This forebay may be difficult to maintain with the riprap bottom. Also, the forebay is not required for the entries into the main detention pond. A standard TRM could be used for these two locations.Response: The revised plans modify the forebays to concrete structures. They also no longer include the forebays in the detention pond. The plans now show TRM at the pipe outlets in the Extended Detention Basin.Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/19/202104/19/2021: FOR APPROVAL:Please label the storm sewer profiles. Also, rain garden A is labeled as "B" on the storm sewer plan sheet.Response: The labels for the storm lines are included between the plan and profile views. The revised plans include additional labels on top of each of the storm profiles.Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/19/202104/19/2021: FOR APPROVAL:Please add more spot elevations for the retaining walls and label TOW and BOW. Also, splitting the retaining wall up more evenly may be better aesthetically rather than having a 2 foot and 6 foot wall.Response: The revised plans include additional spot elevations. Additionally, the wall heights have been modified to the maximum extent possible while still meeting the detention requirements.Department: Outside AgenciesContact: Nate Ensley, Fort Collins Loveland Water District, Topic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/19/202104/19/2021 UPDATE: See attached redlines/comments.03/19/2021: Please see attached redlines/comments.Response: The revised plans address the redline comments.Department: Light And PowerContact: Cody Snowdon, 970416-2306, -csnowdon@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/16/202104/20/2021: FOR DCP:I did not receive any updated C1 Forms. Please revise the C-1 Forms to show a maximum service size of 350 kcmil. Response: Please find revised C-1 forms attached with the resubmittal.03/16/2021: FOR APPROVALThank you for providing the C1 Forms. -In reviewing each C1 Form, it appears that the service sizes seem larger than typically seen for this type of development. Please understand that if a 200-amp service is required for each unit, additional Capacity Fees will be required and could add significant expense to the project. The additional service size could further require the installation of Padmount Transformers in place of the Submersible Transformers Vaults located in the parkway. The installation of all Padmount Transformers will be at the expense of the development. On a few of the C1 Forms it was noted that the secondary service run on a few of the buildings would require the installation of 500 kcmil. Please note that the maximum cable size allowed on single-phase secondary services is 350 kcmil and Submersible Transformers only allow seven dedicated connections.Response: The services are sized to meet the City of Fort Collins’ EV Provision. The project’s electrical engineer changed the cable size to comply with the 350kcmil requirement. Please findrevised C-1 forms attached with the resubmittal.Department: Environmental PlanningContact: Scott Benton, (970)4164290, -sbenton@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/16/202104/22/2021: UPDATED FORDCP: Surveys will be required of the 'unknown raptor nest' identified in the ECS at the time of construction to determine if the nest is being used and by what species.-Response: TWG Development are the General Contractors building the project. We will provide the survey within 72 hours of starting construction to provide adequate time to coordinate with CPW if need be. Further, we will check the nest out before construction (mid-April) for good measure. Survey Update: Cedar Creek Associates were able to survey Kechter for raptor nesting activity on Sunday, April 25, 2021. The known nest onsite was inactive, there was no birds in the nest and no evidence of whitewash around the nest. When leaving the site, an active great horned owl nest was located approximately 0.5 mile west of the property along Kechter road. This bird was getting a lot of attention from local bird watchers. no additional nesting activity onsite or nearby the site was observed. Cedar Creek Associates will email the basic details of the survey results (date, weather, time of day, etc.).Department: ForestryContact: Nils Saha, nsaha@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/16/20214/20/2021: FOR APPROVALUPDATED-With the proposed transplanting of the linden tree on Quasar, it is not entirely clear whether the second ramp will stay in place. If so, it appears that the tree will be placed 3’ from the ramp, which is too close to allow proper growth of the tree. Please allow additional space between the tree and ramp. Response: The existing ramp will be removed allowing adequate space for the relocated tree.03/16/2021: FOR APPROVALThe plans still show a conceptual location for the offsite ramp on Quaser. When will the final location be determined? If a site visit needs to be coordinated with forestry and engineering to determine the final location, please reach out to the DRC for scheduling.Response: See response above.Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/16/20214/20/2021: FOR APPROVAL UPDATED-Please note that within the dripline of any tree, no cut or fill over 4” is permitted, per Forestry’s Tree Protection Standard. The critical root zone of this tree is more than double the drip line shown on the plan set. We expect there to be roots throughout the critical root zone. The proposed 15” fill for the driveway, which is within the interior critical root zone (~45’ radius), will lead to compaction. In general, any impact within the interior critical root zone is likely to have significant impacts on the health of a tree. Significant efforts have been made to preserve this particular tree, and Forestry would like to ensure that it is protected adequately throughout the construction phase. Please add/modify the following note to the site/landscape and demo plan sets: A site visit must be scheduled with Forestry prior to any work being performed within the critical root zone of tree #1. Additional strategies such as hydroexcavation, structural soil base, supplemental watering etc. may be required to expose roots and mitigate impacts on the root system. Response: Since there are several ways to address the construction in the critical root zone we feel it is best handled with Forestry and the general contractor prior to construction within the critical root zone. We have added the following note to sheet L3.220.EXCAVATION AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE WILL NEED TO BE COORDINATED WITH THE CITY FORESTRY DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE.03/16/2021: FOR APPROVALPrior to hearing, Forestry recommended exploring the following to mitigate impacts to the root system of the northwest tree. 1.Is it possible to build up/slope the driveway rather than excavate within the CRZ?2.Hydroexcavation may be required to expose roots. Have you considered #1 above as a potential strategy?Response: See response above. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/20/202104/20/2021: FOR APPROVALPlease see redlinesResponse: Tree species have been adjusted. A street tree was added to Kechter. Department: Technical ServicesContact: Jeff County, 970221-6588, -jcounty@fcgov.comTopic: Building ElevationsComment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/15/202104/20/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:There are line over text issues. See redlines.03/15/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:There are line over text issues. See redlines.Response: Line over text issues have been resolved.Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/15/202104/20/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:There are text over text issues. See redlines.03/15/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:There are text over text issues. See redlines.Response: Line over text issues have been resolved.Topic: Construction DrawingsComment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/15/202104/20/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL_UNRESOLVED:Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the noted sheets. See redlines.03/15/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the noted sheets. See redlines.Response: The sheet title of Sheet R3 has been revised to match the cover sheet.Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/15/202104/20/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL_UPDATED:There are line over text issues. See redlines.03/15/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:There are line over text issues. See redlines.Response: Line over text issues have been resolved.Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/15/202104/20/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL_UPDATED:There are text over text issues. See redlines.03/15/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:There are text over text issues. See redlines.Response: Line over text issues have been resolved.Topic: PlatComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/15/202104/19/2021: 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 plat has been updated to address the redline comments.03/15/2021: 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 plat has been updated to address the redline comments.Department: Building ServicesContact: Russell Hovland, 970416-2341, -rhovland@fcgov.comTopic: Building Insp Plan ReviewComment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/15/2021Construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended. Current adopted codes are:2018 International Residential Code (IRC) with local amendments2018 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado2020 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of ColoradoCopies of current City of Fort Collins code amendments can be found at fcgov.com/building.Please read the residential permit application submittal checklist for complete requirements.Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF.Frost Depth: 30 inches.Wind Loads: Risk Category II (most structures):· 140mph (Ultimate) exposure B or· Front Range Gust Map published by The Structural Engineer's Association of  Seismic Design: Category B.Climate Zone: Zone 5Energy Code: 2018 IRC chapter 11.Response: Noted. Thank you. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: · 3ft setback required from property line or provide fire rated walls & openings per chap 3 of the IRC.· Bedroom egress windows (emergency escape openings) required in all bedrooms.· Prescriptive energy compliance with increased insulation values is required for buildings using electric heat.· Attached singlefamily townhomes are required to be fire sprinkled per local -amendment and must provide a P2904 system min and provide fire rated wall per R302. This fire sprinkler system usually requires a ¾” or 1” water line and meter to meet all P2904 requirements. FCLWD water district usually requires a 13D fire sprinkler system with a separate fire water line.-· New homes must provide EV/PV ready conduit, see local amendment if garages are attached.· Provide sitewide accessibility plan in accordance with CRS 9-5. This requires -accessible units per that state standard.Stock Plans:When residential buildings will be built at least three times with limited variations, a stock plan design or master plan can be submitted for a single review and then built multiple times with site specific permits. More information can be found in our Stock Plan Guide at fcgov.com/building/resrequirements.php.-Response:Noted. Thank you.