HomeMy WebLinkAboutPOLESTAR VILLAGE - PDP220010 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
Page 1 of 29
Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6689 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview
December 02, 2022
Ken Merritt
JR Planners & Engineers
2900 S College Ave Suite 3D
Fort Collins, CO 80525
RE: Polestar Village, PDP220010, Round Number 2
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing
agencies for your submittal of Polestar Village. If you have questions about any comments,
you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through your
Development Review Coordinator, Brandy Bethurem Harras via phone at 970-416-2744 or
via email at bbethuremharras@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Development Review Coordinator
Contact: Brandy Bethurem Harras, 970-416-2744, bbethuremharras@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/26/2022
11/22/2022: INFORMATION - UPDATED:
I will be filling in for Tenae while she is on leave. Please utilize me, and have
your team utilize me as the main point of contact for your project. Reach out
with any questions or issues. Thanks, Brandy (bbethuremharras@fcgov.com)
JR Response: Noted
07/26/2022: INFORMATION:
I will be your primary point of contact throughout the development review and
permitting process. If you have any questions, need additional meetings with the
project reviewers, or need assistance throughout the process, please let me
know and I can assist you and your team. Please include me in all email
correspondence with other reviewers and keep me informed of any phone
conversations. Thank you!
Page 2 of 29
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/26/2022
07/26/2022: INFORMATION:
As part of your resubmittal, you will respond to the comments provided in this
letter. This letter is provided to you in Microsoft Word format. Please use this
document to insert responses to each comment for your submittal, using a
different font color. When replying to the comment letter please be detailed in
your responses, as all comments should be thoroughly addressed. Provide
reference to specific project plans or explanations of why comments have not
been addressed, when applicable, avoiding responses like noted or acknowledged.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/26/2022
07/26/2022: INFORMATION:
Please follow the Electronic Submittal Requirements and File Naming
Standards found at https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/electronic
submittal requirements and file naming standards_v1_8 1 19.pdf?1566857888.
File names should begin with the file type, followed by the project information,
and round number.
Example: UTILITY PLANS_PROJECT NAME_PDP_Rd2.pdf
File type acronyms maybe appropriate to avoid extremely long file names.
Example: TIS for Traffic Impact Study, ECS for Ecological Characterization Study.
*Please disregard any references to paper copies, flash drives, or CDs.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/26/2022
07/26/2022: INFORMATION:
All plans should be saved as optimized/flattened PDFs to reduce file size and remove layers.
Per the Electronic Submittal Requirements AutoCAD SHX attributes need to be
removed from the PDF’s.
AutoCAD turns drawing text into comments that appear in the PDF plan set,
and these must be removed prior to submittal as they can cause issues with the
PDF file. The default setting is "1" ("on") in AutoCAD. To change the setting
and remove this feature, type "EPDFSHX" (2016.1 version) or “PDFSHX” in the
command line and enter "0".
Read this article at Autodesk.com for more tips on this topic:
https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad/troubleshooting/caas/sfdcarti
cles/sfdcarticles/Drawing-text-appears-as-Comments-in-a-PDF-created-by-Aut oCAD.html
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/26/2022
07/26/2022: INFORMATION:
Resubmittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being
the cut-off for routing the same week. When you are ready to resubmit your
plans, please notify me with as much advanced notice as possible.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/26/2022
07/26/2022: INFORMATION:
Please resubmit within 180 days, approximately 6 months, to avoid the
expiration of your project.
(LUC 2.211 Lapse, Rounds of Review).
Page 3 of 29
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 07/26/2022
07/26/2022: FOR HEARING:
All "For Hearing" comments need to be addressed and resolved prior to
moving forward with scheduling the Hearing. Staff will need to agree the project
is ready for Hearing approximately 4 to 8 weeks prior to the hearing.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 07/26/2022
07/26/2022: FOR HEARING:
This proposed project is processing as a Type 2 Development Plan. The
decision maker for Type 2 is the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission. For
the hearing, we will formally notify surrounding property owners within 800 feet
(excluding public right-of-way and publicly owned open space). Staff will need
to agree the project is ready for Hearing approximately 3-5 weeks prior to the
hearing. I have attached the P&Z schedule, which has key dates leading up to the hearing.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/23/2022
11/23/2022: 11/23/2022: INFORMATION:
ANY project that requires four or more rounds of review would be subject to an
additional fee of $3,000.00.
JR Response: Noted
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/29/2022
11/29/2022: FOR HEARING, WITH DISCUSSION NEEDED: The walkway
framework in the south part of the plan needs to be connected and smoothed to
create a clear legible space and walkway route to the south to connect to
Elizabeth Street. This is a crucial component of the whole framework. The site
plan appears to show a vestige of the Round 1 submittal across the property to
the south that would not be workable. This needs fresh significant attention as
part of the urban design framework of the neighborhood that buildings fit into;
and a crucial transportation link for now and into the future.
JR Response: Walk Updated per city direction and discussions. A future walk connection to Elizabeth is
shown on the plans but will likely need to be dedicated by separate instrument by others at the time of the
Mulberry Corridor Plan is constructed.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/29/2022
11/29/2022: FOR HEARING - Minor walkway alignments:
Align the walks/ramps at the western knuckle corner. Ease the Group Home
walkway route. I will send images to explain this and also the comment above.
JR Response: Walk Updated per city direction and discussions
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/29/2022
11/29/2022: Easy question: what's the hatched area in front of the B&B? (Label that)
JR Response: Specialty Pavement (On Site Plan Sheet)
Page 4 of 29
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/29/2022
11/29/2022: Question for the meeting: There are buildings along the curve in
Plum St. with no associated off-street parking. - C2 and D12 behind the mixed
use building. Is the idea to rely on street parking, or walking to and from parking lots?
Contact: Pete Wray, 970-221-6754, pwray@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/25/2022
FOR INFORMATION:
I assume you are aware of the urban agriculture provisions and limitations
mentioned in the first-round comments. Urban agriculture shall mean gardening
or farming involving any kind of lawful plant, whether for personal consumption,
sale and/or donation, except that the term urban agriculture does not include the
cultivation, storage and sale of crops, vegetables, plants and flowers produced
on the premises in accordance with Section 3.8.1 of this Code. Urban
agriculture is a miscellaneous use that does not include plant nursery and
greenhouse as a principal use and that is subject to licensing in accordance
with Section 3.8.31 of this Code. An accessory use may include: cultivation,
storage and sale of crops, vegetables, plants and flowers produced on the premises.
Since the proposed Wellness Center is a Group Home, it should conform to the
lot area and separation requirements in the LMN and not have more than 6
residents for the minimum lot area and maximum permissible residents of 8.
Before any group home shall be approved in any zone that requires a Type 1 or
Type 2 review, the decision maker shall conduct such review for the purpose of
approving, denying or approving with conditions the application for a group
home use in such zone. If approved, the decision maker shall, with such
approval, establish the type of group home permitted and the maximum number
of residents allowed in such group home.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/25/2022
FOR HEARING:
We will need to explain how the proposed non-residential buildings are
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. A previous comment stated that
the architectural style is not reflective of local design styles, materials and colors
of the established neighborhood. Let's follow up to discuss and clarify findings
for a hearing.
JR Response: Addressed
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/25/2022
FOR HEARING - LMN zone standards: Access to a small public or private
1-acre neighborhood park: this is a standard for 90% of the units to be within
1/3 mile of a small park. Thank you for noting the distance to Rogers Park, and I
do not see any problem but we should be prepared to explain if any question comes up.
Page 5 of 29
We also need to address how the plan complies with a standard for a maximum
block size of 12 acres.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/25/2022
FOR HEARING: It looks like the building variation standards are met with
architectural elevations and entrance features, within a coordinated overall
theme of roof forms, massing proportions and other characteristics. For the
hearing staff report, I will need to address these standards in Sections 3.5.2 and 3.8.30.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/25/2022
FOR HEARING:
Proximity to trash enclosures: Make sure trash and recycling enclosures are
convenient to all building entrances.
JR Response: Noted and several have been relocated to better serve the proposed units
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 07/25/2022
FOR FINAL PLAN: Lighting Plan
I will confirm the lumen budget, BUG ratings and 3000k color temp. for fixtures. I
don't see a convenient table listing these ratings. For follow-up to confirm.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/25/2022
FOR HEARING: Relationship of Dwellings to Streets - (subsection 3.5.2(D))
I see several buildings (B2, B3 types) in rear areas relative to the street that are
right at the fine margin of needing a modification of the standard for orientation
to a street with a 'Connecting Walkway' as defined with a straight clear path to
the street sidewalk without going around a building. I will confirm whether we
need to include a modification request for the hearing staff report. I do not see a
problem because of the walkway framework that is provided.
JR Response: Noted
A multi-family building with 4 or more units that has a side/end facade facing a
street, is required to have a doorway.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 07/26/2022
INFORMATION ONLY:
I have announced my retirement from the city and last day is August 12. The
planner taking over for me is Clark Mapes for the remainder of the review
process. I want to share I have enjoyed working the applicant team to date and
on previous projects over the years.
Department: Historic Preservation
Contact: Jim Bertolini, 970-416-4250, jbertolini@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Page 6 of 29
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/21/2022
07/26/2022: PRESUBMITTAL:
The historic survey requirement is waived. There are no properties on the
development site. There is a potentially historic property on an abutting property
(2820 W. Elizabeth), but the designs for the project within the Historic Influence
Area meet the design requirements of LUC 3.4.7(E), Table 1, Column A. As a
result the property at 2820 W Elizabeth may remain unevaluated but treated as
Eligible for the purposes of this project review.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/21/2022
07/26/2022: FOR HEARING:
With the potentially historic property (officially unevaluated) at 2820 W Elizabeth
as the key reference point, the project components that lie within the Historic
Influence Area, specifically the Agricultural Building and the B2c-variant
townhouses, comply with the design compatibility requirements of 3.4.7(E),
Table 1, Column A. Staff analysis as follows:
Massing & Articulation 1: The Agricultural Building is generally similar in width
and height, and is set back from Elizabeth Street significantly (accessed from
the north via W. Plum Street). The townhouses are of similar size and scale as
the 2820 W Elizabeth farmhouse.
Massing & Articulation 2: Both the townhouses and Agricultural building are set
back and will have minimal/no visibility from W. Elizabeth Street.
Building Materials 3: All four new structures in the Historic Influence Area
appear to be using durable materials, such as metal and wood, to clad their
exteriors. The use of vinyl for glazing is discouraged due to the products poor
performance/durability in the long-term.
Building Materials 4: The Agricultural building uses metal cladding for most of
its exterior, not uncommon for functional outbuildings such as those found
currently/formerly on the 2820 W. Elizabeth – this meets the requirement under
the type, scale, three-dimensionality, and pattern sections. The B2c-variant
townhouses use lapboard cladding for most of their exterior, similar to the
horizontal wood siding on the 2820 W Elizabeth farmhouse – this meets the
requirements under the type, scale, three-dimensionality, and pattern sections.
Façade Details 5: For the Agricultural Building, the compatibility is conjectural
to what were likely outbuildings on the former farm site, and includes a similar
design as a typical early/mid-20th century metal barn. The B2c-variant
townhomes provide a similar, one-over-one sash window pattern with similar
proportions to the 2820 W Elizabeth farmhouse. The use of fiberglass instead
of vinyl is encouraged as vinyl generally has poor performance with localized
weathering patterns (hail, wind, and UV exposure).
Façade Details 6: The B2c-variant townhomes use similar gable roof
references to the 2820 W Elizabeth farmhouse, with similar belt courses
Page 7 of 29
breaking the first and second floor.
Visibility of Historic Resources – The resources are north of the 2820 W
Elizabeth property and will have no effect on the visibility of this property from
West Elizabeth Street.
JR Response: Previously Addressed
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Tim Dinger, , tdinger@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/22/2022
11/16/2022: FOR NEXT SUBMITTAL:
Please see redlines for additional plan comments.
JR Response: Noted, see redline responses.
07/22/2022: FOR NEXT SUBMITTAL:
Please see redlines for additional plan comments.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/22/2022
11/22/2022: FOR HEARING:
There are several sheets that have a project name of "Polestar Gardens", instead
of "Polestar Village". Please be consistent with the project title across the plan set.
JR Response: Noted, see redline responses.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/22/2022
11/22/2022: FOR HEARING:
There are several places where the lot numbers from the plat do not match the
lot numbers shown on the utility plan. The plat is a legal document, so please
ensure the utility plan lot numbers match the plat.
JR Response: Lot numbers have been updated to match plat.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/22/2022
11/22/2022: FOR HEARING:
What happened to the perimeter trail that was previously designed along the
west and southwest portions of the site? This hard-surface trail was supposed
to partially encircle the site, and provide a pedestrian connection to Elizabeth Street.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/22/2022
11/22/2022: FOR HEARING:
All sidewalks, sidewalk ramps, and driveways are required be ADA compliant across the site.
JR Response: All sidewalks, ramps
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Steve Gilchrist, 970-224-6175, sgilchrist@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/28/2022
Page 8 of 29
11/28/2022: FOR HEARING:
The Traffic Impact Study has been received and reviewed. We will finalize as
items are addressed.
Comment responses for you Round 1 submittal indicated that Traffic comments
were still being finalized and would be sent separately. If those were provided
separately, please provide responses.
JR Response: We did ask Nicole Hahn for the traffic comments, but she never provided any.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/28/2022
11/28/2022: FOR HEARING:
The TIS does not address the level of services for bikes and pedestrians to get
to transit facilities. Will there be an access to Elizabeth and the future enhanced
travel corridor?
JR Response: The future connection to Elizabeth is not being constructed with this project. A stub will be
built as shown on the plans where the future connection to Elizabeth will be constructed.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/28/2022
11/28/2022: FOR HEARING:
The lots for the single family homes along Orchard do not detail driveway
locations. It might be helpful to know the approximate location/size to help
determine landscaping, allowable parking, and access locations.
JR Response: We do not typically add driveway locations since we do not know what the future
configuration of the single family homes will be.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/28/2022
11/28/2022: FOR HEARING:
ADA accessible ramps will be needed on the south side of Orchard at Locust
Grove and Louise, which will need to align with a directional ramp on one of the
corners on the north side.
JR Response: ADA accessible ramps added
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/28/2022
11/28/2022: FOR HEARING:
Can you provide details on the proposed crossings at the neck downs? Are
these going to be stamped concrete?
JR Response: Enhanced pedestrian crossing is scored concrete at neckdown. See detail 18-1, sheet 27.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/28/2022
11/28/2022: FOR HEARING:
Trees should not be planted within 50 feet on the approach to Stop signs to
allow for adequate sight distance.
JR Response: Noted
Department: Stormwater Engineering – Erosion Control
Contact: Andrew Crecca, , acrecca@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 112 Comment Originated: 11/03/2022
11/03/2022: INFORMATION:
This project is located within the City's MS4 boundaries and is subject to the
erosion control requirements located in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria
Page 9 of 29
Manual (FCSCM), Chapter 2, Section 6.0. A copy of those requirements can be
found at www.fcgov.com/erosion.This project was evaluated based upon the
submittal requirements of FCSCM.
Based upon the provided materials we were able to determine a total disturbed area.
Based upon the area of disturbance or this project is part of a larger common
development, State permits for stormwater will be required should be pulled
before Construction Activities begin.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 113 Comment Originated: 11/03/2022
11/03/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN:
Based upon the supplied materials, site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft. and/or
meets one of the other triggering criteria (sensitive area, steep slopes, or larger
common development) that would require Erosion and Sediment Control
Materials to be submitted.
Please provide an erosion control plan for 'Final Plan or Approval Submittal'.
This project disturbs 5 or more acres so erosion control phasing materials will
need to be provided in the erosion control plans, reports and escrow. Please
ensure that the Erosion Control Plans, Escrows, and Reports include phasing
requirements (FCSCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.3, 6.1.4, & 6.1.5)
Based upon the supplied materials, site disturbs more than 1 acre or is part of a
larger common development that requires Erosion and Sediment Control
Report to be submitted. Please submit an Erosion Control Report to meet City
Criteria (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.4) at time of Final Plan or Approval Submittal.
Based upon the supplied materials, an Erosion Control Escrow Calculation will
need to be provided. Please submit an Erosion Control Escrow / Security
Calculation based upon the accepted Erosion Control Plans to meet City
Criteria (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.5) at time of Final Plan or Approval Submittal.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 114 Comment Originated: 11/03/2022
11/03/2022: Fees:
The City Manager’s development review fee schedule under City Code 7.5-2
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. Based on the proposed site construction associated with this project we
are assuming 119 lots, 20.51 acres of disturbance, 3 years from demo through
build out of construction and an additional 3.00 years till full vegetative
stabilization due to seeding. Which results in an Erosion Control Fee estimate of $6,620.31 .
Please note that as the plans and any subsequent review modifications of the
above-mentioned values change the fees may need to be modified. I have
provided a copy of the spreadsheet used to arrive at these estimates for you to
review. Please respond to this comment with any changes to these assumed
estimates and why, so that we may have a final fee estimate ready for this
project. The fee will need to be provided at the time of erosion control escrow.
The Stormwater Inspection Fees are based on the number of LID/WQ Features
that are designed for on this project. Based on the plans we identified 0 number
of porous pavers, 5 number of bioretention/level spreaders, 1 number of
extended detention basins, and 0 number of underground treatments, results in
an estimate of the Stormwater LID/WQ Inspection fee to be $ $1,825.00 .
Page 10 of 29
Please note that as the plans and any subsequent review modifications of the
above-mentioned values change the fees may need to be modified. I have
provided a copy of the spreadsheet used to arrive at these estimates for you to review.
Please respond to this comment with any changes to these assumed estimates
and why, so that we may have a final fee estimate ready for this project. The fee
will need to be provided at the time of erosion control escrow. "
` JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 115 Comment Originated: 11/03/2022
11/03/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN:
Please Review all comments in attached ESC Packet
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 116 Comment Originated: 11/03/2022
11/03/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN:
Please Note that the pre-2019 standard erosion control notes are outdated and
need to be updated to the current 2019 standard per FCSCM Ch 2 Sec 6.1.3.4
JR Response: Noted
Contact: Basil Hamdan, 970-222-1801, bhamdan@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/20/2022
07/20/2022: INFORMATION:
This project is located within the City's MS4 boundaries and is subject to the
erosion control requirements located in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria
Manual (FCSCM), Chapter 2, Section 6.0. A copy of those requirements can be
found at www.fcgov.com/erosion .
This project was evaluated based upon the submittal requirements of FCSCM.
Based upon the provided materials we were able to determine a total disturbed area.
Based upon the area of disturbance or this project is part of a larger common
development, State permits for stormwater will be required should be pulled
before Construction Activities begin.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/20/2022
07/20/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN:
Please note that the supplied plans are sufficient for a PDP level submittal.
Based upon the supplied materials, site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft. and/or
meets one of the other triggering criteria (sensitive area, steep slopes, or larger
common development) that would require Erosion and Sediment Control
Materials to be submitted.
Please provide an erosion control plan for 'Final Plan or Approval Submittal'.
This project disturbs 5 or more acres so erosion control phasing materials will
need to be provided in the erosion control plans, reports and escrow. Please
ensure that the Erosion Control Plans, Escrows, and Reports include phasing
requirements (FCSCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.3, 6.1.4, & 6.1.5)
Page 11 of 29
Based upon the supplied materials, site disturbs more than 1 acre or is part of a
larger common development that requires Erosion and Sediment Control
Report to be submitted. Please submit an Erosion Control Report to meet City
Criteria (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.4) at time of Final Plan or Approval Submittal.
Based upon the supplied materials, an Erosion Control Escrow Calculation will
need to be provided. Please submit an Erosion Control Escrow / Security
Calculation based upon the accepted Erosion Control Plans to meet City
Criteria (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.5) at time of Final Plan or Approval Submittal.
JR Response: Noted
Topic: Fees
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/20/2022
07/20/2022: INFORMATION:
The City Manager’s development review fee schedule under City Code 7.5-2
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.
Based on the proposed site construction associated with this project we are
assuming 119 lots, 20.51 acres of disturbance, 3 years from demo through
build out of construction and an additional 3 years until full vegetative
stabilization due to seeding. Which results in an Erosion Control Fee estimate of $6,620.31
The Stormwater Quality Inspection Fees are based on the number of LID/WQ
Features that are designed for on this project. Based on the plans we identified
5 bioretention/rain gardens, 1 extended detention basin, the estimate of the
Stormwater LID/WQ Inspection fee to be $1,825.00. Please note that as the
plans and any subsequent review modifications of the above-mentioned values
change the fees may need to be modified.
I have provided a copy of the spreadsheet used to arrive at these estimates for your review.
JR Response: Noted
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Claudia Quezada, (970)416-2494, cquezada@fcgov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 07/25/2022
11/29/2022: FOR HEARING - UPDATED:
Please include the notes below on the drainage plan as well (sheet 16). thank you
07/25/2022: Please include the following notes on the site plan and
drainage/grading plan:
• This property is located within a City regulated 100-year Canal Importation
floodplain and floodway and must comply with Chapter 10 of the City Municipal Code.
• Residential uses in the 100-year floodplain must be elevated above the
regulatory flood protection elevation. Residential uses are prohibited within the floodway.
• A Floodplain Use permit is required for any work within the 100-year
Page 12 of 29
floodplain. A No-Rise Certification is required for any work within the floodway.
• Critical Facilities are prohibited within the 100-year floodplain.
• The applicant is aware that the current plan does not meet regulatory
floodplain requirements as proposed and is continuing through the planning
process at the applicant’s own risk. Building and construction permits for
structures not meeting floodplain requirements will be held up if the LOMR is not regulatory.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/27/2022
12/01/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN - UPDATED: Please address redlines.
07/27/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN:
Please see redlines for minor comments.
JR Response: Updated.
Comment Number: 118 Comment Originated: 12/01/2022
12/01/2022: FOR HEARING - Staff must be comfortable that the proposed
design for the floodplain is reasonable prior to hearing. Please submit the
CLOMR floodplain modeling and mapping for review. The information provided
with the latest submittal is incomplete and does not meet our modeling and
mapping guidelines
htps://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/floodplain-moeling-rep
ort-guidelines.pdf?1522697631
JR Response: Noted.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Matt Simpson, (970) 416-2754, masimpson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 117 Comment Originated: 11/29/2022
11/29/2022:
Updated Stormwater and Water/Wastewater comments will not be included with
the Polestar development review comments this week. We apologize for this
inconvenience, however, please expect direct follow-up over email next week (12/5 – 12/9).
JR Response: JR Engineering worked offline with Matt Simpson, Dan Mogen and Ted Bender to revise
SWMM models and drainage assumptions for this project. SWMM modeling has been approved by Matt
Simpson and integrated in to both the drainage report and the CLOMR. Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-305-5989, dmogen@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 101
12/09/2022: FOR FINAL - UPDATED:
Thank you for your response. I understand an under-drain system will be
designed at final design to lower the site’s groundwater elevations and show
separations are met.
07/27/2022: A minimum of 2 feet of anticipated separation is required from
groundwater to proposed stormwater facilities including detention ponds and
rain gardens. The information provided shows depths to groundwater vary on
the site, recently from 4 to 22 feet, and that ongoing monitoring is being
conducted to determine a proposed mitigation strategy. Please provide
information when available to show adequate separation from proposed
facilities.
JR Response: Yes. Noted.
Page 13 of 29
Comment Number: 102
12/09/2022: FOR FINAL - UPDATED:
Thank you for providing letters from the adjacent property owners regarding the
outfall. I understand easements will be provided for final approval.
Please see redlines regarding private/public ownership of storm infrastructure.
07/27/2022: Please identify ownership and maintenance responsibilities for
proposed stormwater infrastructure. Please note the proposed interim pond
outfall is private and will require an easement from adjacent property owners.
JR Response: Storm sewer infrastructure in the ROW will be public storm sewer. Storm sewer
infrastructure in the tracts will be private. The interim pond outfall is private and will require an easement
from adjacent property owners. A note has been added to the grading plan stating that “ the interim pond
outfall is private and will require an easement from adjacent property owners”. A note has been added to
the overall utility plan “ All storm drainage improvements with drainage easements will be owned and
maintained by the home owners association. All storm drainage within public right of way will be owned and
maintained by the City of Fort Collins.
Comment Number: 103
12/09/2022: FOR FINAL - UPDATED:
Is phasing proposed?
07/27/2022: If portions of the project will be phased for public improvements,
including stormwater, please include a phasing plan in the utility plan set.
JR Response: No phasing planned.
Comment Number: 104
12/09/2022: FOR HEARING - UPDATED:
Coordination regarding the proposed wetland is needed to meet the
requirements of both Stormwater and Environmental Planning. Please contact
us to discuss.
07/27/2022: It appears a wetland will be required to be mitigated based on the
removed wetland shown on the demolition plan. Where will this wetland be
mitigated; will it impact the proposed pond?
JR Response: EX. WETLAND AREA TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITHIN 50' NATURAL
HABITAT BUFFER. SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS AND EIS FOR ADDITIONAL DETAIL.
Comment Number: 105
12/13/2022: FOR HEARING - UPDATED:
Thank you for providing models as well as responses to requests for additional
information. The responses are currently being reviewed, and a response will
be provided when available.
07/27/2022: Please provide updated EPA SWMM model for review of
compliance with site and master plan requirements including release rate and
detention volume.
JR Response: Updated. SWMM model has been provided and has been reviewed internally by City staff
and JR has worked with City staff to incorporate the SWMM model into the Floodplain modeling report. .
Comment Number: 106
12/09/2022: FOR HEARING - UPDATED:
Please see redlined LID exhibit for responses and requested clarification.
07/27/2022: Water quality treatment is required for the entire site and can be
achieved thru a combination of methods including Low Impact Development
Page 14 of 29
(LID) facilities. Please show how water quality is provided for the site. Please
see redlines for additional information.
JR Response: Updated. Please refer to the updated LID exhibit.
Comment Number: 107
12/09/2022: FOR HEARING - UPDATED:
A sand filter has now been proposed in place of the rain garden. Please
reconsider the rain garden. While both sand filters and rain gardens technically
meet LID requirements, rain gardens generally have equal or better water
quality results than sand filters and also offer the opportunity for improved
aesthetics with landscaping. Sand filters are most-often used in less visible
areas such as those not exposed to the sun and industrial areas.
07/27/2022: The northwest rain garden is positioned directly downstream of a
spillway and presents concerns for washout, damage, and increased
maintenance. How is overflow runoff from the adjacent pond/spillway
anticipated to impact the rain garden including long term performance and
maintenance needs?
JR Response: A rain garden has been added here and the sand filter has been removed. The Spillway over
flow path has been armored with riprap. The raingarden will be maintained by the development’s HOA.
Comment Number: 109
12/09/2022: FOR HEARING - UPDATED:
Please see redlines regarding the use of plants in the rain gardens.
07/27/2022: More detail about proposed rain garden landscaping is needed.
Please provide details in the landscape plans of proposed plantings in these
areas.
JR Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 110
12/09/2022: FOR HEARING - UPDATED:
Please clarify these tracts as drainage easements. It is not clear that drainage
"usage" is equivalent to drainage easement. Please see redlined plat for
reference.
07/27/2022: Drainage easements are needed for the proposed drainage
facilities. It appears Tracts A & B cover all proposed facilities. Are these tracts
dedicated as drainage easements? Please clarify on the plat.
JR Response: Updated.
Comment Number: 111
12/09/2022: FOR HEARING - UPDATED:
Please see updates redlines and contact me to set up a time to review.
07/27/2022: Please see redlines. I encourage you to reach out with any
questions or to review potential revisions, and I’d be happy to set up a meeting
or conference call to do so.
JR Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 112
12/09/2022: FOR FINAL:
Please submit variance request regarding spillways. Variance application was
not seen in drainage report or email.
JR Response: Spillway variance request was approved with conditions associated with CLOMR review.
Comment Number: 113
12/09/2022: FOR HEARING:
Page 15 of 29
Please clarify the proposed wetwell for cottonwood tree and its impact on the
stormwater system.
JR Response: The proposed wetwell for the cottonwood tree is there to provide irrigation for the tree’s root
system by providing a source of water that will fill up within a storm event and percolate the soil to water the
tree. The overflow for the tree and wetwell will drain directly into the interim Polestar storm detention
facility.JR engineering is currently working with the City’s Forrestry department to ensure the tree gets
proper irrigation since cotton woods typically have a higher demand for water.
Contact: Ted Bender, ,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/27/2022
07/27/2022: FOR HEARING:
SW Master Planning- Please ensure the bottom of the detention pond is at least
24” above the groundwater elevation. Please see Chapter 8 page 9 of the
2018 Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual.
JR Response: Old Comment - Comment addressed on 10/26/22 Submittal. See revised Drainage Report
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/27/2022
07/27/2022: FOR HEARING:
SW Master Planning- Please provide proposed conditions SWMM model.
JR Response: Old Comment - SWMM modeling has been updated per conversations/meetings/reviews
with Matt Simpson
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/27/2022
07/27/2022: FOR HEARING:
SW Master Planning- Please detail how the 17.249 ac-ft of storage volume
was determined (PDF page 118 of the Drainage report). The master planned
regional pond volume plus the Polestar development volume is all that is
required at this site. Please speak to this grading and how it applies to the
2022 master planned intent in the drainage report.
JR Response: Old Comment - Comment addressed on 10/26/22 Submittal. See revised Drainage report
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/27/2022
07/27/2022: FOR HEARING:
SW Master Planning- Hydraulic modeling via the planned CLOMR will be reviewed by
the City to verify the width and depth of the proposed spillway at the detention ponds.
JR Response: Old Comment - Comment addressed on 10/26/22 Submittal - CLOMR will be resubmitted
separately.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/27/2022
07/27/2022: FOR HEARING:
SW Master Planning- Will bedrock prohibit regional detention pond depth?
JR Response: Old Comment - Comment addressed on 10/26/22 Submittal. PER THE GEOTECH REPORT
BORING LOGS IT APPEARS THE BOTTOM OF THE REGIONAL POND IN THE ULTIMATE CONDITION
(5098.00) WILL ENCOUNTER CLAYSTONE AT THE 5100.50 ELEVATION. CLAYSTONE CAN BE
REMOVED WITH AN EXCAVATOR.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/27/2022
07/27/2022: FOR HEARING:
SW Master Planning- Please confirm water table was encountered below
bedrock depth in boring pits?
JR Response: Old Comment - Comment addressed on 10/26/22 Submittal. OBSERVED WATER LEVELS
WERE ENCOUNTERED BELOW BEDROCK DEPTH, SEE PRELIM GEOTECH REPORT
Page 16 of 29
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/27/2022
07/27/2022: FOR HEARING:
SW Master Planning- Please see redline comments in PDF documentation.
JR Response: Old Comment - Comment addressed on 10/26/22 Submittal.
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Matt Simpson, (970) 416-2754, masimpson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/29/2022
11/29/2022:
Updated Stormwater and Water/Wastewater comments will not be included with
the Polestar development review comments this week. We apologize for this
inconvenience, however, please expect direct follow-up over email next week (12/5 – 12/9).
JR Response: Noted, see responses to Dan’s comments below
Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-305-5989, dmogen@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
12/16/2022: FOR HEARING - UPDATED:
Thank you for adding utilities to the landscape sheets.
Please see redlines showing locations with separation concerns from other
utilities, buildings, and landscaping. There are numerous locations with
separation concerns currently and additional water and sewer services are
needed for multiple buildings including duplex buildings and mixed-use
buildings.
JR Response: Water and San services have been revised for clarity at the pdp level. Additional service
information will be provided at time of first FDP submittal.
Is a minimum of 15 feet of separation being provided for all water/sewer mains
to all buildings/foundations and carports?
JR Response: All proposed sanitary sewer mains maintain a minimum 15’ separation to
building/foundations and carports. All proposed water mains maintain a minimum 15’ separation to
building/foundations and at least 10’ to carport overhangs.
07/27/2022: Utility coordination is needed to determine acceptable alignments
and spacing for utilities while also meeting landscape requirements. Please
consider and show all utilities including water, sewer, electric, gas,
communication, private dewatering system and all necessary facilities including
mains, service lines, curb stops, meter pits, utility boxes, electric vaults,
pedestals, etc.
Please work with the Development Review Coordinator to schedule a meeting
with all necessary parties.
JR Response: Plans have been revised per utility coordination meeting
Comment Number: 2
12/16/2022: FOR HEARING - UPDATED:
An alternate configuration is still recommended to avoid servicing many of the
proposed buildings and future residents from dead-end mains; however, it is
unclear how that will be done with the current site plan.
JR Response: Based on the conversation we had during the utility coordination meeting we are still
proposing dead-end mains on several alleys. Per your direction we have reduced these dead end mains to
Page 17 of 29
6” pipe with hydrant assemblies at the end.
07/27/2022: The proposed alignment for water provides service to most
buildings from dead-end mains, which can lead to more service interruptions
due to lack of redundancy and can also have water quality issues. An alternate
configuration is needed to eliminate/reduce dead-end mains on the site.
JR Response: JR engineering is proposing fire hydrant assemblies so the water can be flushed at the dead
ends to essentially serve as a blow-off.
Comment Number: 3
12/16/2022: FOR HEARING - UPDATED:
Please see redlines showing locations with separation concerns.
07/27/2022: Please review landscape and utility separations throughout.
Some locations are highlighted in the redlines for reference.
JR Response: Utility layout has been updated to provide adequate utility and service seperation
Comment Number: 6
12/16/2022: FOR FINAL - UPDATED:
Is phasing proposed?
07/27/2022: If portions of the project will be phased for public improvements,
including water and wastewater infrastructure, please include a phasing plan in
the utility plan set.
JR Response: There will be no phasing for this site.
Comment Number: 7
12/16/2022: FOR HEARING - UPDATED:
Please see updates redlines and contact me to set up a time to review.
07/27/2022: Please see redlines. I encourage you to reach out with any
questions or to review potential revisions, and I’d be happy to set up a meeting
or conference call to do so.
JR Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 8
07/27/2022: FOR INITIAL FDP SUBMITTAL:
The water service and meter for all community and multifamily buildings will
need to be sized based on the AWWA M22 manual design procedure. A sizing
justification letter that includes demand calculations for maximum flows and
estimated continuous flows will need to be provided as a part of the final
submittal package for this project.
JR Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 9
07/27/2022: FOR INITIAL FDP SUBMITTAL:
The initial FDP submittal will need to include separate irrigation service(s) for
the site. Separate irrigation service is required due to recent changes to Fort
Collins Utilities Water Supply Requirements (WSR) and Plant Investment Fees
(PIF).
Please ensure the project submittal includes:
- Preliminary Irrigation Plan (PIP) – plan requirements can be found at:
www.fcgov.com/WCS.
- Please contact Irrigation Development Review (irrigation@fcgov.com) with
questions regarding the required PIP.
- Water budget (annual usage) and peak flow (gallons per minute) for each
irrigation service. Note: this information should be included on the PIP.
Page 18 of 29
- Landscape Plan including hydrozone table updated with 2022 values – 3, 8,
14, and 18 gallons/square foot/year for very low, low, medium, and high zones,
respectively.
- Water Need Form – form is available at: www.fcgov.com/WFF
Please contact Utility Fee and Rate Specialists (UtilityFees@fcgov.com or
970-416-4252) with questions regarding the Water Need Form.
JR Response: Noted
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Cody Snowdon, 970-416-2306, csnowdon@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/26/2022
11/29/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN:
Please add a note to the Demolition Plan that the overhead electric will need to
be underground with this project.
07/26/2022: INFORMATION:
We currently have existing overhead electric along the extension of Orchard
Place that would need to be underground with this project.
JR Response: Note Added to demo plan
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/26/2022
11/29/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN:
Light & Power has analyzed the phase loading within this region of the City, and
after analysis, a 3-phase extension will be required to allow for electric heat and
load balancing. A capital project will need to be planned to get 3-phase to this
property. Please work with Light and Power offline to understand possible power routing.
07/26/2022: INFORMATION:
There is only single-phase power in the area. If three-phase power is required
for this project, further investigation will be required. The extension of
three-phase power to the site may require off-site easement and/or crossing agreements.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/26/2022
07/26/2022: INFORMATION:
All utility easement and crossing permits (railroad, ditch, floodplain, etc.)
needed for the development will need to be obtained by the developer.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/26/2022
07/26/2022: INFORMATION:
Any existing and/or proposed Light and Power electric facilities that are within
the limits of the project must be located within a utility easement or public right-of-way.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/26/2022
07/26/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN:
If the private drives/alleys are proposed to be illuminated, the streetlights are
considered private and will need to be privately metered. Please show all
private streetlights and private meters on the plans.
JR Response: Noted
Page 19 of 29
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 07/26/2022
07/26/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN:
Please coordinate meter locations with Light and Power and show on the utility
plans during Final Design. These locations will need to comply with our electric
metering standards. Electric meter locations will need to be coordinated with
Light and Power Engineering. Residential units will need to be individually
metered. 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/ElectricServiceStanda
rds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 07/26/2022
07/26/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN:
A commercial service information form (C-1 form) will need to be completed
and submitted to Light & Power Engineering for review prior to Final Plan for all
single-family attached, multi-family and commercial buildings. A link to the C-1
form is below:
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/c-1_form.pdf?159767 7310
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 07/26/2022
07/26/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN:
A one-line diagram is required for all multi-family and commercial buildings. On
the one-line diagram, please show the main disconnect size and meter
sequencing. A copy of our meter sequencing can be found in our electric
policies practices and procedures below.
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-fo
rms-guidelines-regulations
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 07/26/2022
07/26/2022: INFORMATION:
Please document the size of the electrical service(s) that feeds the existing
property prior to demolition of the building to receive capacity fee credits.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 07/26/2022
07/26/2022: 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
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 11/29/2022
11/29/2022: FOR HEARING:
Please see redlines for minor conflicts/separations issues.
JR Response: Noted
Department: Environmental Planning
Page 20 of 29
Contact: Kirk Longstein, 970-416-4325, klongstein@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/22/2022
07/22/2022:FOR HEARING:
Please provide a copy to City Environmental Planner of request sent to Army
Corps of Engineers for jurisdictional determination and permitting. Refer to LUC
3.4.1(O)(1) Proof of Compliance: If a proposed development will disturb an
existing wetland, the developer shall provide to the city a written statement from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that the development plan fully complies with
all applicable federal wetland regulations established in the federal Clean Water Act.
JR Response: Refer to revised ECA for verification that the Wetlands are not Waters of the US
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/22/2022
07/22/2022: FOR HEARING:
Please resubmit a revised Ecological Characterization Study to include the
delineated boundary line of the riparian forest identified by the Natural Habitats
and Features inventory map along the southern extent of the development proposal.
JR Response: Refer to revised ECA for verification.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/22/2022
07/22/2022: FOR HEARING:
Please resubmit an Ecological Characterization Study that identifies the
certified natural area along the NW extent of the property and include the extent
of an established buffer zones following the standards set by LUC 3.4.1 (E)(1)
JR Response: Refer to revised ECA for verification.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/22/2022
07/22/2022: FOR HEARING:
Please ensure that all wetlands, certified natural areas located on adjacent
properties and riparian forests identified by the updated Ecological
Characterization Study are depicted on all relevant plans including the
established buffer zones following the standards set by LUC 3.4.1 (E)(1)
JR Response: Refer to revised ECA for verification
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/22/2022
07/22/2022: FOR HEARING:
Please add temporary tree mitigation strategies to the site plan to account for
LUC 3.4.1 (n)(5)( c ) requirement. “A temporary LOD of a four-hundred-fifty-foot
radius shall be established for Red-tailed and Swainson's hawk active nest
sites during the period from February 15 through July 15 of the first year of a
multi-year development construction.”
JR Response: There are no nests on site as far as we know
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/23/2022
11/23/2022: UPDATED - FOR HEARING:
Please submit a DRAFT wetland mitigation and monitoring plan separate of the
Ecological Characterization study to ensure performance criteria established by
LUC 3.4.1 (E)(1); including soil amendment, vegetative cover, and predictable
hydrology to ensure wetlands are successfully replaced at a 1:1 minimum.
Page 21 of 29
The mitigation plans should be specific to the strategies of restoration deployed
across the entire site, e.g., enhancement of existing sites, reallocation existing
wetland features to a different type of wetland vs. 1:1 replacement. The plan
should clearly show 1:1 compensatory mitigation and should not plan
enhancement or reallocation strategies that overlap with existing NHBZ.
JR Response: Refer to revised ECA for verification. A more detailed Mitigation and Monitoring Plan will be
submitted at the time of the Final Development Plan Submittal
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 07/22/2022
07/22/2022: INFORMATION :
Language regarding the protection and enhancement of the Natural Habitat
Buffer Zone will be included in the Development Agreement for this project. A
security will need to be provided prior to the issuance of a Development
Construction Permit that accounts for the installation and establishment of the
Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. Prior to the Final Development Plan (FDP)
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/22/2022
11/23/2022: INFORMATION:
Key Design considerations for constructed wetlands is smart plant selection for
the site should be a focus. This is especially important for the proposed NHBZ
within the constructed wetland. It is critical that plant materials are appropriate
for soil, hydrologic, light, slope steepness, and other site conditions. A
suggested list of wetland plant are provided by the City at the link below.
Ponding depth, drain down time, sunlight, salt tolerance, and other conditions
should be taken into consideration when selecting plants and designing a NHBZ
wetland within a stormwater basin. www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/pdf/seed-mixes.pdf
JR Response: Refer to revised ECA for verification and detailed information on seed mix specifications and
Plantings within the NAHB.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/23/2022
11/23/2022: FOR HEARING:
Please delineate and label the edge of wetlands and mitigated NHBZ on all
relevant site, landscape and utility plans. the site plan must show the location
and approximate size of all natural areas, habitats and features within its
boundaries and indicate the applicant's proposed rough estimate of the natural
area buffer zones as required pursuant to Section 3.4.1(E).
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/23/2022
11/23/2022: FOR HEARING:
Landscape plans must show habitat buffer zones and planned mitigation.
Update landscape plan with an updated seed mix for wetland restoration plans.
A buffer zone should be established on the plan following the standards set by LUC 3.4.1 (E)(1)
JR Response: Noted
Page 22 of 29
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/23/2022
11/23/2022: FOR HEARING:
Applicant must submit a weed management plan for NHBZ. in consultation with
Environmental Planning team, the applicant may consider starting weed
management prior to DCP and consistent with the property's existing/approved
use. applicant may consider using small livestock grazing regime as an
alternative to mechanical or chemical weed management.
https://sam.extension.colostate.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/06/goats-weeds.pdf\
JR Response: Refer to revised ECA for verification. A more detailed Mitigation and Monitoring Plan will be
submitted at the time of the Final Development Plan Submittal
Department: Forestry
Contact: Christine Holtz, , choltz@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/28/2022
11/28/22: FOR HEARING – UPDATED:
There continue to be tree/utility separation issues. See Forestry redlines.
07/26/2022: FOR HEARING
There are multiple tree/utility separation issues. I understand that things will shift
throughout the review process, and as you go forward, please do not eliminate
trees from the plan. See forestry redlines for some examples (LS1, and LS2)
JR Response: We believe these have all been resolved as needed. If conflicts still exist they can be
resolved at time of the Final Development Plan
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/28/2022
11/28/22: FOR HEARING – UNRESOLVED:
07/27/2022: FOR HEARING
Shade trees do not constitute 50% of plantings (LUC 3.2.1 D) There are only
167 proposed out of 530. Please adjust.
JR Response: We believe this has been resolved
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/29/2022
11/29/2022: FOR HEARING:
Please adjust the following species selection to increase the chances of
successful tree establishment and survivability:
Autumn blaze maples become chlorotic and die after about 10-12 years since
they cannot pull iron out of the soil here. Please consider instead planting a
sugar maple variety such as fall fiesta, flash fire, or green mountain or sensation boxelder.
Imperial honey locusts don’t perform as well in Fort Collins since you already
have shademaster honey locust on the list, please replace imperial honey locust with skyline.
JR Response: We believe these have all been resolved as needed.
Department: Park Planning
Page 23 of 29
Contact: Missy Nelson, , mnelson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/25/2022
11/29/2022: INFORMATION UPDATED:
Both Park Planning & Development and Parks department comments will be provided by Missy Nelson.
07/25/2022: INFORMATION: The Park Planning & Development Department is
available to discuss these comments in more detail. Please contact Kyle
Lambrecht, PE at 970.416.4340, klambrecht@fcgov.com.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/25/2022
11/29/2022: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED:
Although a regional trail is not called out for this location, this is a wonderful
location for a connector trail to help serve the pedestrian and bicycle
community, including safe routes to schools. Please work to provide a 8'-10'
wide paved trail connection on the southern end to W. Elizabeth St. and to
provide a clearly defined route through the subdivision, even if some portions of
the trail are soft surface. The Developer is responsible for the design,
construction, and maintenance of the trail within the development.
JR Response: We believe these have all been resolved as needed. The Trail from Orchard Place to our
South Property Boundary will be a 6’ wide Concrete Trail
3.4.8(C) General Standard. All development plans shall provide for,
accommodate or otherwise connect to, either on-site or off-site, the parks and
trails identified in the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Master Plan that are
associated with the development plan.
JR Response: Noted
07/25/2022: INFORMATION: The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Section
3.4.8 “Parks and Trails” addresses compliance with the 2021 Parks and
Recreation Master Plan (“Master Plan”). The Master Plan indicates the general
location of all parks and regional recreational trails. Parcels adjacent to or
including facilities indicated in the Master Plan may be required to provide area
for development of these facilities.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/25/2022
07/25/2022: INFORMATION:
The 2013 Paved Recreational Trail Master Plan (“Trail Master Plan”) was
adopted by City Council and provides conceptual locations and general trail
design guidelines for future regional recreational trails.
JR Response: Noted
Page 24 of 29
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/25/2022
07/25/2022: INFORMATION:
The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (“LCUASS”), Chapter 16
Pedestrian Facilities and Chapter 17 Bicycle Facilities provide additional
design guidelines for multiuse recreational trails.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/25/2022
07/25/2022: INFORMATION:
Grade separated crossings of arterial roadways and major collectors are
required (LCUASS Chapter 17.3) and provide safe trail connectivity. Additional
easement area for underpass/overpass approaches may be required in
locations of potential grade separated crossings for the trail. For additional
information on grade separated crossing locations, please reference the City’s
Park and Paved Recreational Trail Plan exhibit dated August 2018.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/25/2022
07/25/2022: INFORMATION:
Local street at grade intersections with a recreational trail are to be avoided.
When necessary, the location of a future recreational trail at-grade crossing
must be coordinated with both Park Planning and Development and Traffic Operations
JR Response: there are no Regional Recreational Trail designated within the proposedDevelopment.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/25/2022
11/29/2022: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED:
07/25/2022: INFORMATION: Park Planning and Development must approve
the trail alignment and design. The developer will be required to develop a
centerline profile and cross-sections for the trail as part of the site design during
the final plan phase.
JR Response: there are no Regional Recreational Trail designated within the proposedDevelopment.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 07/25/2022
11/30/2022: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED:
07/25/2022: FOR HEARING:
Although this trail will be privately built and maintained, the trail will be available
for public use. Please add appropriate language to the plat to clarify this as well
as add appropriate easements authorizing public use.
JR Response: there are no Regional and Recreational Trail designated within the proposed Development.
Page 25 of 29
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/25/2022
11/30/2022: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED:
07/25/2022: INFORMATION:
Please plan to coordinate with the Park Planning and Development staff to
determine an appropriate Public Access and Trail easement. Typical trail
easement width is 50’. The location of the easement must be approved by Park
Planning & Development and shown on the plat.
JR Response: there are no Regional and Recreational Trail designated within the proposed Development.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 07/25/2022
11/30/2022: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED:
07/25/2022: INFORMATION:
A trail easement may not be located within a ditch easement unless the
applicant provides written approval for the trail easement within the ditch
easement from the ditch company The paved trail surface cannot function as a
ditch access road if heavy equipment will use or cross the trail to maintain the ditch.
JR Response: there are no Regional and Recreational Trail designated within the proposed Development.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 07/25/2022
11/30/2022: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED:
07/25/2022: INFORMATION:
The trail easement may coexist within a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone if approval
is obtained from Environmental Planning.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 07/25/2022
11/30/2022: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED:
07/25/2022: FOR HEARING:
The trail shall be designed so that it is clear and accessible during a 10 year
flooding event. Please provide documentation in your drainage report that this
can be accomplished.
JR Response: there are no Regional and Recreational Trail designated within the proposed Development
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 07/25/2022
11/30/2022: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED:
07/25/2022: INFORMATION:
The Developer is responsible for the long-term maintenance of the community
trail within the development. Maintenance consists of snowplowing of the paved
surface, occasional seasonal mowing 2'-3’ adjacent to the trail surface,
repairing/replacing surface damage of the trail, and all other landscaping
maintenance within the easement. Please coordinate with the City’s Parks
Page 26 of 29
Department on the landscaping design. Landscaping shall be designed in
accordance with all applicable City codes. Spray irrigation, if required, shall be
designed and maintained to avoid spray on the trail.
JR Response: Noted
Department: PFA
Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2869, marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/26/2022
11/21/2022: FOR HEARING - UPDATED:
This comment can be resolved when we have unobstructed access near the
community building.
07/26/2022: FOR HEARING:
FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS
Fire access is required to within 150 feet of all exterior portions of any building,
or facility ground floor as measured by an approved route around the perimeter.
When any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story
of the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access, the fire
code official is authorized to increase the dimension if the building is equipped
throughout with an approved, automatic fire-sprinkler system. Any private alley,
private road, or private drive serving as a fire lane shall be dedicated as an
Emergency Access Easement (EAE) and be designed to standard fire lane
specifications. In addition, aerial apparatus access requirements are triggered
for buildings in excess of 30' in height.
The community center/place of worship is beyond the maximum distance with
an automatic fire sprinkler system. Access will be required to be within 200 feet
of all portions of this building.
JR Response: See revised PFA fire Truck turning templates
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/26/2022
11/21/2022: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED:
The provided turning exhibits still show areas of overhang in corners. The area
by the clubhouse shows bike rack obstruction and the body comes too close to
the staircase on the building.
07/26/2022: FOR HEARING:
TURNING RADII
The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of
25 feet inside and 50 feet outside.
The entrance to all private alleys does not meet inside turning radius requirements.
The Private alley loop does not appear to meet the outside radius requirements.
JR Response: See revised PFA fire Truck turning templates
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/26/2022
07/26/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN:
PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: ADDRESS POSTING & WAYFINDING
Where possible, the naming of private drives is usually recommended to aid in
Page 27 of 29
wayfinding. New and existing buildings shall be provided with approved
address identification. The address identification shall be legible and placed in
a position that is visible from the street or road fronting the property. Address
identification characters shall contrast with their background. Address numbers
shall be arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall not be spelled
out. The address numerals for any commercial or industrial buildings shall be
placed at a height to be clearly visible from the street. They shall be a minimum
of 8 inches in height unless distance from the street or other factors dictate
larger numbers. Refer to Table 505.1.3 of the 2021 IFC as amended. The
address numbers for one- and two-family dwellings shall be a minimum of 4” in
height with a minimum ½” stroke and shall be posted on a contrasting
background. If bronze or brass numerals are used, they shall only be posted on
a black background for visibility. Monument signs may be used in lieu of
address numerals on the building as approved by the fire code official.
Buildings, either individually or part of a multi- building complex, that have
emergency access lanes on sides other than on the addressed street side, shall
have the address numbers and street name on each side that fronts the fire lane.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/21/2022
11/21/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN:
All private drives used as emergency access shall be dedicated as Emergency
Access Easement. The plat currently only indicates Access Easement
JR Response: Noted
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/22/2022
11/29/2022: INFORMATION ONLY:
Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP.
07/22/2022: INFORMATION ONLY:
Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP.
JR Response: Noted
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/22/2022
11/29/2022: FOR HEARING-UPDATED:
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. If you have any specific questions about the redlines, please contact John
Von Nieda at 970-221-6565 or jvonnieda@fcgov.com
07/22/2022: FOR HEARING:
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. If you have any specific questions about the redlines, please contact John
Page 28 of 29
Von Nieda at 970-221-6565 or jvonnieda@fcgov.com
JR Response: see response to comments on pdf redlines
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Megan Harrity, Larimer County Assessor, mharrity@larimer.org, ,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/27/2022
07/27/2022: There is a block number that is missing, and the lot numbers are
not consecutive. Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4 seem okay. After that it is not understandable.
JR Response: Noted, see revised plat
Contact: Melissa Buick, Pleasant Valley Lake Canal Company,
melissahbuick@gmail.com, ,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/23/2022
11/23/2022:
Any ditch crossings by Polestar (underground utility or above ground foot or
vehicle) will require an application, engineering review and application fee by Polestar.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/23/2022
11/23/2022:
City of Fort Collins setback, wildlife buffer or re-vegetation requirements
adjacent to the ditch will need to comply with existing PVLCC access and
easement requirements.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/23/2022
11/23/2022:
PVLCC requests vehicle access on any roads constructed with the
development to allow efficient access and maintenance to the ditch.
JR Response: Noted
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/23/2022
11/23/2022:
Any new or replacement headgates, pump stations, etc. to satisfy and supply
Polestar with their water rites will require an application, engineering review and
application fee by Polestar.
JR Response: Noted
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-416-4320, slorson@fcgov.com
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/25/2022
11/29/2022: FOR HEARING - UPDATED:
This path is vital for the proposed project to connect to the community at large
via the Transfort high-frequency network. And creates compliance with LUC
Sec. 3.2.2(B), 3.2.2(C)(7), and 3.6.4. I'm certain there is a way to directly
connect bicyclists and pedestrians to West Elizabeth in a low-impact manner.
Page 29 of 29
Additionally, the sidewalk to West Elizabeth needs to connect to an intuitive
framework of sidewalks for residents to easily walk and bike to the BRT corridor.
07/25/2022: FOR HEARING:
The path leading to West Elizabeth Street provides bicycle and pedestrian
access to the forthcoming bus rapid transit route. The path needs to be paved
and ADA accessible.
JR Response: The onsite 6’ walk will be ended at the southern property line where the future 6’ sidewalk
connection and 10’ pedestrian easement will be constructed/dedicated by others.