HomeMy WebLinkAboutMONTAVA PUD - ODP - ODP180002 - MONTAVA SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS1
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/developmentreview
Comment responses December 6, 2018
November 16, 2018
Angela Milewski
BHA Design Inc
1603 Oakridge Dr Suite 100
Fort Collins, CO 80525
RE: Montava PUD, ODP180002, Round Number 1
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above
referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your
questions through the Development Review Coordinator, Tenae Beane at 970-224-6119 or tbeane@fcgov.com.
Summary
Thank you for providing us with a detailed design narrative and design standards. Many staff members are having a
difficult time understanding how the proposed design standards deviate from our normal standards and why. We need
more detailed analysis for many aspects of the plan to determine if the proposed design standards meet the Land Use
Code. Some of these areas include:
• Utility provision – how will you serve each area of the development with utilities in a way that doesn’t
negatively impact trees, sidewalks, etc. while meeting our utility separation and public safety requirements?
• Stormwater – how does your plan for LID (including providing LID facilities in the ROW and on private
residential lots) meet or exceed the City’s stormwater management and water quality goals?
• Landscaping – how does your method of providing landscaping compare to using the Land Use Code
standards in 3.2.1?
• Parking – how does your method of parking Montava compare to using the Land Use Code standards in
3.2.2?
• Open space – how does your distributed network of open space meet the intent of the Land Use Code?
Does this method of open space also have implications for meeting or exceeding the landscaping
standards in 3.2.1?
Our comments indicate what kinds of analyses we would like to see for your second round submittal. Many of these
diagrams and analyses serve multiple departments so we can all have a greater understanding of how each element
of Montava works together to fulfill your vision outlined in the design narrative. This will also help reviewing agencies
understand how this way of achieving the intent of our standards provides the public benefits you claim in the design
narrative. We would also like to see the design narrative provide a concise overview of why you need relief from
certain sections of our various codes, how you achieve the intent of these codes, and what clear benefits the
community derives from your proposed design approach.
Response: (Lucia) Division 4.29(G)(3) of the PUD Overlay outlines the criteria for approval of modified standards:
2
(1) consistency with purposes and objectives of the PUD Overlay;
(2) significantly advances and are necessary to achieve the development objectives of the Montava PUD Master Plan;
and (3) consistency with the City’s adopted plans and policies.
The overall purpose of the PUD Overlay is found in LUC 2.13(F): achieving “flexibility in site design by means of
customized uses, densities and Land Use Code and non-Land Use Code development standards.” Division 4.29(A)
and (B) of the PUD Overlay further expounds on its purpose (A) and states the objectives (B) flowing from the
purpose.
The purpose statement in (A): (i) encourages innovative community planning and site design to integrate natural
systems, energy efficiency, aesthetics, higher design, engineering and construction standards and other community
goals by enabling greater flexibility than the LUC, all in furtherance of City’s adopted plans and policies; and (ii) allows
greater flexibility in the mix and distribution of land uses, densities and development/zone district standards.
The objectives statement [B(2)] provides that the Montava PUD Master Plan must provide significantly greater public
benefits than those achieved through the application of a standard zone district including one or more of the following:
• diversification in use of the land
• innovation in development
• more efficient use of land and energy
• public amenities commensurate with scope of development
• furtherance of adopted City plans and policies
And, it expounds on the “higher design” purpose statement [B(3)]: “Ensure high quality urban design and
environmentally-sensitive development that takes advantage of site characteristics.”
The common thread through all of these provisions is an emphasis on what’s being proposed as uses, densities and
development standards in the PUD and how these meet the desired purposes and objectives of the PUD Overlay.
This is a quite different approach than comparing the PUD uses, densities and development standards to existing LUC
requirements and justifying why they are different. We do not believe that was the intent of the PUD Overlay.
Transportation
Engineering – Marc Virata
1. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: [Transportation] by hearing:
The variance requests that were submitted pertaining to Larimer County Urban
Area Street Standards regarding angle of intersection and roadway cross
sections did not include the full justification requirements under 1.9.4.A.2 of
LCUASS. The text of which is included below. While sub-item (b) below was
included, the remaining items were not included. The design engineer should
provide the additional information for review and evaluation.
1.9.4.A.2:
The variance request(s) shall include the following:
a. Identifying Issue. Identification of the standard to be waived or varied and why
the standard is unfeasible or is not in the public interest.
b. Proposing Alternate Design. Identification of the proposed alternative design
or construction criteria.
c. Comparing to Standards. A thorough description of the variance request
including impact on capital and maintenance requirements, costs, and how the
new design compares to the standard.
3
d. Justification. The Professional Engineer must determine and state that the
variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, will not
reduce design life of the improvement nor cause the Local Entity additional
maintenance costs. The proposed plan (as varied) must advance the public
purpose of the standard sought to be varied equally well or better than would
compliance with such standard.
Response: (Martin/Martin) Revised letter and exhibits are included with the resubmittal.
2. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: [Transportation] In general, there has been ongoing dialogue
referencing the concept that the road cross sections included in the variance
request would be looked at more in terms of variances that would define
right-of-way and street width. I'm going under this presumption as the cross
sections in the variance request provide numbers only specific to the road width
and right-of-way. Each of the cross sections should still be documenting in the
variance request the differences from the standard utilizing the referenced
criteria cited in the previous comment. Is it the intention that in all cases, the
back of sidewalk coincides with the extent of the right-of-way, or does this
perhaps vary in the T4 & T5?
Response: (DPZ) Greater cross-section detail along with utility placement is being provided
Clay has provided a general comment regarding how the roadway cross
sections would work from not just a roadway configuration standpoint, but also
taking into account building setback, utility placement, location and accessibility
for emergency vehicles, semi trucks (for access, circulation, and delivery
staging) etc. The graphical depictions shown in the T4 and T5 would have the
most potential concerns from this standpoint. Buildings potentially overhang or
encroach into right-of-way, which would be considered an encroachment and
not normally allowed under City Code. Utility infrastructure location could be an
issue as well, unless pocket easements in the front, and/or rear easements
behind the buildings are provided. Overall the additional analysis provided in
the variance request along with additional considerations for utility, drainage, as
well as emergency and delivery vehicle needs is needed to fully evaluate. The
additional analysis can help demonstrate that at the PUD Master Plan level, the
concepts are agreeable, but the site design at the PDP level may need to
ultimately validate the framework being sought at this time.
Response: (DPZ) Encroachments – design standards require a 2-foot setback to account for typical overhangs
of main street and urban buildings. Buildings are able to be set back further as needed. We understand that
where encroachments are desired, such as for awnings or signage, they are subject to City Code.
3. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: [Transportation] by hearing:
Also with regards to the modified roadway cross sections, the City will want to
ensure that the implications are defined and understood pertaining to these
cross sections varying from our standard and then having an increased impact
to the City for reimbursement of the oversized portions of roadways compared
to the standard cross section. In coordination with Chad Crager, we are looking
to ensure that the minimum sidewalk width throughout the development is 5 feet
(not 4.5 feet) and that this is considered the minimum local width of sidewalk
throughout the development without eligibility for City reimbursement.
Response: (DPZ / Max) A minimum 5-foot sidewalk is provided for each street section. Resubmittal includes the
detailed dimension elements. We understand this is now considered the minimum local sidewalk width without
4
eligibility for reimbursement.
4. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: [Transportation] by hearing:
With regards to the variance request for angle of intersection, there isn't
documentation in the request consistent with 1.9.4.A.2 on how far from the
standard (beyond 100 degrees) is being varied, along with the context of how
many and where are these instances. What sort of intersection control is
envisioned in each case, (3 way stop, 2 way stop, etc.) what are the road
classifications at these intersections, and other considerations? Are these
proposed in certain transects? Angle of intersection may be of greater concern
in the more dense areas (T4 and T5) where sight distance may be more
impacted by minimal/no building setbacks and the introduction of potential
street furniture and landscaping that further hinders sight distance.
Response: (DPZ) See response to comment 15. Restrictions on street furnishing and landscape is anticipated to
provide sight distance, to be detailed at PDP level review.
5. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: [Site Design/Transportation] by hearing:
Are there additional roadways not depicting in the PUD Master Plan that serve
as rear access and for utility corridors
Please note that any additional roadways that may function as alleys would be preferred from the City as private
drives that function as alleys, instead of creating public alleys in the overall
development.
Response: (DPZ) Alley drawings have been added to the collection of street standards.
6. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: [Site Design/Transportation] by hearing:
The Variance Request #2 addressed to Shane Boyle/Stormwater has potential
implications and concerns with Engineering. Engineering has not previously
allowed flows from private property utilizing public right-of-way as the location
for LID treatment. There are concerns with the utilization of right-of-way for LID
from the following perspectives:
This would be considered private infrastructure in public right-of-way, which
would not be permitted by City Code unless permitted through some sort of
separate process (such as a major encroachment permit). There is the concern
that the City's ability to access, control, and maintain the street purposes of the
right-of-way by allowing this encroachment.
LID infrastructure is not normally in right-of-way and would be competing for the
traditional transportation and utility aspects for road right-of-way. There are
concerns of utility servicing needs cutting into the LID system and compromising
its integrity, as well as pedestrian ease of access traversing through LID areas.
Introducing LID infrastructure and thereby providing infiltration in proximity to
roadways and sidewalks raises concerns on ensuring that the overall roadway
system is not being compromised through the introduction of infiltration. In areas
where we have allowed LID in right-of-way (taking roadway drainage only, not
from private property) we have required the installation of a barrier system along
with an underdrain pipe system to mitigate potential impacts to the road.
It may be that there are other opportunities to consider in terms of meeting LID
requirements without utilization of right-of-way that would not impact the site
5
design and vision that's sought. We'd like to explore these together and help
facilitate the conversation.
Response: (Martin/Martin) LID Variance letter has been withdrawn
7. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: [Transportation] by hearing:
It is presumed that the evaluation and recommendation of the proposed
changes to the Master Street Plan will occur prior to, or concurrent with the PUD
Master Plan approval. The concurrence on the adoption of the roadway
classifications, especially with regards to the determining of the arterial
roadways are necessary to help guide review of the access spacing to these
roadways.
Response: (Ruth) Correct, the MSP and PUD approvals are expected to be concurrent.
8. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: [Transportation] by hearing:
As a continuation of the previous comment, is the site plan (Sheet 7) intending
to establish access spacing and access control as part of this PUD Master
Plan? In general, there appears to be streets that connect to arterial roadways
(Mountain Vista, Giddings, and Timberline) that are spaced at intervals less
than 460 feet (the minimum allowed spacing along arterials) and appear to be
in the 200-250 feet range in some cases. Access control is somewhat defined
for the south half of Giddings, but for the rest of the arterials, no medians are
depicted, which would imply full movement access to the arterials at an access
spacing less than the required minimums. If the site plan is more illustrative, and
not intended to show the amount of local streets and their access spacing,
which would be more defined during the PDP phasing, then it is suggested that
the arterials and collectors are more defined with the rest of the streets not
depicted, or at least indicated as being illustrative only. Otherwise, more detail
and review against our street standards for access spacing and access control
onto the arterials is needed. Note a previous comment on whether there
additional roadways not being depicted on the plans that serve as rear
access/alleys, this would have further concern with their potential accesses and
spacing onto arterial roadways.
Response: (Ruth) The Figure - "Arterial Intersections" has been prepared to address the spacing and
intersection type questions. This figure depicts the type of intersection: right-in/right-out, full movement -
unsignalized, full movement - potential signal, and full movement - roundabout or signal. This figure also depicts
the intersection spacing. Where the minimum spacing of 460 feet is not satisfied, the proposed intersection is
right-in/right-out which will require a variance. The Note on the figure also recognizes that further technical
analysis may result in changes.
9. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: [Transportation] information only:
It is presumed that with the Engineering variances to LCUASS specific to street
cross sections and angle of intersection, that the intention of the project is to
meet other LCUASS requirements. It is understood that not all variances can be
foreseen and may still be submitted and evaluated at time of PDP development
for the phases.
Response: Acknowledged.
Traffic Operations– Martina Wilkinson
10. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
6
11/13/2018: TRANSPORTATION: The Master TIS has been received and is
in review. Figure 25 summarizes the anticipated transportation system upon
buildout. This, together with the Master Street Plan amendment that identifies
number of lanes on roadway links will be used as the starting point for
subsequent PDP submittals. Please note that changes to lane configurations at
intersection approaches, control type etc can change with PDP submittals.
Response: Acknowledged.
11. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/2018: TRANSPORTATION: Specific mitigation measures (i.e. which
improvements when) required to be constructed will be determined with each
PDP submittal
Response: Acknowledged.
12. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/2018: TRANSPORTATION: Please review the number of access points
to the arterial system (predominantly along Mountain Vista and Giddings).
Does this meet our standard? Frequent bike and pedestrian accesses are
encouraged, while vehicular accss should limited - especially full movement
intersections.
Response: (Ruth) The Figure - "Arterial Intersections" has been prepared to address the spacing and
intersection type questions. This figure depicts the type of intersection: right-in/right-out, full movement -
unsignalized, full movement - potential signal, and full movement - roundabout or signal. This figure also depicts
the intersection spacing. Where the minimum spacing of 460 feet is not satisfied, the proposed intersection is
right-in/right-out which will require a variance. The Note on the figure also recognizes that further technical
analysis may result in changes.
13. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/2018: TRANSPORTATION: Variance request no 1 - Cross sections.
Not all the cross sections vary from our standards. Please provide a detailed
table that shows your proposed cross sections (right of way width and roadway
width), and identify how they compare to the City standards. Only the sections
that vary need to be included in the variance request. Please include a map
that shows where the varied sections will apply. See section 1.9.4.A in
LCUASS for required information for a variance request.
Response: (DPZ/Lucia) A table has been provided to detail where sections vary from standards. Note that in the
case of special roadways that don’t have a direct correlation to existing standard roadways, either a connector
local or residential local is used for comparison. For the cross sections where variances are requested, the
engineering variance(s) related to street cross sections is submitted herewith for administrative review and
approval.
14. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/2018: Work with other departments on needed setbacks and utility
easements for various cross sections
Response: (DPZ) Addressed in more detail in subsequent comments.
15. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/2018: TRANSPORTATION: Variance request no 2 - Angle of
intersections. We'll need more information on this request. See section
1.9.4.A in LCUASS for required information. Where will these apply? By how
much is the standard varied? What will you do to ensure that reasons for the
7
standard are still met? We'll need to ensure sight distance is maintained, and
will not approve unwarranted all-way stop signs. Would mini roundabouts be an
option?
Response: Lucia) The engineering variance(s) related to angles of intersections is submitted herewith for
administrative review and approval.
16. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/2018: TRANSPORTATION: Please see Transportation Planning
comments for comments related to the Master Street Plan changes.
Response: Acknowledged.
17. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: TRANSPORTATION: It may make sense to not include details of
the local roads with the PUD, or at a minimum to include general concepts for
local roads for information only. That would eliminate the need to delve into
design, engineering, intersection etc. details for local roads at this time.
Response: (Lucia) In order to ensure our ability to utilize a different cross section for residential local roadways in
the future, we are requesting an engineering variance therefor. The variance is submitted herewith for
administrative review and approval.
18. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: TRANSPORTATION: The cross sections included the Home Zone
road. Is that still being considered? If so, we would have comments related to
it.
Response: (DPZ) We are removing the Home Zone from the PUD document. We remain interested in the Home
Zone type and may bring this back up at a later PDP submittal where we can make a more specific proposal.
Transportation Planning – Seth Lorson/Aaron Iverson
19. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: TRANSFORT – The Transit Master Plan, although not
complete, is proposing a predictable model for providing transit based on land
use and density. Accordingly, at a certain point in the development of Montava it
will get to a density that will be adequate for transit service.
Response: Acknowledged.
20. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: 11/12/18: TRANSFORT – As a master planned development with
metro districts, Montava is uniquely suited to create a Transportation
Management Association (TMA) for the purposes of managing parking,
providing internal transit, managing bike/ped facilities, and creating a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. Additionally, contribution
from the TMA could bring transit to the site earlier than outlined by the Transit
Master Plan.
Response: (Max) As it stands today, we cannot layer another entity or cost structure over the project. This is an
area of interest however, and as we develop it is something that can be explored and implemented as it makes
sense.
21. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: TMA Resources:
Transportation Management Organizations/Associations (TMO/TMA)
TMA Definition
8
TMAs are non-profit, member-controlled organizations that provide
transportation services in a particular area, such as a commercial district, mall,
medical center or industrial park. They are generally public-private partnerships,
consisting primarily of area businesses with local government support.
Transportation Management Coordinators (TMC) are professionals who work
for TMAs or individual employers.
TMAs provide an institutional framework for TDM Programs and services. They
are usually more cost effective than programs managed by individual
businesses. TMAs allow small employers to provide Commute Trip Reduction
services comparable to those offered by large companies. They avoid
problems that may be associated with government-run TDM programs, since
they are controlled by members. (Source: https://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm44.htm)
TMA Services
• Commute Trip Reduction
• Commuter Financial Incentives
• Flextime Support
• Freight Transport Management
• Guaranteed Ride Home Services
• Marketing and Promotion
• Parking Management and Brokerage
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning
• Pedways
• Rideshare Matching and Vanpool Coordination
• Shared Parking Coordination
• Shuttle Services
• Special Event Transport Management
• Telework Support
• Tourist Transport Management
• Transit Improvements
• Transportation Access Guides
• Wayfinding and Multi-Modal Navigation Tools
Stakeholders
TMA stakeholders include regional and local government agencies, transit
providers, chambers of commerce or other business organizations, businesses,
facility managers (such as a mall or medical center), employees, nearby
residents and customers.
Benefits and Costs
Transportation Management Associations can increase Transportation Options,
provide financial savings to businesses and employees, reduce traffic
congestion and parking problems, and reduce pollution emissions. They are an
important strategy for creating more efficient land use patterns. These benefits
can be large because traffic and parking costs tend to be particularly high in
commercial and industrial areas where most TMAs exist. Parking and road
facility savings often repay TMA operating costs.Costs are primarily direct TMA program expenses, which
typically average $10-20 annually per covered employee, although this can vary significantly
depending on what services it provides (Ferguston 2007). Sometimes, TMAs
increase consumer costs by implementing increased parking fees.
9
Denver Region
• Denver Region has 7
o 36 Commuting Solutions (*Best model)
o Boulder Transportation Connections
o Denver South TMA
o Downtown Denver Partnership
o Northeast Transportation Connections
o Smart Commute Metro North
o Transportation Solutions Foundation.
• Partnership between COG/TMA’s
o $80k/year CMAQ funds
New TMA/TMO’s could potentially be eligible for CMAQ funding. In Denver, they
had to be established for 2-3 years before being eligible. Want TMA to be
mostly sustained by membership and other more reliable sources of funding.
Response: (Max) It is likely that all of the references you mention above have substantially more density of
population to draw from and serve that Montava ever will. But that is an assumption I would like to explore with
you. It is an excellent idea if it can be sustained and supported, which takes tremendous density of business
and people. Let’s meet to discuss further, but it is unlikely to be something sustainable at the beginning of the
Montava development life cycle.
22. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: TRANSFORT – At the time transit is serving Montava,
we expect that our busses will not drive into the residential portion of the
community but will have a couple stops along Mountain Vista (intersection with
Timberline and intersection with Giddings Road and possibly midway). A
circulator shuttle could be a great benefit to this model in bringing residents to
the commercial district, schools and Transfort stops.
Response: (Max) Creating a circulator shuttle is something that has been considered. Ideally, as the self-
driving technology advances and is more proven, that type of transportation system would fit well with the overall
mission for the Montava Community.
23. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/2018: Per your request we will develop a proposed amendment to the
Master Street Plan, which will need to go to the Transportation Board for
consideration and action. Based on the Transportation Board action the
amendment request then is sent to City Council for their approval. In generally
staff supports the proposed amendments as shown on the maps on page 2-2,
and detailed in Table 2-1. There are some clarifications for your team to
address, these include:
1. Giddings Road, south of Mountain Vista as it curves to meet Suniga, should
be designated a 4-lane arterial. The volumes are right at the needed threshold.
Response: See submitted memo from Rollins Consult
2. Your map showing the proposed network removes the Canal Access
Road from the map, however that change is not detailed in Table 2-1 nor
discussed anywhere in the narrative. Please provide your reasoning and
amend Table 2-1 if that indeed is the intent to remove that from the Master
Street Plan.
Response: We eliminated the canal road connection because the combination of industrial related traffic into a
residential neighborhood is not desirable. Our traffic analysis did not include this connection and the trip
10
assignments were performed without the canal road connection.
3. The staff recommendation will likely not include the section of Bar Habor
between Mountain Vista and Conifer.
Response: We concur with not including the section of Bar Harbor between Mountain Vista and Conifer
4. The staff recommendation is for Conifer to be designated a Collector. We
are considering that change already as part the larger city-wide updates
associated with the City Plan effort, and this request should be consistent.
Response: We acknowledge this however our projections would indicate Conifer will carry approximately
14,600 ADT which would need a 2-lane arterial classification.
Poudre Fire Authority – Andrew Rosen
24. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/30/2018
10/30/2018: ACCESS
Access is required to within 150ft of all exterior portions of the perimeter of
every building, facility and residential structure in the development. This can only
be measured from a collector or unclassified street. Arterials cannot be used for
this measurement. Where this access cannot be achieved, a Fire Lane
(specifications below) shall be established on the property and shown on the
Plat or designated by separate document.
Response: (DPZ) Acknowledged. This has been discussed in a meeting with PFA. The PUD level is not specific
enough to demonstrate compliance, which will be done at the PDP level.
CDOT – Tim Bilobran
25. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/2018: CDOT: We have reviewed the Montava proposal and accept the
traffic impact study findings, however, it's important that the City and the
developer know that CDOT would likely not participate in the costs of the design
or installation of signals and signals would not be installed until they were
warranted.
Response: Acknowledged.
Utilization of Right-of-Way
Engineering – Marc Virata
26. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: [Utilization of Right-of-Way] for approval:
On page 11 of the design narrative, the applicant is committing to a non-potable
water system for irrigation needs. A network of a non-potable water system for
irrigation would be a private system that would typically not be allowed in
right-of-way unless otherwise permitted via major encroachment permits. If
allowed in right-of-way or easement, it could be competing for the utility,
drainage, and/or transportation needs of the street/right-of-way. Could this be
an issue in implementing the proposed cross sections through the variance
review?
Response: (Martin/Martin) The non-potable irrigation water main is now show on the revised roadway cross
sections. It is acknowledged that the private main would need to be permitted via a major encroachment permit.
27. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11
11/12/2018: [Utilization of Right-of-Way] for approval:
The soils report shows groundwater depths in the 2 to 6 foot range below
existing grade in locations, most notably in the northwestern portion of the site.
A groundwater report will be required at PDP(s) to address groundwater
concerns and mitigation as part of Chapter 5.6 of LCUASS. The potential
implementation of a subdrain dewater system may have similar concerns on
impacts to streets as the non-potable water system.
Response: (Max) Acknowledged and will provide at PDP stage.
28. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/2018: [Transportation/Site Design/Utilization of Right-of-Way] by hearing:
In the PUD Standards Booklet it is indicated that on-street parking spaces are
managed by the Metro District. Please provide further explanation regarding
this intent. Fundamentally, I'm unsure if public right-of-way as public streets
would allow management of its use by an entity other than the City.
Response: (DPZ) Further detail is provided in response to comment 109.
29. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/2018: [Utilization of Right-of-Way/Transportation] by hearing:
In the PUD Standards Booklet it is appears to dictate the use and placement of
signs in the street (public right-of-way). This appears to again have concerns
with City right-of-way usage and would typically be regulated by City Code.
Response: (DPZ) Signage has been re-written to provide only minor modifications to existing LUC standards.
30. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/15/2018
11/15/2018: [Utilization of Right-of-Way]
I’d prefer if a narrative of some sort be provided regarding public right-of-way
utilization, explaining why there is the intention to propose private
infrastructure/private management of right-of-way, and why the City should be
considering this given it's contrary to Chapter 23 of City Code. The comments
I've provided speak to the concerns on the "what" of what is being
proposed, but fundamentally I think it would be ideal if beyond the "what", the
information/documentation on the "why" of what is being proposed is
provided as well to help facilitate this discussion further.
Response: (DPZ) We are most concerned of the use of the right-of-way in the town center / T5 area in order to
provide a type of environment similar to that of downtown. This includes pedestrian-scaled lighting, bike racks,
lighting of trees at holidays, wayfinding, and the types of additional maintenance required for main street areas
like landscape maintenance and sidewalk cleaning. We also want to allow outdoor dining along sidewalks in this
area. Generally any activity that is typical of a downtown or main street environment.
Forestry – Molly Roche
31. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/18:
BIG PICTURE/UTILIZATION OF RIGHT OF WAY//ADDRESS AT PUD
Our urban forest canopy is growing infrastructure! The City of Fort Collins has
been an Arbor Day Foundation Tree City USA for the past 40 years and trees
are an enormous contributor to what makes Fort Collins great! Trees are our
City’s growing infrastructure and one of the only City assets that appreciate in
value overtime. With this PUD submittal, there are tremendous opportunities to
12
incorporate inclusive design strategies that value urban trees, adequate
parkway widths within the right-of-way, species diversity - all of which will
increase quality of life, property value, aesthetics, as well as decrease crime
and depression, stormwater run-off, urban heat-island effect, energy costs, and
more!
At the top of Forestry’s “wish-list” is to increase the parkway (a.k.a. tree
lawn/right-of-way) width on local street cross-sections. The current LUCASS
standard for parkway widths along local trees is 6 feet (5.5 not including the
curb width) and 6.5 feet for local industrial. In order to maximize the area a tree
has to grow, Forestry would like to propose an 8 foot minimum parkway width
along all local streets. Studies have shown that wider tree lawn widths provide
increased area for root growth, which increase tree stability, decrease
sidewalk/curb damage from heaving roots, as well as provide additional
separation between pedestrians from the street section. Please schedule a
right-of-way coordination meeting with the following departments in order to
discuss the potential of widening the current parkway width to 8 feet: Forestry,
Planning, Traffic, Engineering, and Streets. Other departments that might be
interested in also attending this meeting: Environmental Planner, PFA, Light
and Power, and Transfort.
Response: (DPZ) We have looked into opportunities to provide wider planters. For typical local streets,
we are providing 6 feet per LCUASS standards. At open spaces and where possible, we are providing
wider planters, as well as at collectors and arterials where this is required. In many cases, street
sections have a narrower parkway (6ft) on one side and an open space on the other side with a wider
(8ft +) parkway. A diagram has been provided showing parkway widths in Phase 1a as an example.
32. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/18:
UTILIZATION OF ROW/ADDRESS AT PUD
Please provide street cross sections/diagrams that account for
parkway/landscape strip widths for the following types of roadways:
ARTERIAL ROADWAYS: 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b --- 10’ parkway
COLLECTOR ROADWAYS: 4 (Minor Collector) --- 8’ parkway
LOCAL ROADWAYS: 5a, 5b, 6, 7a --- 8’ parkway
SPECIAL LOCAL ROADWAY CONDITIONS: 7b (connector local with attached
green), 8 (local paired around a green), 10 (home zone) --- 8’ parkway
Response: (DPZ) Street cross-sections account for LCUASS standards for parkway widths. Drawings
including dimensions are now included.
LCUASS standards require a 6ft parkway on local and connector local roadways. We are providing a
6ft parkway as standard for local and special local roadways. Where possible, wider parkways are
provided. At open spaces, wider parkways are provided.
33. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/18:
UTILIZATION OF ROW/SITE DESIGN//ADDRESS AT PUD
Please provide a typical right-of-way detail per each transect district that
includes locations of utilities (gas, water, electric, communication, cable, fiber
option, sewer, etc), street lights, driveways (if applicable) and street trees.
Standard tree-utility separation distances currently used per Land Use Code
13
standards are preferred and are as followed: Additional coordination between
Light and Power, Stormwater(?), and Forestry needs to occur to determine
alternative utility layout and tree placement guidelines.
Street Light/Tree Separation:
Canopy shade tree: 40 feet
Ornamental tree: 15 feet
Stop Sign/Tree Separation:
20 feet between all tree types and signs
Driveway/Tree Separation:
At least 8 feet from edges of driveways and alleys
Utility/Tree Separation:
10’ between trees and electric utilities, public water, sanitary, and storm sewer
main lines
6’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer service lines
4’ between trees and gas lines
Response: (DPZ) We’ve provided additional cross-section information with the resubmittal
34. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/13/18:
TRANSPORTATION/UTILIZATION OF ROW/SITE DESIGN//ADDRESS AT
PUD
Transect 5 – please confirm that trees are proposed along street frontages in
Transect 5, particularly in front of shops, storefronts, multi-family complexes, etc.
Trees are a part of the community’s green infrastructure and add many benefits
to the urban landscape including but not limited to: increasing property value,
increasing business flow and providing a better shopping experience,
decreasing the heat-island effect by providing shade, and increasing energy
savings by natural cooling. Refer to Environmental Planning Comment: the T5
Urban Center Mixed Use might be the tightest place to provide traditional
landscape elements including trees. Perhaps there is an opportunity, for
example, for the Montava Town Center and most urban area to commit to 50%
of all rooftop square footage being used as a combination of green roofs, blue
roofs, and/or biosolar roofs. Further details to be reviewed and approved
cohesively with Environmental Planning and City Forestry.
Response: (DPZ) Trees are proposed along all street frontages in T5, as well as in open spaces throughout the
T5 district, parking lots, and pedestrian walks.
Light & Power – Austin Kreager
35. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/13/2018: UTILIZATION OF ROW:
Light and Power prefers LCUASS standard road cross-sections with detached
sidewalk, landscaped parkways and utility easements. This provides an area
for electric facilities to be installed with appropriate separation from other
utilities. The proposed T5 area of the project does not appear to account for a
utility easement on the backside of the walkway. Light and Power is concerned
that the proposed plans will not allow all utilities to be installed in a safe, reliable,
and aesthetically pleasing manner.
Response: (DPZ) Examples of utility placement provided. Utility placement includes runs in alleys to
accommodate spacing in most cases, as illustrated in updated street sections and other diagrams.
14
36. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/13/2018: Utilization of ROW - INFORMATION:
Light and Power has standard streetlights that we stock and install on all public
road rights-of-way. Light and Power does not light private roads. There is not an
option to have light and power install and maintain streetlights in the right-of-way
that are not our typical, approved Streetlight assembly. Streetlight placement
along public roads will need to be coordinated with Light & Power. Shade trees
are required to maintain 40 feet of separation and ornamental trees are
required to maintain 15 feet of separation from streetlights. A link to the City of
Fort Collins street lighting requirements can be found below:
http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/Ch15_04_01_2007.pdf
Response: (Max) This is understood and has been discussed with Austin and the team. We may desire
alternative lighting in limited, but impactful areas of the community for aesthetic and experience purposes. The
development team understands that we will need to enter into an agreement with the city for the Montava District
to pay for, repair, and maintain these unique non-standard lighting systems.
Park Planning– Suzanne Bassinger
37. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/2018: Utilization of Right-of-Way: Medians: The Parks Department
provides median maintenance, including paying for metered water use, in public
arterials only. Design and construction of the median, irrigation system and
landscaping is to be provided by the developer. Irrigation water of adequate
quantity and quality must be provided to the median irrigation system the entire
growing season. If irrigation water is provided by a private district or company,
the metered cost of median irrigation water must be comparable to or less than
the cost of metered water from the public water provider.
Response: (Max) We are exploring options for how this could be made possible. Certainly, from the Community
Park area to Richards Lake this is more feasible, though it requires the ditch company’s approval to truly
integrate this experience within the ditch itself. The town center area creates substantial challenges to this
request.
Stormwater– Heather McDowell
38. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: UTILIZATION OF ROW AND STORMWATER:
Stormwater Criteria Variance Request Letter, 10-22-18:
Variance Request No. 1 is a request to be able to utilize grass swales and
buffers in front or side yards of lots as LID features and have these count toward
the LID requirements. The request indicates that these grass swales and buffers
would not be placed in easements and that the maintenance be performed by
the homeowner and not the HOA.
The City recognizes that individual property owners may install rain gardens or
other various water quality features on their lot if they chose. Installation and
maintenance of these features would be at the homeowners time and
expense. But because these systems are not installed in an easement or HOA
managed area, there is no guarantee that they will be maintained in perpetuity
or according to City standards, therefore, these cannot count toward meeting
the LID ordinance requirements.
15
In addition, grass swales and grass buffers are not necessarily recognized as
LID systems according to City criteria. Generally, for these techniques to be
counted toward the LID requirement, there are specific subsurface media and
underdrain requirements (as shown in the Citys bioretention detail, D-53) that
would need to be met.
With the direction provided by City and Urban Drainage criteria, and the
information provided with this first PUD submittal, staff doesnt support this
request at this time.
Variance Request No. 2 Is a request to place LID systems in the public
rights-of-way to allow that runoff from private lots and public rights-of-way be
treated together in a single LID system.
City criteria does require that runoff from both private lots and public
rights-of-way be treated for water quality, but does not require or encourage that
runoff from these different sources be treated in different systems. Typically, LID
systems are placed in drainage tracts or easements, in locations that receive
runoff from both public and privately-owned areas. These LID systems need to
be placed in areas that are accessible for maintenance and are maintained by
an HOA or similar entity that has the capability of performing proper and
on-going maintenance. These systems dont share space or overlap with other
utility or transportation functions because of the subsurface media and
underdrain requirements for proper filtration and infiltration functionality.
For master planned developments such as this one, City staff would need to
better understand why you are seeking this request. Questions that would need
to be addressed include:
Why are there limitations to placement of LID systems in HOA or Metro
District managed drainage tracts or easement?
Where on the site (which zones) would you be seeking to place LID in the
public right-of-way?
What does LID in the right-of-way look like? Where is its corridor? How
wide? Are there other utilities or functions in this corridor? Are there utilities
crossing this corridor? Can these items be illustrated on a typical roadway
cross-section?
How do you propose to deal with stormwater infiltration into the subsurface
of a roadway?
This is a variance request that is difficult to allow at the PUD review level
because it is a fairly detailed design item. The questions above would have to
be answered and vetted through the PUD process and the design team would
need to show a higher level of detail on the plans and how the LID design is
going to meet the ordinance requirements at this stage, in order for City staff to
approve of this variance at this time. Alternatively, this type of variance request
may be better suited to be submitted and considered by City staff during the
PDP/FDP submittal stages when a higher level of design information is known.
Response: (Martin/Martin) The variance for LID in the right-of-way and in single family private lots is withdrawn
at this time.
16
Site Design
Planning– Clay Frickey
39. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/09/2018: MODIFICATIONS: Thank you for the proposed PUD Master Plan
Standards. In reviewing the proposed modifications and accompanying
narrative, I am not clear on what elements of the Land Use Code the proposed
standards replace. Please provide a table indicating which sections of the Land
Use Code you are proposing to modify and justification for the modifications. By
providing this table, reviewers will know which elements of the Land
Use Code still apply to subsequent PDP submittals and which sections the
design standards replace.
Response: (Lucia) With the exception of LUC Division 3.8 – Supplementary Regulations, the Montava
development standards are intended to supersede and replace in their entirely all LUC standards in Article 3 and
Divisions 4.5, 4.27 and 4.28 which govern the following categories: lots and buildings, parking, architectural
character and civic space; therefore, it is not necessary to provide a table. The Montava development
standards regarding the categories of landscaping and signage are intended to supersede and replace certain
specific LUC standards, while retaining other LUC standards, therefore, we have clearly indicated in those
Chapters of the Montava development standards which LUC standards are being modified by Montava
development standards. The Applicant is also proposing specific modifications to the Supplementary
Regulations in order to make them consistent with the development standards proposed for Montava and a table
is provided showing the specific standards being modified. The Applicant has provided a justification for all
categories of requested modifications which outlines compliance with the criteria for modification set forth in LUC
4.29(G).
40. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/09/2018: DESIGN STANDARDS: Many reviewers are having a difficult time
understanding how the various elements of the street and design standards
work with one another and how the built environment compares to a typical
development that meets the Land Use Code. We would like to see diagrams
illustrating a couple of concepts to ensure high-level alignment with the
purpose/intent of the Land Use Code. I envision these diagrams combining the
information from the block level utility plan drawings from sheets 22-24 of your
submittal combined with the block level detail studies on page 11:
- Cross section of a typical development pattern by transect zone showing the
ROW, tree lawn, sidewalk, utility easement, building setback, building footprint,
and any alleys. Within these cross section diagrams, please show where
utilities will be located, including how all utility separation requirements can be
met to ensure life safety. Our main concern is with the T5 district and how you
can supply this transect zone with ample utilities without negatively effecting
trees and sidewalks. We also are concerned with how LID in the ROW impacts
the ability to serve T5 with utilities in a way that meets our separation
requirements and allows for ongoing maintenance or replacement over time.
- Build out of a typical block within each transect zone showing a typical lot
pattern, location of buildings, sidewalks, tree lawns, landscaping, and parking
areas. Based on the requirements of section 4.1.7 of the development
standards, we are unclear how the method of providing landscaping deviates
17
from a typical development. Without some sort of comparison, we cannot make
a finding related to this method of providing landscaping. We also want to
ensure sidewalks and the fronts of buildings do not contain pedestals, gas
meters, and other encroachments, which would negatively affect the aesthetics
of the community.
Response: (DPZ) Drawings and example images provided. Utilities: In addition to drawings provided, note that
providing electric and telecom service through alleys removes pedestals, meters, and transformers from the
ROW. Gas may or may not be included in the development, yet undetermined. If it is included, gas will also be
accommodated in the alley where there is ample separation space from electric utilities available.
41. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/09/2018: MODIFICATIONS: Many of the standards you propose require
modifications from the Land Use Code not identified in the design standards.
Overall Response: (Lucia) With the exception of LUC Division 3.8 – Supplementary Regulations, the Montava
development standards are intended to supersede and replace in their entirely all LUC standards in Article 3 and
Divisions 4.5, 4.27 and 4.28 which govern the following categories: lots and buildings, parking, architectural
character and civic space; therefore, it is not necessary to provide a table. The Montava development
standards regarding the categories of landscaping and signage are intended to supersede and replace certain
specific LUC standards, while retaining other LUC standards, therefore, we have clearly indicated in those
Chapters of the Montava development standards which LUC standards are being modified by Montava
development standards. The Applicant is also proposing specific modifications to the Supplementary
Regulations in order to make them consistent with the development standards proposed for Montava and a table
is provided showing the specific standards being modified. The Applicant has provided a justification for all
categories of requested modifications which outlines compliance with the criteria for modification set forth in LUC
4.29(G).
These sections include:
- 3.2.1: landscaping standards related to parking lots, parking stall dimensions,
buffering between incompatible uses.
- 3.8.11: the proposed fence heights would replace all of the standards in
3.8.11. Its also unclear if the fence variation along arterials would remain or if
you plan to not have this section included in the design standards.
- 3.8.30: how does your plan achieve the open space requirements articulated
in this section? Staff needs more analysis on how your plan achieves or
exceeds this standard through the distributed open space you propose.
- 4.5: this section also requires open space similar to 3.8.30. Per this code
section, you must also provide a neighborhood center. Im assuming you are
relying on the town center to count as the neighborhood center but the design
standards do not discuss this issue. Certain multi-family buildings must also
provide a 25 foot setback when abutting single-family or two-family buildings,
which the design standards do not discuss.
- 4.27: the Employment zone requires 75% primary employment uses. Your plan
would not meet this standard. The design standards and project narrative do not
discuss this issue. Areas zoned E must also comply with open space
requirements that mirror the standards found in 3.8.30 and 4.5. Lastly, the
minimum density in the E zone is 7 dwelling units per acre for residential
projects. Some of the neighborhoods proposed by Montava in the E zone would
come in at a lower density, so you must address this issue as well.
18
Response: (DPZ)
3.2.1: Landscape standards related to parking lots are discussed elsewhere in these comments. Modifications to
the landscaping requirements have been significantly reduced. Please see Chapter 7 of the Montava
development standards for an explanation of how we request Sec. 3.2.1 be modified.
3.8.11: Yes, the fence standards in LUC Sec. 3.8.11 are being completely replaced with the PUD Master Plan
standards in Sec. 5.10. The Master Plan standards are specifically tailored to the Transect districts and building
types of Montava. Concerning arterials, Montava’s approach to land use adjacent to arterials differs significantly
from LUC expectations. Rather than backing housing onto arterials with fencing as an aesthetic and sound
barrier, Montava is providing landscaping and stormwater conveyance in many cases and lining the arterial with
the front or sides of buildings, depending on the building’s intensity. Multi-family, some townhouses, and non-
residential buildings may front onto arterials, with sound mitigation provided by building materials. Single family
dwellings generally present sides to arterials, with landscaping and side yards as buffers. The result is a street
lined with buildings and landscaping, not a long wall of fencing. So, the arterial fencing requirements are not
applicable, and as a result, replaced by the frontage fencing requirements.
3.8.30: It is our intention to replace LUC Sec. 3.8.30 with the PUD Master Plan design standards in Chapter 9,
which address compatibility, open space, and similar issues through the PUD Master Plan and transect districts.
The PUD Ordinance does not require the Applicant to demonstrate how its plan to provide open space compares
with or exceeds the LUC requirements. Please see Chapter 9 for an explanation of how the Montava
development standards related to open space satisfy the modification standards of the PUD Ordinance in LUC
Sec. 4.29(G)(3)(a) through (d).
4.5: With the benefit of planning this large area comprehensively, open space is provided at the scale of the
Master Plan, to be detailed more specifically with each future PDP. Diagrams have been provided to illustrate
the coverage of open space areas specified at the PUD Master Plan level. There are two centers provided – the
town center and a secondary center along Giddings near the farm. A new diagram called Neighborhood Center
Shed has been provided to demonstrate that at least 90% of housing is within ½ mile of one of these centers.
The 25-foot multi-family setback is antithetical to the design vision of Montava, similar to use buffers. The size of
multi-family buildings is limited by Transect District to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses. A 25-foot
setback would violate the goal of providing a continuous, walkable pedestrian frontage along all streets.
4.27: (Lucia) The Montava PUD Master Plan does not have any areas left in the “E-Employment Zone.” Section
2.1.3(F) of the LUC (PUD Overlay) provides: “An approved PUD Overlay overlays the PUD Master Plan
entitlements and restrictions upon the underlying zone district requirements.” That means that whenever the
Montava PUD Master Plan has overlaid new uses, densities and development standards, they supersede the
underlying zone uses, densities and development standards.
The approximately 100 acre parcel called the (I) – Industrial and Employment Special District allows a wide
variety of industrial and employment uses. That use area provides for all existing LUC industrial and
employment zone uses (as defined by the LUC), but, because it is a new use area with a mix of different
potential uses, the intent is to utilize the land use standards in the underlying E-Employment and I-Industrial
zone districts except those in the E-Employment zone which categorize uses as either primary or secondary and
those which mandate certain percentages of primary and secondary uses. The open space requirements of the
E-Employment zone are modified by Chapter 9, Civic Space of the Montava development standards, and the
residential density requirements are modified by Chapter 3 of the Montava development standards
42. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/09/2018: DESIGN STANDARDS: How do the proposed standards in
19
section 4.5 of the design standards work with section 3.5 of the Land Use
Code? I am unclear on whether section 4.5 replaces section 3.5 of the Land
Use Code or if these standards supplement section 3.5 of the Land Use Code.
Response: (DPZ) The design standards in Chapter 4, including section 4.5, replace section 3.5 standards of the
Land Use Code. Chapter 4 covers many similar issues as are covered in the LUC but does so from a form-
based approach rather than a use-based approach. Additional restrictions, such as large retail establishments,
are addressed by frontage requirements and block size restrictions of the design. Additionally, many issues that
section 3.5 of the LUC addresses are for development that is antithetical to Montava’s design intent, yet they
have potential undesirable consequences when applied alongside Chapter 4 of the design standards.
43. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/09/2018: LAND USES: Montava proposes land uses not defined by the
Land Use Code or the proposed PUD Master Plan. Please provide definitions
of the following uses:
- Composting Facilities
- Agricultural Activities
Response: (BHA) Both uses are referenced in the Land Use Code. There is a definition for Composting Facilities
in the Land Use Code, but not for Agricultural Activities. We intend to use the current LUC definition for
Composting Facilities. Since there are no defined uses in the Land Use Code for a farm, we have changed the
allowed use for T2 from ‘Agricultural Activities’ to two uses defined and allowed in the Larimer County Land Use
Code which describe the anticipated uses. The uses ‘Farm’ and ‘Packaging Facility’ have been added to the
allowed uses table and the definitions section.
44. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/09/2018: LAND USES: For the proposed use list and level of review tables,
please indicate what the current level of review required per the Land Use Code
as part of the table. This will enable staff to determine whether or not the
proposed level of review is similar to what the Land Use Code currently
prescribes.
Response: (BHA) We have created a table with this comparison for your review and discussion.
45. Coment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/09/2018: DENSITIES: On Table 3.1-1, please also include the underlying
zoning for each phase and their density thresholds. We are unable to write a
finding on whether or not the proposed densities are appropriate without this
information.
Response: (BHA) Based on our discussions we have outlined the densities requested for uses in the PUD, but
not in direct comparison to current densities. The PUD Overlay regulations do not require a comparison to the
LUC requirements, but instead a justification based on Sec. 4.29(G)(a) - (d).
46. Coment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/09/2018: DESIGN STANDARDS: Tables 4.1.1-2, 4.1.1-3, and 4.1.1-4 do
not contain setback requirements for non-residential uses. All of these transects
include non-residential uses in Chapter 2 of the design standards. Please
update the table to provide setback requirements for non-residential uses in
Transects 4, 3.2, and 3.1.
Response: (DPZ) This is an issue with the heading. The “Setbacks: Dwellings” should be “Setbacks: Principal
Buildings”, to apply to residential and non-residential structures alike. The other “Setbacks: Outbuildings &
Structures” applies to outbuildings, sheds, and other minor structures. Standards have been revised these to
read “Setbacks: Principal Buildings” and “Setbacks: Outbuildings” to clarify, and add related definitions.
47. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
20
11/09/2018: DESIGN STANDARDS: Similarly, Table 4.1.4-1 does not include
setbacks for non-residential uses in Transects 4, 3.2, and 3.1. Please update
the table to include this information.
Response: (DPZ) See above.
48. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/09/2018: PARKING: Table 4.2.4-1 indicates that Transect 3.2 does not
have a minimum parking requirement for Single Family Attached or Multi-Family
buildings. Staff would not support this element of your proposed parking
requirements.
Response: (DPZ) We had added small multi-family dwellings and attached single family to T3.2 near the time of
submittal and had not updated the parking requirements to match. Parking requirements for these uses have
been added to T3.2.
49. Coment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/09/2018: DESIGN STANDARDS: If a developer wishes to deviate from the
proposed PUD Master Plan design standards, what process would they go
through?
Response: (Lucia) Minor and major amendments to an approved PUD Master Plan
are subject to the process and standards of LUC Sec. 2.2.10(A) and (B), respectively.
50. Coment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/09/2018: LANDSCAPING: Section 3.2.1(D) of the Land Use Code
establishes tree planting standards that result in an urban tree canopy. The
standard requires tree plantings every 20'-40' on average within 50' of any
building or structure (referred to as full tree stocking). It appears that your
objective with the frontage standards in 4.1.7 is partially to establish a partial
urban tree canopy as required per Section 3.2.1(D). Is this the case? If so, do
you have any analysis indicating how this method of establishing a partial urban
tree canopy compares to what the Land Use Code would normally require?
Response: (BHA/DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications
where necessary to address the specific context of Montava. See Chapter 7 of the Montava development
standards.
51. Coment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/09/2018: LANDSCAPING: Section 3.2.1(E)(1) allows the Director to require
a landscape buffer between incompatible uses. Section 4.3.1(d) of the PUD
Master Plan Standards indicates landscape buffers are not required. These two
standards are in direct conflict. Please provide a narrative discussing why there
is not a need for landscape buffers anywhere in Montava and how this proposal
meets the criteria in Section 4.29(G) of the Land Use Code.
Response: (BHA/DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing only a few
modifications where necessary to address the specific context of Montava. See Chapter 7 of the Montava
development standards. However we retain that landscape buffering is antithetical to Montava’s land use
approach. The approach in Montava establishes a character of buildings and uses by zone such that uses in T5
are compatible with other T5 uses due to building form and placement, and similarly for T4 and T3. Between
zones there may be justification for minor buffering, however zone transitions occur at alleys as frequently as
possible, which reduces compatibility conflicts. The revised landscape approach addresses this. However we
also wish to eliminate landform as a means of buffering. Overall our goal is to avoid buffering that causes
buildings to be more physically separated from each other; separating buildings erodes walkability.
52. Coment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/09/2018: LANDSCAPING: Elements of your proposed parking lot
21
landscaping requirements would not meet the Land Use Code requirements for
parking lot landscaping found in sections 3.2.1(E)(4)-(5). 4.3.3(b) requires the
planting of one tree every 40 on the perimeter of each parking lot. 4.3.3(c)
exempts parking lots smaller than 20 spaces from the parking lot interior
landscaping requirement. Neither of these requirements would meet the
standards found in 3.2.1(E)(4)-(5). It is unclear to me how these two elements
meet the intent or exceed the requirements of the Land Use Code. Please
provide additional information on how this approach is justifiable.
Response: (BHA/DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications
where necessary to address the specific context of Montava. See Chapter 7 of the Montava development
standards.
53. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/09/2018: PARKING: Thank you for your narrative discussing the district
scale approach to vehicular and bicycle parking. It is unclear how much your
proposed parking for cars and bikes differs from the current Land Use Code
standards. I have many questions about this element of Montava, including:
- How much extra parking inventory does counting on-street parking give you in
Transects 3.2 and 4?
- Since you propose to count on-street parking towards meeting the minimum
parking requirements in Transect 3.2 and 4, how does this affect the ability for
visitors to park?
- How much extra parking does the Town Center give all of the uses in Transect
5?
- What is the justification for only requiring one bicycle parking space per unit for
multi-family dwellings as opposed to one per bedroom?
Please provide additional analysis related to your proposed method of handling
vehicular and bicycle parking with your next submittal.
Response: (DPZ) T3.2: Within T3.2, we are not concerned with on-street parking counting towards minimum
standards. We are willing to make this change for T3.2.
T4: In T4 we need on-street parking to count towards multi-family and neighborhood-scale non-residential
establishments. For single family attached or detached, we are not reliant upon on-street parking. Generally we
anticipate all multi-family parking to be located on-site but occasionally constrained sights may rely on street
parking. For non-residential uses, on-street parking is important to reduce off-street parking areas which are
generally incompatible with the district character. On-street parking for these uses is typically minimal, 5 to 10
spaces, which has minimal impact on visitor parking. Overall the majority of on-street spaces in T4 are available
for visitor parking and resident parking. On average, a block in T4 is 200 feet wide by 450 feet long, providing
approximately 45-50 on-street parking spaces. Note – I lived for 6 years on Miami Beach in a 24-unit building
that had zero off-street parking, typical of the district, and was always able to find parking. We are not proposing
anything near this level of progressiveness towards parking provisions.
T5: Comment 109 includes further detail on Town Center / T5 parking.
Bicycle Parking – Multi-family: We feel that the 1-per-bedroom requirement is excessive and ultimately
expensive to provide from a development cost standpoint, increasing the rental cost of each unit in the building.
Bicycle Parking – Other: We plan to provide for a significant number of bicycle parking spaces on-street within
T5 and the more intensive (townhouse and multi-family) areas of T4, with additional bicycle parking in the shared
parking areas of T5. We analyzed the existing bicycle parking requirements for these areas and determined that
they would be accommodated in on-street racks and in the shared commercial parking areas, and that individual
tenants would not need to provide them at their expense.
54. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
22
11/12/2018: MVSAP AMENDMENT: Do you have any additional analysis
related to the employment needs of Fort Collins outside the trends and forces
report? Your justification for meeting Policies MV-ECON-1.1 and
MV-ECON-1.2 relies solely on the trends and forces report and does not
contain any information on the difference between what your plan calls for with
respect to employment land/uses and what current zoning would allow. We need
additional analysis discussing the differences between current zoning and what
Montava would allow and how much this impacts the employment land supply in
Fort Collins so we can write a finding regarding compliance with these policies.
Response: (Max) We’re basing the planned land uses on our many discussions with city staff, local published
market conditions indicating increased needs for a variety of housing types, and the third party trends and forces
report that has been developed in parallel. We’ve clarifed in the revised MVSAP amendment document the
opportunities for employment uses allowed in the PUD. We hope this can assist with justification.
55. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: MVSAP AMENDMENT: For the amended policies, how do you
propose to amend those policies? Please provide recommended changes to
the policy language with your next submittal. If you propose to remove these
policies, please state so in the MVSAP amendment document.
Response: (BHA) We have added recommended changes to the policy language
Engineering – Marc Virata
56. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: [Site Design] for approval:
The civil plans that were submitted provide utility layout and grading information
that while preliminary, does provide fairly detailed information. I'm unsure if the
intent is to have the utility design vested in some manner, along with the general
grading layout. If this is the case, then this plan set should have a standard City
utility plan approval block on the plan set along with appropriate district approval
blocks that are serving the site. Verification from the utility providers that will
serve the site that the depiction is acceptable is then needed.
Response: (Martin/Martin) The utility lines shown on the civil plans have been removed and the typical utility
locations have been shown on the typical roadway sections. It is not intended to have the specific locations of
utility lines as shown on the civil plans vested. It is also not intended to have the specific grading of roadways
vested. Designs of utilities, roadways and grading is subject to change pending final construction plan design.
57. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/2018: [Transportation/Site Design] by hearing: In the PUD Standards
Booklet it is indicated that front fencing must be within 2 feet of the front property
line. This should be a minimum not a maximum, as Engineering requires a 2
foot separation from the back of walk (property line) to a fence.
Response: (DPZ) The design vision of Montava requires the ability to locate fencing and walls at the back of the
sidewalk. Similarly zero-lot-line development proposed within Montava will be located at the sidewalk. Utility
accommodations are provided within the street right-of-way and adjacent alleys to accommodate. Where no
alley is provided, fencing is not permitted near sidewalks in the design standards, so the condition does not exist.
Examples of fencing and walls along sidewalks in other DPZ projects are provided for reference with our
resubmittal. Traditionally, yard fencing is always located within 2 feet of sidewalks.
58. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/2018: [Transportation/Site Design] by hearing:
In the PUD Standards Booklet it is indicated that a 0 foot rear setback occurs
23
along the alleys. Under the premise that these are private alleys, Engineering
would not have jurisdiction over this. If public however, Engineering would
require setbacks from garage doors of a minimum of 8 feet (without fences) or
19 feet with fences. In either case of public or private alleys, meeting the utility
needs for the project could be of concern if 0 feet for rear setbacks occur
without provision for utility needs.
Response: (Max) Understood. We’ve included cross-sections with utilities including alleys for review and
discussion.
59. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/2018: [Site Design/Transportation] for approval:
City staff overall has looked further into the concerns regarding the overall
right-of-way components and concerns with parkway and sidewalk widths. The
determination is that 56 foot right-of-way should be the width for local streets.
Response: (DPZ) Existing LCUASS standards specify a 51 foot right-of-way, which is what we are providing at
minimum, including the staff request to provide a 5 foot minimum sidewalk width everywhere. Rights of way
proposed are 51 feet or wider. The only exception is where a street is split by a wide center green. That center
green is considered open space rather than right-of-way, however it provides significant additional width for
utilities. Additional utility space is provided within alleys. Utility locations have been indicated on street sections
to demonstrate sufficient available space.
Environmental Planning - Stephanie Blochowiak
60. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. FOR APPROVAL: Please title the oil and gas
setback alternative compliance request: "Alternative Compliance Buffer
Reduction Plan". This plan must "clearly identify and discuss the proposed
buffer reduction and the ways in which the plan will equally well or better
eliminate or minimize nuisances" compared to a 500-ft (or 1000-ft) setback.
The current submittal does not speak to the "equally well or better than" criteria
specifically; additional justification is needed. This justification can be provided
once the site investigation and sampling activities are complete.
Response: (BHA) An Alternative Compliance Buffer Reduction Plan has been included with the resubmittal.
61. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. FOR APPROVAL: The oil well locations and
requested 150-ft buffers should be shown on the Illustrative Master Plan for
reference, and to ensure that the setback requirements can be achieved.
Response: (DPZ) Acknowledged. The wells and buffers have been added to the illustrative plan. 2 wells are
located on the Montava site, one of which is in the farm, discussed in the next comment. The other well and its’
150ft buffer have been accommodated within an open space. The other nearby wells do not impact development
within Montava.
62. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. FOR APPROVAL: How will the wells be physically
identified and protected from disturbance, particularly in the farm area? Any
accidental damage to the well bores could impact well integrity and trigger
additional requirements. Speak to this in the Alternative Compliance Buffer
Reduction Plan submitted with next round of review.
Response: (Max) There will be an attempt to locate the actual depth of the wells. Assuming that nothing is
found in the environmental study, and since we know these wells never produced when they were originally
drilled, and since we know this area in the farm has been farmed and plowed year after year for many decades,
we would propose that if we cannot locate the exact depth of the well this will not hinder the land for farming.
24
63. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. BY PUD REVIEW ROUND 2/NEXT SUBMITTAL:
The map on page 67 of the "Montava PUD Master Plan" is low resolution and
the labels are illegible, so it is unclear where the oil wells are and how they
relate to other features. The two off-site wells should be shown on this graphic,
as well. Please enhance this graphic in your next submittal.
Response: (BHA) The diagram on pg 67 is a reduction of the larger Existing Conditions and Natural Features
Plan included with the PUD submittal. We agree the reduced version is illegible, so this reduction has been
removed from the Design Standards Booklet, but the off-site wells have been indicated on the full-size version
of this plan.
64. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP):
Staff has reviewed and approved TRCs sampling plan for the two on-site oil
wells. Based on the results of the sampling, additional investigation,
remediation, or well repair may be necessary to determine whether a reduced
buffer is appropriate.
Response: Acknowledged
65. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: INFORMATION ONLY. FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
(PDP): As previously discussed, the 5 years of monitoring at the oil wells should
begin once Final Development Plans have been approved for those areas of
the PUD Master Plan, at the latest.
Response: Acknowledged
66. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: INFORMATION ONLY. FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
(PDP): Please note the oil well disclosure requirements for future PDPs and
Plats. Plats for any property within 1,000-ft of existing oil wells must include a
note informing future property owners that lots are in close proximity to an
existing oil and gas location. For residential developments requiring a
declaration pursuant to the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act, a
statement shall be included in such declaration specifying the lots within such
residential development upon which dwellings may be constructed that are
within 1,000-ft of an oil and gas location. The approved plat for such residential
development shall be attached to the recorded declaration. Where no such
declaration is required, the property owner shall record a statement on the
property where the dwelling is located indicating that such property is located
within one thousand feet of an oil and gas location.
Response: Acknowledged
67. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. INFORMATION ONLY: Thank you for providing the
comprehensive Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) in accordance with
Land Use Code (LUC) 3.4.1(D)(1) and for the copy of the jurisdictional wetland
determination letter dated September 28, 2018 from the United States Army
Corps of Engineers. It appears LUC 3.4.1 natural habitats and features
protection and mitigation standards are capable of being met through this
proposed PUD Master Plan.
Response: Acknowledged
68. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
25
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. INFORMATION ONLY: A reminder that a copy of of
Army Corps of Engineers permit will be required prior to issuance of City
Development Construction Permit (DCP) for each phase of development
involving impacts to jurisdictional (e.g. federal) wetlands.
Response: Acknowledged
69. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. FOR APPROVAL: The location of the active
red-tailed hawk nest and buffer should be shown on the Illustrative Master Plan
for reference, and to ensure the temporary setback of 450ft can be achieved
during active nesting season FEB 15 through JUL 15.
Response: (DPZ) The location of the nest is identified on the Illustrative Master Plan. This has been included in
the annotated master plan diagram. The process of achieving the temporary nesting season setback is a detail
applicable at the PDP level review of that particular development phase.
70. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN EXISTING CONDITIONS. FOR APPROVAL. Add
after "temporary 450ft LOD radius" with “during active nesting season FEB 15 –
JUL 15.”
Response: (BHA) Note has been added.
71. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. INFORMATION ONLY. Ensure the approximate
acreage and locations of highest ecological value resources and minimum
quantitative buffer setbacks remain included on site and landscape plans.
Quantitative and/or qualitative (performance standards) for natural habitat buffer
zone areas can be applied for natural resource protection and mitigation areas.
Down the line, will want to make sure all wetlands (jurisdictional and otherwise)
can be mitigated for 1:1 within the development. Thank you for providing notes
on sheet 4, Existing Conditions and Natural Features.
Response: Acknowledged and more detail of mitigation required would be anticipated at PDP.
72. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. FOR APPROVAL: Has City Forestry been
contacted to complete a full site inventory of existing trees and to inform the tree
mitigation plan? Please contact Ralph Zentz, Senior Urban Forester
(970-221-6302 or rzentz@fcgov.com) to determine the status of existing trees
and mitigation requirements that could result from the proposed development.
LUC Section 3.2.1(C) requires developments to submit a landscape and tree
protection plan, and if receiving water service from the City, an irrigation plan,
that: "...(4) protects significant trees, natural systems, and habitat, and (5)
enhances the pedestrian environment. " Note that a significant tree is defined
as one having DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) of six inches or more.
Environmental Planning and Forestry staff work closely together on tree
mitigation and habitat designs for development projects.
Response: Forestry has been contacted and conducted cursory site visit (ODP level). Final tree mitigation will be
documented with each phase PDP as per their comments. A note has been added to the existing conditions
plan.
73. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN EXISTING CONDITIONS. FOR APPROVAL. Add
existing trees including DBH (diameter at breast height), species and health
status, and tree groves and whether they might be impacted by the proposed
26
development. Essentially what is to remain and what is to be mitigated for.
Response: (BHA) We have toured the site with Forestry to understand the general areas of key trees to be
protected. But full tree inventory of individual trees, size and species is anticipated to be provided at the PDP
stage when more details on site specific development and grading can be determined. We’ve added a note to
the Existing Conditions plan to indicate this.
74. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN AND UTILIZATION ROW. BY PUD REVIEW
ROUND 2/NEXT SUBMITTAL: Current zoning in this area is Industrial (I),
Employment (E), and Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN). Proposed
zoning and design supporting New Urbanist Community Vision is listed as:
Civic Buildings, T5 Urban Center Mixed Use, T4 General Urban Neighborhood,
T3.2 Sub-urban Neighborhood, T3.1 Rural Neighborhood, T2 Rural Farm, City
Park and Open Space, Poudre School District, Natural Areas and Stormwater
and Industrial and Employment. However, with the proposal to replace LUC
3.2.1 Landscape and Tree Protection standards and 3.2.2 Access, Circulation
and Parking standards, City staff request more analysis and clarity through
visual aids (plan view and cross sections) on how proposed landscape
standards for the T5 thru T2 proposed zones meet or exceed current City
landscape standards for development in Industrial, Employment, LMN,
Downtown and Old Town, and Parking lots. Please submit comprehensive
comparison and how, specifically, landscaping could realistically fit into
proposed frontage yard setbacks and proposed right-of-way, while also
allowing for utilities placement. Plan view and cross sections of frontage yard
types and streets with dimensions where planted areas are proposed is
needed.
Response: (Lucia) The PUD Overlay regulations do not require the Applicant to demonstrate how its
development standards for landscaping meet or exceed the LUC requirements. Please note that the Applicant
has significantly reduced the number of modifications form the LUC standards, and see also Chapter 7 of the
PUD Master Plan Standards for an explanation of how the proposed landscaping standards satisfy the
modification standards of the PUD Ordinance in LUC Sec. 4.29(G)(3)(a) through (d). In addition, please see the
supporting images and street cross-sections provided.
75. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN AND UTILIZATION ROW. INFORMATION ONLY:
Alternatively, LUC 3.2.1 and Parking lot landscaping standards could be kept in
place and there is a provision for alternative compliance option outlined in
3.2.1(N) when submitting Project Development Plan (PDP) submittals. There
are several ways to creatively meet community landscape expectations and
values associated with vegetation, aesthetics, cooling and habitat provided by
well planned and maintained landscape features.
Response: (BHA/DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications
where necessary to address the specific context of Montava. See Chapter 7 of the Montava development
standards.
76. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. IDEALLY FOR PUD APPROVAL AND
DEFINITELY FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP): Include concept
plans of unique landscape features that might be proposed in lieu of more
traditional landscape features to be included in the Montava PUD and
subsequent PDP submittals. For example: green roofs, living walls, biosolar
27
roofs, vegetated stormwater Low Impact Development (LID) features and large
windbreaks. Especially if traditional LUC "full tree stocking" outlined in 3.2.1(D)
(1)(c) is not anticipated.
Response: (BHA/DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications
where necessary to address the specific context of Montava. See Chapter 7 of the Montava development
standards.
77. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. FOR APPROVAL: Please remove plants from the
plant list provided in the Montava PUD Master Plan Standards booklet having
HIGH HYDROZONE designation and utilize only Medium, Low and Very Low
Hydrozone plant material.
Response: We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. See Chapter 7 of the Montava development standards.
We no longer have specific plant lists in the PUD standards booklet but will instead simply rely on the City-
recommended species in current codes. Outdoor irrigation will be accomplished using well water and a non-
potable system. Primary conservation will be accomplished by thorough design and planning of soil
improvements required along with appropriate plant lists for both soil and water conditions. This is being done in
partnership with CSU Horticulture, and will be managed by the Metro District. Additionally, the Metro District will
serve as the central repository for community knowledge and communication regarding irrigation practices to
support long term health of the plant life. The system will be professionally and remotely managed so that
irrigation leaks can be detected and immediately repaired, adding another level of proactive conservation. The
details of these plans will be described in the PDP level approvals.
Additionally clarify anticipated landscape water
budgets and how they compare to those in LUC 3.2.1. WaterSense is
mentioned for interior water conservation but it remains unclear how exterior
landscape water conservation is planned to occur.
Response: We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Exterior water conservation is a priority for Montava and
each phase is expected to meet the Water Conservation requirements in LUC 3.2.1.3. Existing wells on the
property are anticipated to be used for irrigation of as much landscaping to the extent possible to reduce the
need for treated potable water – including common open areas, streetscapes, and individual yards. A non-
potable irrigation system will be designed and constructed to meet or exceed public utility standards in
accordance with industry leading water conservation requirements, State & local water accounting requirements,
& through use of technology to monitor and manage community water resources. Waters delivered from the
reclaimed water provider, on-site wells, or off-site surface water will be appropriately measured and recorded at
the time of delivery in accordance with State requirements. Infiltration, evaporation, & use within the community
will be measured, documented and reported at the time of use. Each irrigation system pump station, specific
controller, & remote control zone will be individually monitored by the irrigation central control system. This will
facilitate further water use tracking for state reporting, utility management, & to identify essential system
operational status. All system malfunctions will be monitored by conservation software & the Montava water
manager for immediate intervention to minimize or eliminate water waste due to operation during natural
precipitation events or equipment failure.
78. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. FOR APPROVAL: Include specific ideas and
concept designs of how, specifically, the Montava PUD Master Plan (p12) "will
also be incorporating Nature in the City in appropriate locations throughout
Montava." There appear to be several opportunities to include these elements
and we can discuss concept ideas, together, if desired. Also see resources
28
provided including: National Guidelines for Nature Play and Learning Places by
Moore and Cooper; Nature Play in the Built Environment Design Standards and
Guidelines by Denver Parks and Recreation; Green Infrastructure Opportunities
that Arise During Municipal Operations by EPA. Copies to be provided at the
staff review meeting 11/14/2018 and via email.
Response: Nature In the City will be incorporated in two primary ways. We are including a map showing the
pedestrian walk shed from the two primary features on the east and west of the site. To the West we will have an
80-acre Community Park along with an improved #8 Ditch that will incorporate many elements of Nature in the
city. To the East, running the entirety of the project from north to south runs a storm water/natural area and a 40-
acre organic farm. Additionally, please find attached a book of 10 concepts for incorporating Nature in the City.
With each PDP approval, there will be at least 2 components from this list incorporated into the plan for that
PDP. Additional options may be added to this list if submitted by the Developer and approved by a City
Environmental Planner.
79. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. FOR APPROVAL: Include a menu of Nature in the
City (NIC) features the Montava PUD Master Plan intends to utilize and that
serves as a guide for when PDP submittals are under review. A minimum of 5
– 7 NIC specific elements to be included in the Montava development.
Categories could include: living architecture (e.g. green roofs, brown roofs,
living walls, trellises with vines, vertical gardens); wildlife infrastructure for
targeted species (e.g. insect hotels, shelters for birds, bats and bees, wildlife
crossing features over and/or under roads); pollinator gardens targeted to local
native species of pollinators including insects, birds and bats; nature play (e.g.
areas featuring organic and natural materials, spaces encouraging exploration
and learning about natural processes); quiet and meditative nature spaces;
sculptural elements that also serve as habitat-enhancing features. For examples
in Fort Collins, visit: the pollinator and respite garden at Front Range
Community College; the Genesis Project Community Garden and Playground;
the Habitat Hero Garden at Manhattan Townhomes development; the living wall
and bioswale at City of Fort Collins Utilities Administration Building at 222
Laporte Ave; native plants and natural materials used at Twin Silo Community
Park in SE Fort Collins.
Response: (BHA) See response to 79 above, with list submitted.
80. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. INFORMATION ONLY: NIC staff supportive of
incorporating edible landscapes. As the majority of edible plants are annuals
please ensure inclusion of perennials for year-round interest and for year-round
nutritional resources for local pollinators.
Response: Acknowledged. Final species for each project will be determined at time of PDP.
81. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. FOR APPROVAL: In proposed Montava Master
PUD, please clarify “pollinator supportive” – does this refer to floral resources
(nectar/pollen) and habitat features (nesting materials, insect hotels, snags,
burrowing sand, passive water resources like stones with water-holding
pockets? Which pollinator species, in particular will be supported? Colorado
has hundreds of native bee species and most live alone and in the ground.
Response: (BHA) This is an overarching goal, but specific species, locations, approaches are anticipated to be
determined at time of PDP for each phase.
29
82. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. INFORMATION ONLY: Areas of the development
designated as “pollinator supportive” should include plant designs having bloom
times spanning early-spring through late fall and provide resources for different
types of pollinators and different needs (e.g. pithy stems from sunflowers for
cavity nesting species, Woods Rose for leafcutter bees, etc). Keep in mind the
management of these wild-like designs and pocket nature features will be less
intensive and an integrated pest management plan is needed in lieu of heavy
chemical application or mowing. See Colorado State University Extension
online resources in addition to Planting in a Post-Wild World by Rainer and
West.
Response: Acknowledged. Thank for this information resource
83. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. FOR APPROVAL: Instead of including a plant list
in the Montava PUD Master Plan, perhaps it is simpler to simply state that
“City-approved species including native plants” will be utilized.
Response: Agreed – the specific plant lists have been removed from the PUD. City-approved species including
native plants will be provided with each phase PDP. In addition, the developer is working with CSU in
conjunction with the city and BHA to take into account the soil characteristics and water quality of Montava to
develop a plan and a plant list that is supportable long term to thrive in the area.
84. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. FOR APPROVAL: The Nature in the City Strategic
Plan aligns with many Fort Collins community values around wildlife flora and
fauna, easy access to nature, integration of nature and the built environment,
and multiple environmental benefits of ditches and stormwater drainage ways. It
appears that the proposed PUD Master Plan landscape standards might result
in less trees and vegetation integrated throughout the Montava built
environment, yet if true, less trees and vegetation would not align with Nature in
the City and City Plan Vision and Policies.
Response: (BHA/DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications
where necessary to address the specific context of Montava.The design for Montava will result in equal or
greater landscaping. The main difference is that much of that landscaping occurs in common areas, streets, and
green streets, and less on individual properties in T4 and T5. In these more intensive areas, properties are often
defined near to the building envelope and open space is collected into compact greens, squares, plazas, and
other collective open spaces.
85. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. FOR APPROVAL: The Montava PUD Master Plan
mentions that residential development in Montava will be built to the Department
of Energy's Zero Energy Ready Homes "ZERH" standard. What level of Home
Energy Rating System (HERS) Index Score will the builder target for new
homes? Would the developer and builder meet updated DOE ZERH standards
over time or is there a desire to utilize current standards (DOE Zero Energy
Ready Home National Program Requirements Rev.06) indefinitely? Will the
standard be pursued for all homes or only the single family detached housing
products?
Response: (Max) Generally in the Fort Collins region the average performance threshold for ZERH would be a
HERS Index score in the mid-50's. However, if you look at homes featured in the DOE ZERH 'Tour of Zero',
you'll see most builders easily exceed this threshold with scores in the mid-40's and lower. Our commitment is to
30
hit the average performance threshold, while encouraging builders to do better than average.
Only the builder is responsible to meet the DOE ZERH national program requirements. That said, these
requirements are not likely to change for at least three years when the program is expected to reach 25,000
certifications per year and will ramp up in sync with ENERGY STAR for Homes program changes also on track
for at least three years.
ZERH works equally well for both single-family and multi-family projects up to five stories. While we are
committed to all SF homes being built to the ZERH standard as our goal, it is our desire for multi-family to
incorporate ZERH standards as well, but no local builders have ever done so, and it will be a challenge. We are
working on a building system that would enable both SF and other non SF structures to be built to high energy
efficiency standards, but cannot yet make this as a commitment.
Not knowing what all updated DOE standards will be over time, we can only commit to the current level as our
intent.
86. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. FOR APPROVAL: The Montava PUD Master Plan
mentions that residential development in Montava will be built to the Department
of Energy's Zero Energy Ready Homes "ZERH" standard, however, what
energy efficiency standards will be pursued for commercial buildings? An
important component of the City's Climate Action Plan relies on increasing
energy efficiency in commercial buildings. See the DOE Energy Star for
Commercial and Industrial Buildings.
Response: (Max) Regarding commercial buildings many options for energy efficiency exist such as LEED for
Buildings (e.g., Certified, Silver, Gold, Platinum) and other green commercial building programs. Commercial
buildings will be built to City of Fort Collins Code, and where practical and affordable improved for energy
efficiency beyond that.
87. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. INFORMATION ONLY: The Montava PUD Master
Plan mentions that residential development in Montava will be built to the
Department of Energy's Zero Energy Ready Homes "ZERH" standard, however,
what energy efficiency standards will be pursued for commercial buildings? An
important component of the City's Climate Action Plan relies on increasing
energy efficiency in commercial buildings.
Response: (Max) Regarding commercial buildings many options for energy efficiency exist such as LEED for
Buildings (e.g., Certified, Silver, Gold, Platinum) and other green commercial building programs. Commercial
buildings will be built to City of Fort Collins Code, and where practical and affordable improved for energy
efficiency beyond that.
88. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. INFORMATION ONLY: Please consider partnering
with a reputable solar company to ensure installation of solar panels on all
affordable housing units to assist residents with utility costs longterm.
Response: (Max) Will do
89. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN AND UTILIZATION ROW. FOR APPROVAL: the T5
Urban Center Mixed Use might be the tightest place to provide traditional
landscape elements including trees. Perhaps there is an opportunity, for
31
example, for the Montava Town Center and most urban area to commit to 50%
of all rooftop square footage being used as a combination of green roofs, blue
roofs, and/or biosolar roofs.
Response: (BHA/DPZ) We intend to meet the LUC standards for landscaping except as modified in Chapter 7.
While green roofs, blue roofs, and rooftop solar would not be precluded with the PUD, we do not intend to
include minimum requirements for these elements.
90. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. FOR APPROVAL: The PUD Standards booklet on
p53 of 122 mentions lighting zones. Please provide more information and
design specifications anticipated for each proposed "Dark Sky lighting friendly
zones" LZ1, LZ2 and LZ3. Please contact Gary Schroeder at 970-221-6395 or
gschroeder@fcgov.com and/or Ginny Sawyer at 970-224-6094 or
gsawyer@fcgov.com to discuss what might be most appropriate in each zone
to still meet City Night Sky Objectives and comply with International Dark Sky
Association standards.
Response: (DPZ) The lighting zones are derived from the International Dark Sky Association’s model lighting
policy found here (https://www.darksky.org/our-work/lighting/public-policy/mlo/). This policy defined lighting
zones LZ0 through LZ4. We aligned these lighting zones with the Transect districts, which correlate well. LZ0 is
for natural areas, applicable to civic space. LZ4 is more intensive than any of the Transect districts. The
remaining LZ1, LZ2, and LZ3 zones were correlated to T3, T4, and T5 respectively. Lighting standards within the
code document are derived from the simpler of the available calculation methods described in the model
ordinance.
91. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. FOR APPROVAL: Consider adding permitted
uses of plant nurseries, greenhouses and composting facilities to the Industrial
and Employment zones.
Response: (DPZ) There are no Industrial or Employment zones in the Montava PUD Master Plan. There is a
new combined (I) – Industrial & Employment Special District, in which all uses permitted in the Industrial and
Employment zones of the LUC are permitted.
92. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. INFORMATION ONLY: There appears to be an
enormous opportunity at Montava to plan organic waste management into this
PUD and subsequent PDPs on a scale never before seen in Colorado or the
United States. Montava could be a national leader and innovator in this area
and if planned in from the beginning, certainly "could provide opportunities to
promote composting of organic waste that could be used in the soil restoration
and enrichment" for the farm area as mentioned in the Design Narrative on p33.
Perhaps a large facility is planned into the Industrial area and to compost
residential and commercial food waste for compost to be used on the organic
farm and perhaps for site grounds maintenance in lieu of synthetic fertilizers.
This would be a large neighborhoods scale composting system never seen
before. Successfully composting at this scale could provide a huge public
benefit to Montava residents and the organic farm. Several site design and
permitting aspects would be needed for consideration. City staff suggest setting
up an in-person meeting with the Native Hill Farm representatives, Developer,
Honore Depew and Jonathan Nagel with Environmental Services. Honore can
be reached at 970-221-6604 or hdepew@fcgov.com and Jonathon can be
32
reached at 970-416-2701 or jnagel@fcgov.com.
Response: (Max) This is something that we can and will consider, but cannot commit to at this time.
93. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. INFORMATION ONLY: A vegetated buffer and/or
water quality features or low impact development features and/or combination
of these features (or others) may be needed to form a buffer around the area of
the Montava development intended for organic farming. The United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) has specific criteria in place for organic
farms to maintain their organic certification and sell to major markets. This
certification could potentially be threatened from runoff from the Montava
development if residents or contracted landscape personnel are using
herbicides and pesticides and synthetic fertilizers that could runoff into the
organic farm area. Something to consider now and plan ahead to mitigate and
reduce risks. See resource provided: What are buffer zones and why does my
farm need them by USDA.
Response: (Max) I have requested an answer from Nic and Katie on this one. Notifications and restrictions would
likely be best treated with our private covenants.
94. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: SITE DESIGN. INFORMATION ONLY: The Montava organic farm
will be surrounded by residents who most likely know little about general farming
or organic farming. Consider adding specifically to Chapter 9 - Metro District
and HOA Establishment and Responsibilities of the PUD Design Narrative
document that no activity that could inhibit organic certification of the organic
farm will be allowed. Essentially something to fall back on in case problems
arise in the future with those living and working at Montava and conflicts with
organic farm operations.
Response: (Max) Acknowledged and agreed.
Park Planning - Suzanne Bassinger
95. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/2018: Site Design: (repeated from Open Space/Trails)
Expanded easements for underpass and/or overpass approaches along the
Northeast Trail alignment are required for construction of future grade
separated crossings as funding becomes available. Grade separated
crossings, and the associated expanded trail easements, are to be located at
trail crossings of Mountain Vista and Richards Lake roads (arterials) and
collector roadways. PPD is available to work with Montava to determine priority
locations for near-term versus future construction. Interim at-grade trail
crossings of arterials and collectors will be coordinated with the Traffic
Department.
Response: (Max) We agree that three crossings are most important for grade-separations – Mountain Vista,
Country Club, and Richards Lake Road, but that grade-separated crossings in other locations would be
detrimental to other neighborhood goals. Easements and detailed designs will be determined at time of PDP.
96. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/2018: Site Design: (repeated from Open Space/Trails) The
conceptual alignment of the Northeast Trail approximately paralleling the
extended Timberline Road and adjacent to the Larimer & Weld No. 8 Outlet
Ditch is consistent with the Trail Master Plan and is supported by PPD. The
preliminary and final alignment of the trail should consider and incorporate the
33
design standards in the Trail Master Plan, including a recommended
right-of-way or easement width of 50. The preferred final alignment should
follow the alignment of the No. 8 Outlet Ditch to and through the site. The PUD
Master Plan should identify the Northeast Trail easement location and street
crossings.
Response: (BHA/DPZ) We generally accept the concept that the regional trail alignment will follow the No. 8
Ditch alignment. We are committed to locating a 30-50’ easement as (i) is acceptable to the ditch company, and
(ii) will support the planned town center and transportation network. We will incorporate this into the plan as best
we can with these conditions and will continue to work with Parks to create a successful trail experience.
Poudre Fire Authority – Andrew Rosen
97. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/30/2018
11-14-2018 UPDATE AFTER CITY MEETING
Access on Residential and Local streets has been shown to be problematic if
parking and drive aisle widths have not been adequately foreseen and planned.
The project team will be meeting with PFA shortly to discuss this further:
Topics from the City meeting include:
>How to balance emergency response and neighborhood parking
>Turn radii
>possibly alternating parking each side
>Strategically locating house driveways to provide civilian vehicles with informal
'pullouts' to allow emergency vehicles to pass easily.
>Placing fire lane-no parking signs near tight curves and intersections to allow
proper turning for emergency vehicles which may be 52ft in length
>If the street is 24ft wide then parking will only be allowed on one side.
10/30/2018:
PFA and the City of Fort Collins are expecting to adopt the 2018IFC in January
2019 and future Fire Code adoptions may take place every three years. Each
portion of the project, as it progresses, will comply with the adopted Code in
place at that time.
The project team will be meeting with PFA to discuss the project further
especially phasing and access.
Response: (DPZ) Acknowledged. We had a meeting with PFA following receipt of these comments to discuss
specific details of street design, site layout, and buildings. PFA noted that they heard certain rumors about the
design which turned out to not be true. We reviewed each street section for fire access. No issues were raised
with any section. We discussed the requirement to be within 30 feet of buildings with an eave height of over 30
feet, which will be accommodated. We reviewed access to alley-loaded units facing onto green space, including
pavement width and options for stabilized ground (20 feet paving preferred, okay if we have 16 plus stabilize the
remaining 4), a width of 26 feet needed where eaves are over 30 feet, a minimum inside turning radius of 25
feet, and rear access to units. We also discussed the need to park an engine within 150 feet of any building and
the commercial area requirement of hydrant spacing at 300 feet. We noted that our preferred commercial area
design approach is to stripe out parking spaces such that we pair hydrants at 300 feet with a striped out space
halfway between to achieve both hydrant and 150 foot access needs together. We also discussed access
through parking areas in multi-family dwellings. PFA noted that their concerns were addressed at this level and
that we will work together through further detail in PDP reviews when we have more certainty about building
types, heights, and locations.
98. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/30/2018
10/30/2018:
AERIAL APPARATUS ACCESS
If any building is greater than 30ft in height then this will trigger the requirements
34
for aerial apparatus access. A 26ft wide fire lane will be established no closer
than 15ft and no further than 30ft from the building along one long side. Code
language follows:
> IFC D105.1: Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the
highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet, approved aerial fire apparatus access
roads shall be provided. For purposes of this section, the highest roof surface
shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the
intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever
is greater.
> IFC D105.3: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition
shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the
building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The
side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned
shall be approved by the fire code official.
Response: (DPZ) Same as above.
99. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/30/2018
10/30/2018:
FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS
A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In addition to
the design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any
new fire lane must meet the following general requirements:
> Shall be dedicated by plat or separate document as an Emergency Access
Easement.
> Maintain the required 20 foot minimum unobstructed width & 14 foot minimum
overhead clearance. Where road widths exceed 20 feet in width, the full width
shall be dedicated unless otherwise approved by the AHJ.
> Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting
40 tons.
> Dead-end roads shall not exceed 660' in length without providing for a second
point of access. Dead-end access roads in excess of 1320 feet in length
require a third point of access.
> Dead-end fire access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided
with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus.
> The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum
of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. Turning radii shall be detailed on
submitted plans.
> Dedicated fire lanes are required to connect to the Public Way unless
otherwise approved by the AHJ.
> Be visible by red curb and/or signage, and maintained unobstructed at all
times. Sign locations or red curbing should be labeled and detailed on final
plans. Refer to LCUASS detail #1418 & #1419 for sign type, placement, and
spacing. Appropriate directional arrows required on all signs.
> Additional access requirements exist for buildings greater than 30' in height.
Refer to Appendix D of the 2018 IFC or contact PFA for details.
*STRUCTURES EXCEEDING 30' IN HEIGHT
> IFC Appendix D: In order to accommodate the access requirements for aerial
fire apparatus (ladder trucks), required fire lanes shall be 26 foot wide minimum
on at least one long side of the building. At least one of the required access
routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a
35
maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one
entire side of the building.
Response: (DPZ) Same as above.
100. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/30/2018
10/30/2018:
FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
>Any single family attached residences shall be designed with an appropriate
fire sprinkler system as will any multi-family residential buildings.
>Should a single family residence be located further than 660ft along a cul-de
sac, then it shall be required to be designed with an approved fire sprinkler
system.
>Any commercial building greater than 5,000sqft will require either an approved
fire sprinkler system or an approved method of fire containment.
>Certain occupancy classifications will require fire containment and/or fire
sprinklers at less than 5,000sqft.
>Please contact Assistant Fire Marshal, Jerry Howell with any fire sprinkler
related questions at 970-416-2868.
Response: (DPZ) Acknowledged
101. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/30/2018
10/30/2018:
ALLEY LOADED UNITS
There is a reasonable expectation that emergency services personnel can
quickly arrive at a person-door to the residence. This is usually the front door;
however, plans containing alley loaded lots present an added obstacle to
access. PFA recommends that alley loaded units be provided with a
person-door off the rear (alley) side of the structure. In lieu of a rear-facing
person-door, front doors onto a greenbelt or other landscape feature shall be
provided with an approved sidewalk to the front door that connects to with the
alley so as to provide direct and efficient access to any individual unit. Future
plans should include all walkways to the front door.
Response: (DPZ) Acknowledged. We will provide a rear person-door or direct access to a person-door when
units are on a greenway. We will note that a solution will need to be discussed with PFA to accommodate
townhouse units which are too narrow for a person-door from the rear and are zero lot-line. Typically townhouse
units are connected in units of 6 or 8, between which a walkway will be provided to the front of the units. We
anticipate a working conversation to address this issue at the PDP level for the townhouse condition. All other
housing types will accommodate the original request without issue.
102. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/30/2018
10/30/2018:
WATER SUPPLY
Hydrant spacing and flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of
occupancy. A hydrant is required within 300' (or 400') of any Commercial (or
Residential) Building as measured along an approved path of vehicle travel. An
exception to this rule pertains to buildings equipped with a standpipe system
which require a hydrant within 100' of any Fire Department Connection (FDC).
Hydrants on the opposite sides of major arterial roadways are not considered
accessible.
>A hydrant in a commercial area shall produce a minimum of 1500gpm at 20psi
residual pressure
36
>A hydrant in a residential area shall produce a minimum of 1000gpm at 20psi
residual pressure.
Response: (Martin/Martin) Acknowledged. Since it is not the intent of the PUD document to vest specific
locations of utility lines or fire hydrants, these lines and the fire hydrants have been removed from the civil plans.
103. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/30/2018
10/30/2018:
AST & UST STORAGE TANKS
The installation or removal of an Above Ground (AST) or Underground Storage
Tank (UST) requires a separate plan review and permit from the Poudre Fire
Authority. Tanks shall be protected from damage and have secondary
containment. All tanks shall be UL listed. Please contact Assistant Fire Marshal,
Ron Gonzalez at 970-416-2864 with any questions.
Response: (Martin/Martin) Acknowledged
104. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/30/2018
10/30/2018:
PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: ADDRESS POSTING & WAYFINDING
Where possible, the naming of private drives is usually recommended to aid in
wayfinding. Addresses shall be posted on each structure and where otherwise
needed to aid in wayfinding. Code language provided below.
> IFC 505.1: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers,
building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is
plainly legible, visible from the street or road fronting the property, and posted
with a minimum of eight-inch numerals on a contrasting background. Where
access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from
the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to
identify the structure.
Response: Acknowledged
105. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/30/2018
10/30/2018:
STREET NAMING
>The proposed streets appear to be set out in a general block type pattern. In
an effort to avoid confusion in street numbering, the street name should change
when the street has changed direction approximately 90 degrees.
Response: Acknowledged. Street names will be determined at time of PDP and platting for each phase.
106. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/30/2018
10/30/2018:
ALTERNATIVE MEANS & METHODS
Where project size and scope and/or site constraints conflict with fire code
compliance, the intent of the fire code may be met via alternative means and
methods, as approved by the fire marshal. As per IFC 104.8 & 104.9, the fire
marshal may allow this approach when perimeter access and/or aerial
apparatus access requirements cannot be met on the site plan. A written plan to
meet the intent of the code via alternative means and methods will need to be
submitted to Fire Marshal, Bob Poncelow for review and approval prior to final
plans approval.
Response: Acknowledged.
107. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/30/2018
37
SOLAR ARRAY
Commercial rooftop structures and ground mounted solar arrays require a
separate plan review and permit from the Poudre Fire Authority. Please call
Plan Review Technician Kerry Koppes at 970-416-4241 with Solar Array
questions. Refer to 2018 IFC 1204 for access, pathway, and marking details.
GROUND-MOUNTED PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAYS
> IFC 605.11.4: Ground-mounted photovoltaic arrays shall comply with Sections
605.11 through 605.11.2 and this section. Setback requirements shall not apply
to ground-mounted, free-standing photovoltaic arrays. A clear, brush-free area
of 10 feet shall be required for ground-mounted photovoltaic arrays. Vegetation
height under or adjacent to arrays shall be maintained at or below 18".
10/30/2018:
Response: Acknowledged.
108. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/2018:
Further discussion is invited regarding PFA Fire Station 15
12/17/2017: FIRE STATION #15
Part of the Montava plan will need to satisfy Poudre Fire Authority's long term
strategic plan of locating land for construction of a Fire Station #15 in this area.
Any plan to design and develop Montava shall include discussions with PFA
strategic planners and the Fire Chief with the hope that an arrangement may be
reached early in the design process.
Response: (Max) Agree and we look forward to finding a location for this use.
Transportation Planning – Seth Lorson/Aaron Iverson
109. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: PARKING SERVICES – We generally agree with your
proposed parking standards and shared parking requirements. However,
please explain how on-street parking will be managed and spillover mitigated.
Response: (DPZ) We understand the concern. It helps to separate parking in T4 and T3 from parking in T5 in
this discussion. Shared parking is generally a concern of the T5 areas – where the intensive uses are located
and where concerns for spillover generate from. In T5, on-street parking is counted along with mid-block parking
to determine parking capacity. A block with 150 shared parking spaces and 60 on-street spaces has 210
available parking spaces in total. Basically we are taking on-street parking into account in terms of capacity to
provide parking supply. Within the district, development is limited by parking, as is commonly the unstated
reality.
In the early stages of development, undeveloped properties will be used for temporary surface parking as
needed. In some cases the additional temporary parking is needed because future development which will
provide additional shared parking capacity is in a later phase, yet the parking is needed currently. Similarly
permanent parking that is within a later phase of development may be built early. One example is parking
needed for the Library site which is intended to be shared with a grocery and other businesses. The Library may
be constructed before the grocery, and related businesses, so the shared parking lot nearby may be constructed
early.
38
Later in the development of the town center, total capacity of available parking will end up limiting future
development if there is insufficient parking (spillover) and additional parking will need to be provided within the
district. This can be accommodated by lowering the intensity of future development, by adjusting the design of a
later phase to accommodate more parking, or to scale-up to structured parking. This is the way the district
manages parking overall. On-street parking management in this case means the allocation of parking capacity in
the overall district. Phased development and parking capacity go hand in hand throughout the development of
the site.
Town center parking is intended to be within the triangle defined by Timberline, Mountain Vista, and the angled
stormwater corridor at the NE of the town center. Additional T5 areas are located in the vicinity of Mountain Vista
and Giddings. The potential market for those areas is not known today. If demand for employment and housing
is strong, the area is intended to be a mix of the two, which benefit from shared parking relationships. They
would be similarly managed by the district. The remainder of the site is not likely to produce any spillover
parking.
Forestry – Molly Roche
110. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/31/2018
10/31/2018:
ON BEHALF OF JILL WUERTZ (PARKS):
Please clarify if medians, parkways, and or greenways will be maintained by the
Metro District. If so, please add specifically to Chapter 9 - Metro District and
HOA Establishment and Responsibilities of the PUD Design Narrative
document. Please contact Jill with any further questions -
JWUERTZ@FCGOV.COM
Response: (Max) Anything currently maintained by the City with its current policies will also be maintained by the
City in and around the Montava development. Anything that is not currently maintained by the City in its current
policies will be maintained by the Metro District. This would apply to all medians, parkways, and greenways.
111. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/18:
SITE DESIGN/ADDRESS AT PUD
Forestry will defer to the project planner, Clay Frickey, regarding private lot
landscaping and parking lot landscaping requirements – specifically pertaining
to lot sizes, required number of private yard trees, size of private yard trees, or
option to provide shrubs in lieu of trees. From experience, Forestry has noticed
that smaller lot sizes that contain 1 or more trees (particularly front yard trees)
can create congestion with adjacent right-of-way trees. Forestry is generally
always a proponent of planting more trees, however, we would like the applicant
to consider lot sizes as well as “right-tree, right-place” in terms of requiring a
certain number of trees per private lot.
Refer to Environmental Planning Comment: Alternatively, LUC 3.2.1 and
Parking lot landscaping standards could be kept in place and there is a
provision for alternative compliance option outlined in 3.2.1(N) when submitting
Project Development Plan (PDP) submittals. There are several ways to
creatively meet community landscape expectations and values associated with
vegetation, aesthetics, cooling and habitat provided by well planned and
maintained landscape features.
Response: (BHA/DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications
where necessary to address the specific context of Montava. See Chapter 7 of the Montava development
standards.
39
112. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/13/18:
SITE DESIGN/TO BE REVIEWED THROUGH PUD STAGE BY CITY STAFF
Tree Species Diversity
Standard LUC standard for Tree Species Diversity states that in order to
prevent uniform insect or disease susceptibility and eventual uniform
senescence on a development site or in the adjacent area or the district,
species diversity is required and extensive monocultures are prohibited. The
following minimum requirements shall apply to any development plan.
Number of trees on site//Maximum percentage of any one species
10-19 - 50%
20-39 - 33%
40-59 - 25%
60 or more - 15%
The City of Fort Collins’ urban forest has reach the maximum percentage of the
following species. Please do not plant the following species and refer to the
alternative species list provided by Forestry. Ash (Fraxinus), Honeylocust
(Gleditsia triacanthose: ‘Shademaster’, ‘Skyline’, etc), Bur Oak (Quercus
macrocarpa), and Chanticleer Pear (Pyrus calleryana). Please note that
additional species might join this list as we work through the review process.
Response: (BHA) The intent is to meet the LUC Tree Species Diversity requirements, with detail provided with
each individual PDP phase of the PUD. The specific plant lists have been removed from the PUD, and
city-approved species including native plants will be provided with each phase PDP. In addition, the developer is
working with CSU in conjunction with the city and BHA to take into account the soil characteristics and water
quality of Montava to develop a plan and a plant list that is supportable long term to thrive in the area.
113. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/13/18:
SITE DESIGN/ADDRESS AT PUD
Tree Species Selection/Water
City Forestry will meet with Environmental Planning and, potentially, Natural
Areas staff to review and comment on the provided plant list. We will make
recommendations specifically on what species not to use and what species to
consider. It was previously mentioned to Forestry staff that there are concerns
with the salinity of the water on-site. Please confirm if water supplying turf, trees,
and other landscape material will be treated or raw water?
Response: (BHA) The specific plant lists have been removed from the PUD, and city-approved species including
native plants will be provided with each phase PDP. Exterior water conservation is a priority for Montava and
each phase is expected to meet the Water Conservation requirements in LUC 3.2.1.3. Existing wells on the
property are anticipated to be used for irrigation of as much landscaping as possible to reduce the need for
treated potable water – including common open areas, streetscapes, and individual yards. The Developer is
working with CSU in conjunction with the city and BHA to take into account the soil characteristics and water
quality of Montava to develop a plan and a plant list that is supportable long term to thrive in the area.
114. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/13/18:
SITE DESIGN/ADDRESS AT PUD
Full tree stocking
Tree Planting Standards. All developments shall establish groves and belts of
trees along all city streets, in and around parking lots, and in all landscape
areas that are located within fifty (50) feet of any building or structure in order to
40
establish at least a partial urban tree canopy. Full tree stocking shall mean
formal or informal groupings of trees planted according to the following spacing
dimensions:
Tree Type Minimum/Maximum Spacing
Canopy shade Trees//30'-40'
Coniferous evergreens//20'-30'
Ornamental trees//20'-30'
Exact locations and spacings may be adjusted at the option of the applicant to
support patterns of use, views and circulation as long as the minimum tree
planting requirement is met. Canopy shade trees shall constitute at least fifty
(50) percent of all tree plantings. Please provide more information as to how
Montava’s PUD standards correlate with current Land Use Code standards on
tree stocking. Will there be consistent tree lawns throughout all transects? What
will this look like? If certain transect areas stray away from the current Land Use
Code standard for tree stocking, please provide detailed explanation why this is
preferred. Please provide typical examples of tree stocking goals along streets
in all transects – this can be in the form of a diagram or overall tree stocking
objective summary.
Response: (BHA/DPZ) In general the landscape standards in the LUC are intended to be met, not reduced.
Specific modifications are outlined in Chapter 7 of the Montava development standards. Given the design of the
community, with small lots and very little space between houses, it is unlikely that there is an impact that can be
planned for regarding trees and solar panel placement. It will have to be handled and managed on a case by
case basis with each PDP. That said, we do plan to have a substantial plan for solar to be managed off site with
PRPA as well.
We have modified our approach to use existing LUC landscape standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. In general, extensive urban tree canopy is a goal of
Montava’s design. The degree of planting differs by transect district due to the distance between buildings and
other buildings, buildings and streets, and buildings and alleys. These per-site conditions are balanced with open
space and street plantings.
T5: Planting opportunities are the most constrained in T5, as you find in Downtown Fort Collins. The T5 area
provides for belts of trees along streets and for groves of trees in open spaces. Block sizes in Montava are
generally smaller than anticipated by the LUC, resulting in more streets providing belts of trees. The town center
/ T5 area includes a large green square with ample planting area, a public space at Timberline and Mountain
Vista with area for groves and belts of trees, and a long linear green along a stormwater conveyance path which
provides for belts of trees with ample root area. Parking lots will meet existing minimum standards. Individual
properties have little or no planting space because they include only the buildings and their setbacks. Parking is
not provided on an individual property basis, rather it is centralized with other parking needs, and landscaped
accordingly. Areas of open space that would be anticipated on a per-lot basis are also concentrated to form the
large public spaces which provide ample planting area.
T4: Planting opportunities are constrained on many T4 lots, however they are ample along streets and open
spaces. The typical T4 lot may be a townhouse or small single family house which occupies the majority of the
lot. Shallow front setbacks provide limited planting opportunity. However, as in T5, streets are frequent and all
provide planting for tree belts. In T4, a significant number of green streets and green courts are planned, which
replace the street space with a green. These provide significant planting opportunities. And open space
throughout T4 is distributed in compact greens which support groves of trees, greens and squares which provide
for tree belts and groves as well. As in T5, a number of linear greenways traverse the site, providing additional
planting opportunities with large root areas. On an individual parcel basis planting opportunities are limited, but
41
on a district basis they are ample.
T3: Planting opportunities in T3 are plenty – on individual parcels as well as along streets and open spaces.
115. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/13/2018:
SITE DESIGN/ADDRESS AT PUD
What impacts will solar panel placement have on street tree or private property
tree placement/stocking? Moving forward in the review process, what level of
detail will be provided in terms of solar panel location and orientation?
Response: (BHA/DPZ) This level of impact cannot be determined at the PUD Master Plan level. In general, this
is a common conflict in higher density neighborhoods but can be resolved. We believe that significant energy
savings will be provided in building construction which may reduce the need for rooftop solar and will continue to
support a wholistic approach to sustainability. This issue will be revisited in more detail at PDP when specific site
details may be analyzed, including type of building, size, use, orientation, elevation, street adjacency, and street
tree selection.
116. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/13/18:
SITE DESIGN/IDEALLY INCORPORATE THIS METHODOLOGY INTO PUD
SUBMITTAL
Silva Cells – particularly in T5, T4 (?), Civic Spaces, Parking lots, etc…
“The Silva Cell is a modular suspended pavement system that holds unlimited
amounts of lightly compacted soil while supporting traffic loads beneath paving.
That soil serves two important functions: growing large trees and treating
stormwater on-site.”
“Silva Cells can be used on almost any type of site including: streets, plazas,
parking areas, green roofs/on-structure, “break-out” zones.
City Forestry sees a critical opportunity to explore the greater utilization of Silva
Cells across the urban and suburban setting to increase tree root growth, storm
water treatment, and infrastructure support. We would be happy to pass along
additional resources and contact information for you to explore Silva Cells in
depth. BHA Design, particularly Angie Milewski, was a leader in introducing
City staff to the idea of Silva Cells and are a great resource to explain the
benefits of this infrastructure in depth.
Response: (BHA) We agree this is a great tool and resource for higher density areas. But based on its high cost
we do not intend to require its use with the PUD. Instead Silva Cells and other specific design tools can be
considered for use with the unique design considerations of each PDP phase.
117. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/13/18:
SITE DESIGN/COMPLETE PRIOR TO PDP SUBMITTAL
City Forestry and BHA (Angie Milewski) met on site in October 2018 to review
all areas that contain existing trees. A formal tree inventory and mitigation
meeting shall occur prior to the first round PDP submittal. This inventory and
mitigation data will include species, size, condition, and mitigation value, which
summarizes the overall value of one particular tree. If a tree is a removed, the
mitigation value is defined by the number of trees that would need to be
replanted in order to replace the overall aesthetic, environmental, economical,
and social value of a tree based on its species, size, condition, and overall
character. Based on the full tree inventory and mitigation information received, a
42
certain number of mitigation trees will need to be planted with the
development’s boundary. Mitigation trees are upsized to the following calipers:
Canopy Shade trees: 3’ caliper B&B
Ornamental tree: 2.5” caliper B&B
Evergreen tree: 8’ height B&B
Standard tree size shall be specified at the following calipers:
Canopy Shade trees: 2’ caliper B&B
Ornamental tree: 1.5” caliper B&B
Evergreen tree: 6’ height B&B
Response: Acknowledged. Final tree mitigation will be documented with each phase PDP.
118. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018:
SITE DESIGN/PDP SUBMITTAL
LUC Section 3.2.1(C) requires developments to submit a landscape and tree
protection plan, and if receiving water service from the City, an irrigation plan,
that: "...(4) protects significant trees, natural systems, and habitat, and (5)
enhances the pedestrian environment. " Note that a significant tree is defined
as one having DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) of six inches or more.
Environmental Planning and Forestry staff work closely together on tree
mitigation and habitat designs for development projects.
Response: Acknowledged. Individual tree species, sizes, quality and mitigation will be documented with each
phase PDP.
119. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/13/2018: SITE DESIGN/COMPLETE PRIOR TO PDP SUBMITTAL
In addition, please provide an Existing Tree Removal Feasibility Letter for City
Forestry staff to review. Proposals to remove significant existing trees must
provide a justification letter detailing the reason for tree removal. This is
required for all development projects proposing significant tree removal
regardless of the scale of the project. The purpose of this letter is to provide a
document of record with the project’s approval and for the City to maintain a
record of all proposed significant tree removals and justifications. Existing
significant trees within the project’s Limits of Disturbance (LOD) and within
natural area buffer zones shall be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible.
Streets, buildings and lot layouts shall be designed to minimize the disturbance
to significant existing trees.
(Extent reasonably feasible shall mean that, under the circumstances,
reasonable efforts have been undertaken to comply with the regulation, that the
costs of compliance clearly outweigh the potential benefits to the 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.) Where it is not feasible to protect and retain
significant existing tree(s) or to transplant them to another on-site location, the
applicant shall replace such tree(s) according to City mitigation requirements.
Response: Acknowledged.
Light & Power – Austin Kreager
120. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
43
11/13/2018: SITE DESIGN/UTILIZATION ROW:
Please provide adequate space along the public roads and private drives to
ensure proper utility installation and to meet minimum utility spacing
requirements. This would likely require LCUASS standard utility easement
requirements along the back side of the rights of way. 10ft minimum separation
is needed between all water, sewer, storm water, and irrigation main lines.
Three foot of separation from all gas facilities is also required.
Response: (DPZ) Revised exhibits have been submitted to demonstrate adequate utility accommodations and
separation. However, the standard utility easement is incompatible with the majority of development within
Montava. Accommodations for dry utilities are provided within alleys where ample space is available. We look
forward to meeting again to discuss options based on the updated information provided.
Streets – Tom Knostman
121. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/2018: STREETS DEPT:
1. We cannot support a variance to allow non-LCUASS road cross sections
until we can be provided plan views of these variances to review for
maintenance concerns.
2. Non-LCUASS street sections should be platted as private roads to be
maintained by the Metro District
3. Any road construction beyond that necessary for dwelling unit access shall
have an extended warranty 2-years beyond until full build out on these roads.
4. All utilities under roads shall be stubbed out to prevent cuts into the
pavements.
5. Full depth asphalt will not be allowed
6. Minimize median construction that would break paving patterns
7. Minimize protected bike lanes that require special snow removal equipment.
8. Detach all pedestrian walks to allow for snow storage in tree lawns
9. Show diagram of snow clearing priorities
10. We would suggest that all pavements be designed as asphalt surfaces to
deal with the high soluble sulfate concerns with concrete pavements.
11. Any curb and gutter, concrete pan, medians to be built with concrete need to
be designed around Class F fly ash with W/C ratio at or greater than 0.45 and
28 day compressive strength exceeding 4200PSI
12. All pavement sections should be designed assuming an R value >10
13. A swell mitigation plan must be approved prior to road construction
14. Groundwater depths from surface need to be mapped during the highest
water table period. Suggest this would be March to August.
15. Any soil modification for swell mitigation should use Class C fly ash or equal
mitigating compound.
16. This is a preliminary set of comments and further detail may /will facilitate
additional comments
17. No vesting is assigned until all plan concepts and variances are granted and
documented in a DA.
18. Call with questions.
Response: (DPZ) #1 – Further detail of roadway design and utilities has been provided.
#2 – In many cases the only variance is related to the utility easement outside of the right-of-way, which is being
provided for separately in the alley. Most of these roadways otherwise meet the standards of Tables 7.1 and 7.3
of LCUASS which provide for options such as additional widths of certain elements. Many of these additional
widths have been requested by staff. A limited number of non-LCUASS sections are included, such as paired
44
roads around greens which would be a Metro District responsibility. However the residential local with parking on
one side should be City maintained. It is a new section designed to solve a problem expressed by staff that the
existing LCUASS residential local does not work when housing is alley loaded. We anticipate all roads indicated
would be maintained by the City.
#3-#6 – Noted
#7 – Noted; protected bike lanes are used sparingly.
#8 – All pedestrian walks are detached. The Home Zone section may be submitted for PDP level at phase
review but will be removed from the PUD.
#9 – We would anticipate following the City’s standard snow-clearing policies. More detail could be provided in
specific areas at the PDP stage. Please let us know if additional information is requested for the PUD.
#10-18 - Noted
Stormwater
Environmental Planning – Stephanie Blochowiak
122. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: STORMWATER. INFORMATION ONLY: Green infrastructure,
vegetated stormwater features are excellent opportunities to provide functional
stormwater and water quality management and provide Nature in the City
aligned elements into development plan designs. See resource provided on
Green Infrastructure Opportunities that Arise During Municipal Operations by
EPA.
Response: (Martin/Martin) The Green Infrastructure document has been reviewed by the civil engineer. The
design team views stormwater as an asset and we will continue to design to green infrastructure, low impact
development, light imprint and traditional water quality guidelines.
Light & Power – Austin Kreager
123. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/13/2018: STORMWATER:
Light and Power has strong reservations in approving the variance to allow LID
to be performed in the right of way. The parkways remaining free of obstructions
is key for us to install and maintain a reliable and safe electric system in your
development.
Response: (Martin/Martin, DPZ) – we intend to locate power service in alleys. Minor leads may be provided from
alleys to street to accommodate street lights where needed. The variance for LID in the right-of-way is withdrawn
at this time.
Stormwater– Heather McDowell
124. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: STORMWATER:
PUD Design Narrative:
The design narrative describes the site as having five internal greenways and
ringed by a green trail systemthat manages stormwater and provides trails
and linear landscaping. The narrative also states that through large scale
comprehensive master planning, land uses, densities, transportation systems,
regional and onsite stormwater detention/conveyance, and open space areas
45
can be established to allow a more efficient use of land and energy. These
statements both seem to support that stormwater quality and LID systems could
be designed and installed within greenways and open space areas. For
additional discussion on this topic, refer to the response provided for the
Stormwater Variance Request Letter, Variance No. 2.
Response: (Martin/Martin, DPZ) Yes, this is the intention of the design. The intent is to provide many water
quality ponds throughout the Montava neighborhoods. It is intended to have LID in each development site and
also in the stormwater conveyance elements that move stormwater from the development sites to the water
quality ponds. The design team will treat stormwater with a treatment drain approach, i.e. on the development
site, in the open / surface conveyance element and in the water quality pond. Multiple layers and redundancy in
stormwater treatment. An LID, Light Imprint and Water Quality appendix has been added to the drainage
report.
125. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: STORMWATER:
PUD Standards Booklet:
Page 10 states that the Rural/Farm use includes stormwater management.
Please clarify what types of stormwater management is proposed for the
Rural/Farm use area.
Pages 12, 15, and 17, Sections Transect T3.1, T3.2 and T4 state that large,
medium and small sized lots provide for more onsite stormwater mitigation
through areas of pervious surface. Please note that we do not allow for formal
stormwater quantity or quality infrastructure to be installed on private lots. For
additional discussion on this topic, refer to the response provided for the
Stormwater Variance Request Letter, Variance No. 1.
Page 20, Section Transect T5 states that stormwater is managed collectively
and fulfilled through shared spaces offsite. Staff agrees that stormwater can be
conveyed to areas outside of the T5 Transect for quantity and quality
management. For additional discussion on this topic, refer to the response
provided for the Stormwater Variance Request Letter, Variance No. 2.
Page 21, Natural Area and Stormwater Special District it is stated that this
district is designed to combine significant areas of offsite stormwater
management with natural areas. Will this area also be utilized for onsite
stormwater management?
Page 34, It seems that you may have incorrectly referenced Table 4.1.3-1.
Response: (DPZ) Table reference: thank you for the note. We do not find any reference to that table in the
current documents. We updated table numbers a few times leading up to submission.
Rural Farm: This refers to potential additional stormwater management, such as storage or conveyance, that
may be required on the farm due to its configuration or where the property line is drawn. The farm is the largest
single development parcel in Montava, with the exception of the school, and may have future needs, similar to
schools.
T3.1, T3.2, and T4: Noted. This note is describing the typical composition of residential properties in these zones
which are less impervious while T5 is highly impervious. It does not refer to the formal treatment of stormwater.
T5: Noted.
46
126. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: STORMWATER:
PUD Master Drainage Report:
ICON Engineering has provided a review and follow up comments of the
Montava Master Drainage Study, in the form of a memo. The memo will be
provided via email to Martin and Martin. Comments in this memo will also need
responses with the next submittal.
Response: (Martin/Martin) ICON Engineering comments have been addressed accordingly.
Please note that EPA SWMM and HEC-RAS models will need to be provided
for the next submittal. These should be downloaded onto a flash drive or similar
for transfer.
Response: (Martin/Martin) Noted. EPA SWMM model has been provided. Unsteady HEC-RAS model will need
to be verified by ICON.
Section 3.1 – It is fine to utilize the reduced hydrology for modeling the offsite
flows, this is consistent with the master plan. However, reduced hydrology will
not be approved for use in calculating the onsite developed runoff. Please
ensure that you are using standard rainfall data for Fort Collins for all onsite
basins.
Response: (Martin/Martin) On-site hyetographs are based on current Fort Collins criteria. Clarification has been
added to the report
Section 3.2 - It is fine to utilize an increased infiltration rate for the offsite flows
as this is consistent with the master plan. However, you will be required to use
the standard infiltration rate of 0.51 in/hr for all onsite basins.
Section 6.1.5 - The No. 8 Outlet Ditch diversion has been moved north of where
it was noted to be located in the 2017 master plan. What impacts will this have
on the No. 8 ditch? This is now north of the Maple Hill outfall into the ditch. The
change in location of this diversion will need to be shown to not increase spills
into the L&W.
Response: (Martin/Martin) The standard infiltration rate of 0.51 in/hr has been defined for Montava basins.
Clarification has been added to the report.
Section 6.3.1 – What is the planned release rate into the No. 8 ditch from the
development? Has the release rate been negotiated with the ditch company?
Please note that they will need to review and sign all final design plans that
implicate the ditch.
Response: (Martin/Martin) It is currently being negotiated with the ditch owner to provide irrigation flow shutoff in
the event of a major storm. This will result in storm flows within the ditch being less than existing and master
planned conditions.
Section 6.4 – Please note that LID systems are required, not encouraged.
During PDP design, the plans will need to show how LID systems will meet the
LID ordinance.
Response: (Martin/Martin) The report has been updated accordingly.
47
Appendix B – 2016 Cooper Slough Alternatives Updated -ICON Engineering –
please verify if the footnote number is 2 or 1.
Response: (Martin/Martin) This has been included as a reference to ICON’s study. Please have ICON verify
footnote.
127. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: STORMWATER:
PUD Civil Plans:
Grading and Utility Plan 16 Please describe what is happening with the
contours around the east side of the farm site? It appears as though the intent is
to berm up around the farm site and potentially provide onsite detention on the
farm site, separate from the regional detention and conveyance area east of the
farm site.
Response: (Martin/Martin) Onsite detention is not being proposed on the farm site. The berm is for the regional
detention facility.
In regards to the major channel conveyances through the site:
Channel No. 2 appears to convey up to 678 cfs at the downstream end and
crosses approx. 6 roadways through the site. Is your intent to construct this
many stormwater conveyance/roadway crossings?
Channel No. 3 appears to cross 13 roadways through the site. Is your intent
to construct this many stormwater conveyance/roadway crossings?
Response: (Martin/Martin) Onsite detention is being explored to minimize the size of the crossings.
Minimum roadway, channel, and detention basin slopes will need to comply with
the Stormwater Criteria Manual. Please label all minimum and maximum slopes
on the grading plan.
Response: (Martin/Martin) A variance will be required to achieve the regional detention volume need for no
adverse impacts downstream of the development.
For the onsite detention basins that are shown on the plans, have these been
sized based on volume calculations or are these just conceptually shown? We
will require that these are conceptually calculated at this stage.
Response: (Martin/Martin) Onsite detention/water quality basins are being conceptually sized as part of this
study.
1. There is a drainage swale on the east side of the farm between the farm and the detention pond berm. At
the low point of the swale there will be a pipe culvert with a backflow preventer to allow drainage from the
farm to enter the detention pond and the backflow preventer will prevent water from the pond backing up in
to the farm. No onsite detention is proposed on the farm side of the pond berm.
2. Channel No.2 does have significant flow at the downstream end due to onsite flows and the No.8 diversion
flow. 279 cfs of the flow is diverted from the No.8 ditch. This channel does have 6 road crossing which is
less than the No.3 channel that has 13 and hence why the No.8 diversion is diverting water to the No.2
channel to save on culvert costs. All the onsite ponds are now labelled on the Grading Plans. These ponds
provide water quality treatment. In some of the ponds, 100 year detention is provided to reduced release
rates to Channel No.2 and No.3 to reduce the size of downstream culverts. Where 100 year detention is
not provided for in the onsite ponds, it’s is provide for in the regional ponds.
3. See comment 2 response.
4. All proposed roadways shown on the grading plan provide a minimum of 0.5% longitudinal slope. Major
channels and drainageways shown on the grading plan are a trapezoidal cross-section and provide
minimum of 0.1% longitudinal slope with a maximum of 4:1 side slopes. The majority of the drainageways
and channels have a longitudinal slopes of 0.2%. Drainageway and channel slopes in excess of 0.5% are
48
to be avoided to minimize channel armoring. The onsite water quality / detention ponds will be designed in
accordance with the draft stormwater manual soon to be adopted by the City. A goal of the design team is
to have the ponds look aesthetically pleasing and blend in to the character of the surrounding areas. In
some instances this may be a natural looking pond in natural areas.
5. The onsite water quality / detention basins are shown on the colored site plan, grading plans and drainage
plan. Conceptual sizing information has been provided in the appendix of the revised drainage report.
Phasing
Environmental Planning – Stephanie Blochowiak
128. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/2018: PHASING. FOR APPROVAL: General notes to be added to site,
landscape and utility plans regarding unique natural resource features at this
site and timing related to development, especially timing related to the active
red-tailed hawk nest.
Response: (BHA/Martin Martin) Acknowledged and notes have been added to utility plans. Site and landscape
plans will be developed for each phase at time of PDP.
Forestry – Molly Roche
129. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
11/16/18: PHASING. FOR APPROVAL – PREFERENCE TO INCORPORATE AT PDP
Please include the City of Fort Collins General Landcsape Notes, Tree
Protection Notes, Street Tree Notes, and Street Tree Permit Note to the
landscape/site plans during the PDP stage. Provide the street tree permit note
in a bolded box on all landscape sheets to emphasize importance.
Response: Acknowledged. Standard tree notes will be included with each phase PDP.
Stormwater– Heather McDowell
130. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: PHASING:
Montava Vested Property Rights Request Letter, 10-23-18:
In Section B. Multiple Phases, this letter states that the development is planned
to be developed in phases with PDP and FP review and approval of the design
of appropriate infrastructure suitable for each phase. Later, in Section D.3.
Significant Up Front Investment Public Improvements, the letter includes storm
drainage systems (realignment of No. 8 Ditch, creation of 2.24 miles of
stormwater channel/conveyance paths and 113 acres of regional detention
pond). It is unclear if the intent is to build the major stormwater infrastructure in
phase 1 or install certain portions of the stormwater requirements over time.
This needs to be clarified.
Attachment C, first paragraph states that The Districts will have authority to
build and in some cases, to maintain these public systems Please clarify
what you intend or propose that the Metro District does maintain and what you
propose that it doesnt.
Response: (Lucia) We have clarified what we mean by “upfront” in the Vested Property Rights Request with the
49
addition of the following language: Although the public improvements will be installed as required by each
development phase of the Montava Master Plan, given the lack of infrastructure in this area, it is expected that a
significant amount of the public improvements will need to be installed in the early phases of development.
Response: (Martin Martin) Stormwater and drainage improvements will need to be installed as necessary to
ensure there is no downstream impact above the existing condition that exists today as new development occurs
in the future.
Poudre Fire Authority – Andrew Rosen
131. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/30/2018
10/30/2018: PHASING
It is understood that this development will take several years and phases. Each
phase plan shall be provided to PFA for review and approval.
Response: Acknowledged.
Open Space/Trails
Planning– Clay Frickey
132. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/09/2018: OPEN SPACE: The images for square and plaza in Table 4.6.1-1
are very similar. Could you adjust the image for the plaza to more clearly
differentiate it from a square?
Response: (DPZ) The main difference between the two types is that one is primarily paved (plaza) and the other
is primarily landscaped (square). We believe that the distinction is clear as currently presented.
133. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/09/2018: OPEN SPACE: What is the purpose of the green civic space
type? Compared to the other civic space types that could be several acres in
size, the green does not require seating. Please provide details on what the
green civic space types purpose is and why seating is not required. Staff is
concerned greens could be large spaces with no seating opportunities.
Response: (DPZ) Greens are generally passive open spaces that are more naturalistic in shape and design. We
will modify to require seating in a green, as seating is generally provided in most greens and we have specified a
compact green type which is more typical of spaces that don’t have seating. Additionally we will modify to require
walking paths in greens, retaining them as optional in compact greens only. This retains the intended
characteristics of a green.
134. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/09/2018: OPEN SPACE: Could you also provide guidance on how to
landscape the passage civic space type? Im a little unclear on what kind of
landscaping is desired in this space given that the maximum amount of
impervious surface is 70% in a 12 foot wide space.
Response: (DPZ) The minimum dimension of a passage is 12 feet wide but a passage may be larger. The intent
is to include raised planters and planting of some type. Overall the goal is to encourage spaces like Downtown’s
Trimble Ct and the path by Coopersmith’s Pub. These spaces may be 100% impervious and we are fine with
increasing the maximum impervious area in order to encourage these types of spaces.
135. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/09/2018: OPEN SPACE: What does the Program Elements row in Table
4.6.1-4 indicate?
Response: (DPZ) This row identifies the minimum number of items from the table that must be provided within
the civic space. The table overall identifies which programmatic elements are applicable by the civic space type.
50
A plaza, for instance, requires 2 which may be achieved with a performance space and restroom facilities.
136. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/09/2018: OPEN SPACE: Please show a ¼ mile buffer around the larger
civic space areas shown on page 62. This will help with staffs analysis on
whether or not the proposed PUD Master Plan complies with relevant sections
of 3.8.30, 4.5, and 4.27 of the Land Use Code.
Response: (DPZ) A diagram has been provided.
Environmental Planning – Stephanie Blochowiak
137. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/2018: OPEN SPACE/TRAILS. FOR APPROVAL: Playgrounds, parks,
recreational fields and community gathering spaces are not permitted within a
well buffer. Please confirm that these types of amenities will not be placed within
the proposed 150-ft buffer areas.
Response: Acknowledged. There will be no active play areas within the 150 feet buffer.
Park Planning - Suzanne Bassinger
138. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/10/2018
11/10/2018: Open Space/Trails: Section 3.4.8 of the Land Use Code
establishes the location, size and characteristics of parks and trails. As stated
in this section: 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.
Response: (BHA) We have incorporated a parks conceptual plan for the community that exceeds Parks
traditional requirements in acreage but that is unique to and coordinated with the plan. We look forward to our
planned meeting with you to understand if more information is requested.
139. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/10/2018
11/10/2018: Open Space/Trails: The 2008 Parks and Recreation Policy
Plan (the Policy Plan) and the 2013 Paved Recreational Trail Master Plan
(Trail Master Plan) are the guiding documents, adopted by City Council, for
Park Planning and Development. The following comments address the
compatibility of the proposed Montava Planned Unit Development with these
guiding documents.
Response: Acknowledged, and we’ve attempted to incorporate into the PUD at the appropriate level. Please let
us know if we have missed any specifics.
140. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/10/2018
11/10/2018: Open Space/Trails: The Policy Plan identifies a future 100
-acre Northeast Community Park located in the general vicinity of the Mountain
Vista and Timberline intersection. The location of the City of Fort Collins
Park identified in the PUD is acceptable. The proposed 80-acre size of the
park is not compatible with the desired 100-acre park identified in the Policy
Plan. A reduced park size may be acceptable, but does not represent an
enhancement over current policy.
Response: (BHA) Acknowledged, and we appreciate the discussions and involvement with your department over
the last year to create a plan that helps to resolve varying needs.
141. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/10/2018
11/10/2018: Open Space/Trails: The following conditions may be used to
51
offset the reduced size of the proposed park: (1) no public streets should bisect
the park; and (2) on-street parking should be provided on surrounding public
streets adjacent to the park boundary, thereby reducing vehicle parking required
on site. Other conditions may be identified during preliminary and final site
designs for Montava.
Response: (BHA) The park is indicated south of Country Club Road and west of Timberline Road with no
additional public streets bisecting it. Additional park land is shown north of County Club Road with a grade-
separated trail crossing adjacent to the No. 8 Canal. The plan that has been submitted with the PUD for the
Community Park has been designed in close cooperation and consultation with the Parks Department for over a
year. This plan is the result of many meetings and is the best scenario that can be accomplished given all the
constraints and dynamics that must be met with this development. We believe the high-level conceptual plan
represents a wonderful opportunity for the entire community to enjoy an amazing park experience for many
generations to come.
142. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/10/2018
11/10/2018: Open Space/Trails: The Policy Plan indicates a prioritized
buildout schedule for future parks, acknowledging that the schedule may be
variable based on residential development in the areas to be served and on the
availability of operations and maintenance funding. The Policy Plan identifies
the development of 2 remaining community parks and a preferred build-out
schedule for Fort Collins last two large parks: East Community Park, to be
developed in the year 2020; and the Northeast Community Park to be
developed in 2025. An updated schedule for the development of the East and
Northeast Community Parks has not been determined at this time.
Response: (Max) Understood. As we have communicated, in order to create the sense of place and develop a
supportable sub-market to support all development in the NE Fort Collins area, we will need to create an
approach to develop the NE Park substantially sooner than 2025. We have offered to build the park in
conjunction with the City of Fort Collins and to mutually agreeable standards, as long as we are repaid over time,
and convey that park to the people of Fort Collins through donation to the City.
143. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/10/2018
11/10/2018: Open Space/Trails: Sheet 9, labeled Parks on the
Montava PUD Master Plan identifies 7 small parks varying from 1.5 to 5 acres.
These parks are not identified in the Policy Plan as neighborhood parks to be
developed and maintained by the City, and are assumed to be provided,
constructed and maintained by Montava.
Response: (Max) We are requesting that the City standard of requiring 7 acre parks be modified. We feel that
the park experience provided by the approach taken in our plan is better suited for our area than fewer, larger
parks. We would propose Montava build and maintain these parks, and that an agreement be reached with the
City to enable this approach. This agreement would include design standards that are supported by the City,
locations of parks that are maintained by the development and those that may be maintained by the City if any,
and appropriate fee offsets to pay for the development taking on the obligation to pay for this.
144. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/10/2018
11/10/2018: Open Space/Trails: Park Planning & Development (PPD)
manages the design and development of the park and trail system identified in
the Policy Plan. Partnerships with developers on the design and construction of
paved recreational trails identified in the Trail Master Plan, and located on
developing properties, can be considered on a case-by-case basis. PPD will
continue to work with Montava on the design and potential for timely
construction of the Northeast Trail.
Response: (Max) Acknowledged.
52
145. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/10/2018
11/10/2018: Open Space/Trails: Sheet 10, labeled Bicycle Plan on the
Montava PUD Master Plan identifies off-street trails. The trail shown paralleling
the alignment of the extended Timberline Road represents the Northeast Trail
identified in the Trail Master Plan. The provision of additional off-street trails is
encouraged, and will enhance the Citys planned recreational trail system,
however the construction and maintenance of these trails should be provided by
Montava.
Response: (Max) Acknowledged
146. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/10/2018
11/10/2018: Open Space/Trails: The conceptual alignment of the
Northeast Trail approximately paralleling the extended Timberline Road and
adjacent to the Larimer & Weld No. 8 Outlet Ditch is consistent with the Trail
Master Plan and is supported by PPD. The preliminary and final alignment of
the trail should consider and incorporate the design standards in the Trail
Master Plan, including a recommended right-of-way or easement width of 50.
The preferred final alignment should follow the alignment of the No. 8 Outlet
Ditch to and through the site. The PUD Master Plan should identify the
Northeast Trail easement location and street crossings.
Response: (BHA/DPZ) We generally accept the concept that the regional trail alignment will follow the No. 8
Ditch alignment. We are committed to locating a 30-50’ easement that (i) is acceptable to the ditch company,
and (ii) will support the planned town center and transportation network. We will incorporate this into the plan as
best we can with these conditions and will continue to work with Parks to create a successful trail experience.
Given that the regional trail is along a ditch we do not own, and cannot control, and that it runs through our urban
Town Center area, it presents challenges that we need to overcome together. We are meeting again with the
ditch company to discuss the ditch/trail relationship and the easement widths. Easement widths will be added to
PUD plan once determined. We will continue to work with Parks to create a successful trail experience
147. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/10/2018
11/10/2018: Open Space/Trails: The recreational trail system functions
much like a park with a combination of active and passive components. This
level of service is expected to be continued with the alignment and construction
of the Northeast Trail though Montava.
Response: (Max) Acknowledged and fully supported.
148. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/10/2018
11/10/2018: Open Space/Trails: Expanded easements for underpass
and/or overpass approaches along the Northeast Trail alignment are required
for construction of future grade separated crossings as funding becomes
available. Grade separated crossings, and the associated expanded trail
easements, are to be located at trail crossings of Mountain Vista and Richards
Lake roads (arterials) and collector roadways. PPD is available to work with
Montava to determine priority locations for near-term versus future construction.
Interim at-grade trail crossings of arterials and collectors will be coordinated
with the Traffic Department.
Response: (Max) We are working to incorporate these into the plans. Easement widths can be added to PUD
plan once determined (see response #146 above), with final easements to be determined at time of PDP and
plat for individual phases.
149. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/10/2018
11/10/2018: Open Space/Trails: The Northeast Trail design at street
53
crossings or access points to the street system will be determined in
conjunction with the City Traffic Department.
Response: (Max) Acknowledged
150. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/10/2018
11/10/2018: Open Space/Trails: Phasing and funding of the construction
of the Northeast Trail has not been identified at this time. PPD will work with the
applicant on preliminary and final plans for phased construction of Montava to
include the final Northeast Trail alignment. Easement dedications labeled as
Public Access and Trail Easements will be required.
Response: (Max) As discussed above, under investigation for how this can be physically accomplished.
151. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/10/2018
11/10/2018: Open Space/Trails: PPD will continue to be available to work
with the applicant on any issues pertaining to the Northeast Community Park
and the Northeast Trail in the Montava area.
Response: (Max) Acknowledged and appreciated
Sign Code
Zoning – Noah Beals
152. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: Overall this sign section appears to have many message based
standards that may not be constitutional. This will need to be addressed.
It is not clear how the proposed sign code will be an enhancement from the
current City sign regulations. It appears to increase the size and number signs
then what would be allowed under City standards. Further analysis is necessary
and should compare/contrast the proposal with current standards.
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: 4.4.1.a. This exempts signs from requiring a sign permit from the
City.
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: 4.4.1.b. Who gives approval of the sign initially?
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: 4.4.1.c. What about different properties?
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: 4.4.3. Flags streamers and similar may not be constitutional.
54
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: 4.4.4. This may be unconstitutional as the standard is based on
the message of the flag.
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: 4.4.5.a. These signs are probably visible from public right of way
and other parts of the city and should meet standards.
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: 4.4.5.b. and c. already exempted
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: 4.4.6. through 4.4.9. are standards based on the message of the
sign and may not be constitutional.
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: 4.4.10.a. and b. May be too broad and can lead to large amount
of signs and sizes.
4.4.10.c. Appears to be a message based standard.
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: 4.4.10.d. May not be necessary could lead to confusion.
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: 4.4.11.f. I don't know if this is limiting from some signs that would
be OK.
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
55
11/12/2018: 4.4.11.g. Appears to contradict other standards.
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: 4.4.11.h. Is this for public or private streets? If public it is not
necessary.
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: 4.4.12 Appears to be a message based standard, may not be
constitutional.
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: 4.4.13.a.iii. It is not clear who is giving approval as the earlier
section stated it is exempt from approval.
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: 4.4.13.a.iv. This may contradict the earlier section in exemptions.
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: 4.4.13.b. This appears to give permission for private signage in
the public right of way. This is general not allowed unless there it is attached to
the building and receives an encroachment permit.
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: 4.4.13.d.i What is meant by limited to walls sign within storefronts
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: 4.4.13.e.ii. 8 second messages is not currently permitted in the
City and is a large deviation from the 1 minute standard of the City.
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
56
11/12/2018: 4.4.14 Again some the sign types are based on the message and
may not be constitutional.
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: 4.4.14.e.ii. This standard appears to give allowance for larger
signs and to increase the sign visibility from far beyond the MONTAVA
neighborhood.
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: 4.4.14 Some the standards for each sign type do not have any
criteria for approval and lend themselves to being approved arbitrarily.
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: 4.4.14 The number of signs are based on a per tenant basis. This
tends to lead to a proliferation of signs.
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: What does T3 1 2 T4 T5 mean? Is this a material type or
location?
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: Are there definitions of the sign types?
It appears there are some sign types illustrated but are not described.
Response: (DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing modifications where
necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 6 of the Montava development
standards.
Other/Informational
Water-Wastewater Engineering – Heather McDowell
153. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
11/12/2018: INFORMATION ONLY:
The Montava site is located within the ELCO Water District and the Boxelder
Sanitation District and is assumed to receive municipal water and sewer from
57
those entities at this time. Therefore, City of Fort Collins Utilities staff has not
reviewed the contents of this PUD submittal for water and sewer standards
specifically, unless there are questions about location of these utilities relative to
storm water utilities or other appurtenances that affect City services.
Response: (Martin/Martin) Acknowledged and understood
Forestry – Molly Roche
154. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/16/2018:
GENERAL INFORMATION
I would like to start by saying that the City of Fort Collins has been an Arbor Day
Foundation Tree City USA for the past 40 years. This certification is based on
having a Forestry Division, City Forester, annual budget for tree planting,
pruning, and removal, as well as hosting an annual Arbor Day celebration event.
The Forestry Division prides itself in providing World Class service to Fort
Collins by keeping the urban forest safe, sustainable, and diverse. I believe that
the Fort Collins community highly values and appreciates our urban forest and
everything that it provides to the environment and the local social and economic
climate.
The following proposals are incredible opportunities for Montava to lead Fort
Collins in a smart urban tree design that allows trees to grow and thrive for
decades to come. Please consider our comments as an opportunity to continue
to provide world class urban forest standards. Thank you for your time.
Response: (BHA/DPZ) We have modified our approach to use existing LUC standards, proposing only a few
modifications where necessary to address the specific context of Montava. Please see Chapter 7 of the Montava
development standards.
Light & Power – Austin Kreager
155. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/13/2018: INFORMATION:
Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges and system
modification charges necessary to serve the proposed development will apply.
Please contact me to discuss fees or visit our website for an estimate of
charges and fees:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen
t-development-fees
Response: Acknowledged
156. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/13/2018: INFORMATION:
Light and Power will serve the proposed development. Generally, Light and
Power has electric facilities surrounding the proposed project limits. Electric
facilities exist along Richards Lake Rd, Giddings Rd, and Mountain Vista Dr.
Depending on load demands, a new circuit may need to be extended to this
area from our substation. Construction of a new circuit will be coordinated with
other infrastructure improvement projects associated with this development.
Response: (Max) Acknowledged and understood
157. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/13/2018: INFORMATION:
58
Please keep in mind that in all areas of the project, commercial electrical
service lines are owned and maintained by the customer. Transformers for
commercial services are typically placed on customers property, in a dedicated
utility easement. Per City Code, master metering for residential customers is
not allowed for residential or mixed-use buildings. This could be important for
the city center area.
Response: (Max) Acknowledged and understood
158. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/13/2018: INFORMATION:
For additional information on our renewal energy programs please visit the
website below or contact John Phelan (jphelan@fcgov.com).
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential/renewables/
Response: (Max) Acknowledged and understood
159. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/13/2018: INFORMATION:
All utility easements and crossing permits (railroad, ditch, flood plain etc.)
needed for this development will need to be obtained by the developer.
Response: Acknowledged
160. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/13/2018: INFORMATION:
Multi-family buildings are treated as commercial services; therefore commercial
service forms (C-1 forms) and one-line diagrams must be submitted to Light &
Power for each building. All secondary electric service work is the
responsibility of the developer to install and maintain from the transformer to the
meter bank.
All units larger than a duplex and/or 200 amps is considered a commercial
service, therefore the owner is responsible to provide and maintain the
electrical service from the transformer to the meter bank.
Response: Acknowledged
161. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/13/2018: INFORMATION:
A commercial service information form (C-1 form) and a one line diagram for all
commercial meters will need to be completed and submitted to Light & Power
Engineering for review. A link to the C-1 form is below:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-
forms-guidelines-regulations
Response: Acknowledged
162. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
11/13/2018: INFORMATION:
Please contact Tyler Siegmund or Austin Kreager at Light & Power Engineering
if you have any questions at 970.416.2772 or 970.224.6152. Please reference
our policies, construction practices, development charge processes, electric
service standards, and use our fee estimator at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers
Response: Acknowledged
163. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/15/2018
11/15/2018: INFORMATION:
59
Light and Power's standard to feed all lots from the front of the lot. In the city
center area, we would consider feeding the commercial area from a back alley
assuming that all clearances are met, and we have sufficient access. In the
residential areas, we will be providing power from the public street side of the
lots.
Response: (DPZ) In order to support street characteristics of the desired development, we need to supply
electric service from alleys across the majority of Montava, with the exception of those portions without alley
access. Walls, fences, stoops, and porches within front yards will be located near the sidewalk. Easements
dedicated for transformers are provided in alleys. The alley area is typically 30 feet building to building, with only
power and telecom service to accommodate. Street lights can be provided power as needed by branch runs
from alleys along easements or alley entrances. There are three conditions where the alley condition is different:
1) where there is no alley, power can be provided from the street;
2) where houses front onto green space, water and sewer may be required to be provided through the alley, in
which case power would be provided from the front / green side; and
3) In the case that gas service is supplied (currently undecided) this would share the alley easement with power.
Within the 30 foot building to building space of the alley there is ample room to provide separation between
power and gas.
Erosion Control– Jesse Schlam
164. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/31/2018
10/31/2018: Information Only:
Annexation, Overall Development Plans (ODPs), or Minor Amendments to
ODPs alone does not trigger erosion control requirements. Any future projects
or planned work after annexation, or ODPs that disturbs greater than 10,000
square feet will trigger erosion control requirements. The erosion control
requirements can be found in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the
Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. a copy of the erosion
control requirements can be found at www.fcgov.com/eroison
Response: Acknowledged
Technical Services – Jeff County
165. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/2018: OTHER: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the
noted sheets. See redlines.
Response: (BHA/DPZ) The sheet index will be updated with the next round of review to reflect the final sheets
determined to be important for the PUD.
166. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/2018: OTHER: Please add a description of the Sections, Townships & Ranges this is located
in, and we would prefer it be followed by a metes & bounds description of all of
the property included.
Response: (Max) Since the PUD is composed of multiple properties under various ownerships, we do not have
this detailed information for the full property. However, we are currently having our surveyor develop a boundard
survey for the entire PUD area for use with the PUD approval. We intend to have this completed prior to public
hearing.
167. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/2018: OTHER: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See
redlines.
Response: (BHA/DPZ) We believe we have corrected all the plans base on the redlines received.
60
168. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/2018: OTHER: All notes labeling "C&S Railroad" and "Burlington Northern Railroad" should be
changed to "BNSF Railway".
Response: (BHA/DPZ/Martin Martin) I do not believe this change was made on all drawings, but will be corrected
with the next round of submittal.
Larimer County Assessor – Megan Harrity
169. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/2018: There are two parcels that are in different tax districts from the
other parcels. Parcel # 87040-00-001 and 88320-00-905 are both in tax district
1101 while the other parcels are in tax district 1108. This may not be an issue if
the new parcels are not going to overlap into the different tax districts. But
getting all the parcel into the same taxing district is a preferable option.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Response: (Max) Understood and thank you for this clarification. We will follow up before the first PDP or
subdivision plat is approved for the project.
Boxelder Sanitation – Brian Zick
170. Comment Number: 1
11/13/2018: The District hereby advises as follows:
There is no objection to this proposal.
Responses required to comments below.
The District will respond at the hearing date of ______________.
Comments:
1) The proposed development is within the Boxelder Sanitation District regional planning
Service Area. Several of parcels within the development are included in the District’s
through the inclusion process as stated in the Districts Rules and Regulations.
2) The District has sanitary sewer lines within the projects area. The Cooper Slough
Interceptor in the project area is a 21-inch sewer and was constructed no serve projects
in the area and to provide capacity for future development within the District’s service
area.
3) The District provides wastewater treatment and has existing capacity or will provide
for capacity for future development within the District’s service area.
4) The applicant has requested alternatives for collecting and treating wastewater from
the proposed development. The District will respond to the request upon consideration
by it’s staff and Board of Directors.
We look forward to review future submittals on this project. Please feel free to contact me
if you have any questions.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We look forward to additional comments/responses from staff and
Board of Directors
ELCO – Randy Siddens
171. Comment Number: 1
11/13/2018: ELCO: The East Larimer County Water District (District) staff has reviewed the information
received for the proposed project referenced above and has the following comments:
1. Water Lines to Serve the Development: The water lines shown on the grading and utility
plan set appear to be conceptually appropriate. Response: Acknowledged and understood. The proposed water,
sanitary sewer and storm sewer lines previously shown on the civil plan sheets have been removed and these
lines are now depicted in their typical locations on the roadway cross sections.
2. Future Water Line Access: Plans submitted do not indicate right-of-way or easement widths
being planned where the water lines will be located. The District requires a minimum 30-ft
61
of unencumbered right-of-way or easement width to be in place. The District assumes more
1. detail on this issue will be available during the next round of review. Response: Proposed water main
locations are now shown on the typical road cross sections and are located in the roadway right of way - see
more detailed cross-sections included with this submittal.
3. Future Water Meter Locations and Access: The developer is encouraged to contact District
staff early in the design process to identify general location and access for water meters. Response:
Acknowledged and understood. We would anticipate this to be coordinated at the PDP for each phase.
4. Water Line Location Adjacent to Road Curb: The District requires a minimum of 5-foot of
separation between the curb edge and the water line. It is unclear if this is the case for the
water lines as drawn. Response: Acknowledged and understood. We have included more detailed cross-
sections included with this submittal. Please refer to the proposed water main locations shown on the typical
road cross sections
5. Existing District 24-Inch Water Line Access – Sheet 17: Sheet 17 of the Grading and Utility
plans notes an existing 24-inch District water line that generally runs north-south along the
west side of the existing No. 8 Ditch. See attached noted Sheet 17. The District will need
to verify adequate access to this line during future plan reviews. Additional easement may
need to be granted to the District depending upon what site improvement are being made
along this water line. Response: Acknowledged and understood. The design team will provide an exhibit
showing the 24” ELCO main, the existing 20’ utility easement and the proposed improvements in the vicinity of
this existing main.
6. Existing District Water Line in Mountain Vista – Sheet 18: See attached noted Sheet 18.
The District has one water line in this road, Sheet 18 shows two. Response: 24” ELCO water main was mapped
in from the District map and is approximately 30’ north of the south right-of-way line in Mountain Vista Drive. Per
the water main plans titled “Giddings Road 12” – Waterline - Drawings of Record” dated October 2010, it
appears there is an existing 24” Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) water main in Giddings and that line turns
west in Mountain Vista Drive. Plan sheets 15 and 18 have been revised to call out the 24” PRPA water main.
7. Commercial Area Flow Demands: Water flow demands, in particular for fire flows, for the
future commercial areas of the development need to be identified (location and fire
authority flow requirements) to ensure adequately sized water lines are installed. Response: General water
demand information is provided in a Potable Water Demand Letter addressed to ELCO in response to this
comment and as discuss via a phone conversation between Peter Buckley and Randy Siddens. Estimated
domestic demand and fire demand information is provided in the letter based on several assumptions and the
best information available at this time. The demand information is subject to change as final development plans
are developed based on market conditions.
8. Overall Water Flow Demands: If the project progresses past this stage, District staff will
review its master planning for this area and work with the developer’s engineer to finalize
the location, easements (if required) and size of new water lines to meet anticipated
demands. Response: Acknowledged and understood
9. Review Fees: Review fees will be assessed after receipt of the next round of drawings.
Any written agreements required to complete water line connections to the property must be
completed prior to final approval of the project construction drawings.
The District administers design and construction standards for its water distribution system.
The developer’s engineer should contact the District early in the project design process to
obtain this information and coordinate the project design with the existing District facilities. Response:
Acknowledged and understood
62
63
Contact List
Boxelder Sanitation – Brian Zick
• 970-498-0604
• brianz@boxeldersanition.org
CDOT – Tim Bilobran
• 970-350-2163
• timothy.bilobran@state.co.us
ELCO – Randy Siddens
• 970-493-2044
• randys@elcowater.org
Engineering – Marc Virata
• 970-221-6567
• mvirata@fcgov.com
Environmental Planning - Stephanie Blochowiak
• 970-416-4290
• sblochowiak@fcgov.com
Erosion Control - Jesse Schlam
• 970-218-2932
• jschlam@fcgov.com
FC Moves – Aaron Iverson
• 970-416-2643
• aiverson@fcgov.com
Forestry – Molly Roche
• 224-616-1992
• mroche@fcgov.com
Larimer County Assessor – Megan Harrity
• 970-498-7065
• mharrity@larimer.org
Light & Power – Austin Kreager
• 970-224-6152
• akreager@fcgov.com
Park Planning– Suzanne Bassinger
• 970-416-4340
• sbassinger@fcgov.com
Planning– Clay Frickey
• 970-224-6045
• cfrickey@fcgov.com
Poudre Fire Authority – Andrew Rosen
• 970-416-2599
• arosen@poudre-fire.org
Stormwater– Heather McDowell
• 970-224-6065
• hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Streets - Tom Knostman
• 970-221-6576
• tknostman@fcgov.com
Technical Services – Jeff County
• 970-221-6588
• jcounty@fcgov.com
Traffic Operations– Martina Wilkinson
• 970-221-6887
• mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Transportation Planning – Seth Lorson
• 970-416-4320
• slorson@fcgov.com
Water-Wastewater Engineering – Heather McDowell
• 970-224-6065
• hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Xcel Energy – Stephanie Rich
64
Punch List for Round 2
(This is not an exhaustive list of items needed for the second round of review. It’s meant to be a quick-glance-guide to what reviewers are
looking for in addition to the more detailed comments. All comments listed in the comment letter will need to be addressed prior to
hearing)
Clay- Planning
• Cross section of a typical development pattern by transect zone showing the ROW, tree lawn, sidewalk, utility easement,
building setback, building footprint, and any alleys DPZ, Martin/Martin: We’ve included an entirely new streets booklet replacing
the previous 24x36 sheets for this submittal, which includes utilities, etc. Many of these sections are applicable in 2 distinct
zones, so we have not indicated additionally by transect, but are happy to discuss with you once reviewed. Please reference
these with the block study diagram drawing included again with this submittal.
• Build out of a typical block within each transect zone showing a typical lot pattern, location of buildings, sidewalks, tree lawns,
landscaping, and parking areas DPZ: We’ve included the block study diagram again with this submittal as well as images of
similar existing DPZ developments demonstrate similar zones built elsewhere.
• Definitions for Composting Facilities and Agricultural Activities BHA: Both uses are referenced in the Land Use Code. There is a
definition for Composting Facilities in the Land Use Code, but not for Agricultural Activities. We intend to use the current LUC
definition for Composting Facilities. Since there are no defined uses in the Land Use Code for a farm, we have changed the
allowed use for T2 from ‘Agricultural Activities’ to two uses defined and allowed in the Larimer County Land Use Code which
describe the anticipated uses. The uses ‘Farm’ and ‘Packaging Facility’ have been added to the allowed uses table and the
definitions section.
• Updated land use tables indicating current level of review per the Land Use Code BHA: A table has been provided with this
comparison for your review and discussion.
• Updated density tables that include current densities allowed per the Land Use Code Based on our discussions we have
outlined the densities requested for uses in the PUD, but not in direct comparison to current densities.
• Analysis of proposed landscaping standards compared to a Land Use Code development We have clarified the LUC landscape
changes requested are few and are now outlined more clearly in the Design Standards document.
• Analysis of proposed parking standards and how it compares to the Land Use Code With follow up discussions and the shared
parking standards included, we believe we have addressed the varying concerns from staff, but would like to continue this
discussion as needed to be sure you are comfortable with the parking approach.
• Analysis of open space provision and how it compares to requirements in the Land Use Code With follow up discussions and
addition diagrams for pedestrian walk-sheds and open space areas indicated, we believe we have addressed the varying
concerns from staff, but would like to continue this discussion as needed to be sure you are comfortable with the parking
approach.
Stephanie – Environmental Planning
• Submit an updated “Alternative Compliance Buffer Reduction Plan” justifying how the 150-ft requested buffer is appropriate, how
wells will be protected from disturbance and that no playgrounds, parks, recreational fields or community gathering spaces (e.g.
active recreation) is planned within the buffer. BHA: The Buffer Reduction Plan has been included with the resubmittal.
• Submit specific concept designs illustrating how, specifically, the Master Plan will be “incorporating Nature in the City in
appropriate locations throughout Montava” (p12) ; the working organic farm supports policy LU10 and it appears every person
living and working in the development might have a 10-minute walk to nature, but potentially reduced site landscape standards
and site vegetated stormwater features would not align with NIC vision. Please see materials provided for more ideas in how to
support NIC and to strategically incorporate features such as pocket nature parks, nature play areas and other ideas. City staff
suggests inclusion of a features menu to guide PDP submittals and a minimum of 5-7 NIC features to be included in the
Montava development. BHA: Nature In the City will be incorporated in two primary ways. We are including a map showing the
pedestrian walk shed from the two primary features on the east and west of the site. To the West we will have an 80-acre
Community Park along with an improved #8 Ditch that will incorporate many elements of Nature in the city. To the East, running
the entirety of the project from north to south runs a storm water/natural area and a 40-acre organic farm. Additionally, please
find attached a book of 10 concepts for incorporating Nature in the City. With each PDP approval, there will be at least 2
65
components from this list incorporated into the plan for that PDP. Additional options may be added to this list if submitted by the
Developer and approved by a City Environmental Planner.
• Submit further information, analysis and illustrations demonstrating plan view and cross-sections of anticipated transects and
zone areas and what landscape elements are anticipated, including parkway lawn widths and unique landscape features that
might be proposed in lieu of more traditional landscape features especially if “full tree stocking” outlined in the LUC is not
anticipated. BHA: The intent is to meet the ‘full tree stocking’ requirements of the LUC. The landscape changes requested are
few and are now outlined more clearly in the Design Standards document.
Marc – Engineering
• Updated variance requests as commented Martin/Martin: The LCUASS variance letter for alternate roadway cross sections and
alternate “Y” intersections has been updated per the comments. The LID variance request letter has been withdrawn at this time.
• Updated drawings Martin/Martin: The civil PUD plans have been updated per the comments
• Submit a narrative of some sort regarding public right-of-way utilization, why they are intending to propose private
infrastructure/private management of right-of-way, and why the City should be considering this. The comments I’ve provided
speak to the concerns on the “what” of what is proposed, but fundamentally I think it would be ideal if they give
information/documentation on the “why”, especially from the perspective that what is being proposed has not been allowed by
the City. Martin/Martin: The LID variance request letter has been withdrawn at this time.
Suzanne – Park Planning
• The conceptual alignment of the Northeast Paved Recreational Trail paralleling the extended Timberline Road and the Larimer &
Weld No. 8 ditch on the PUD Master Plan is consistent with the Trail Master Plan and is supported by PPD. The preliminary
and final alignment of the Northeast Trail will be required to incorporate the design standards in the Trail Master Plan, including a
recommended right-of-way or easement width of 50’ adjacent to the No. 8 ditch. The trail easement may be co-located with the
Natural Habitat Buffer Zone with the approval of environmental planning. Please show the 50’ wide trail easement on the PUD
master plan. Max: The naturalization of the ditch section provides the 50ft trail buffer as part of the standard 90ft ditch plan. We
generally accept the concept that the regional trail alignment will follow the No. 8 Ditch alignment. We are committed to locating
a 30-50’ easement as (i) is acceptable to the ditch company, and (ii) will support the planned town center and transportation
network. We will incorporate this into the plan as best we can with these conditions and will continue to work with Parks to create
a successful trail experience.
• The provision for grade separated crossings for the trail at arterials and collector streets should be shown on the PUD Master
Plan. Expanded easements for underpass and/or overpass approaches along the Northeast Trail alignment are required for
construction of future grade separated crossings as funding becomes available. Grade separated crossings, and the associated
expanded trail easements, are to be located at trail crossings of Mountain Vista and Richards Lake roads (arterials) and collector
roadways. Interim at-grade trail crossings of arterials and collectors may be necessary until funding is available to construct
grade separations for the trail. The location and configuration of at-grade trail crossings of all streets must be coordinated and
approved by the Traffic Department. DPZ/Max: We agree that three crossings are most important for grade-separations –
Mountain Vista, Country Club, and Richards Lake Road, but that grade-separated crossings in other locations would be
detrimental to other neighborhood goals. We have indicated these locations on the Park/Open Space diagram. Easements and
detailed designs will be determined at time of PDP.
Austin - Light & Power
• Road cross-sections and alley cross-sections both showing utility separations. DPZ, Martin/Martin: These have been provided
with our resubmittal
• More information on the proposed LID in the right of way. Martin/Martin: The LID variance request letter has been withdrawn at
this time.
66
Molly – Forestry
• At the top of Forestry’s “wish-list” is to increase the parkway (a.k.a. tree lawn/right-of-way) width on local street cross-sections.
The current LUCASS standard for parkway widths along local trees is 6 feet (5.5 not including the curb width) and 6.5 feet for
local industrial. In order to maximize the area a tree has to grow, Forestry would like to propose an 8 foot minimum parkway
width along all local streets. Studies have shown that wider tree lawn widths provide increased area for root growth, which
increase tree stability, decrease sidewalk/curb damage from heaving roots, as well as provide additional separation between
pedestrians from the street section.
o Please schedule a Right of Way Coordination Meeting with the following departments in order to discuss the potential
of widening the current parkway width to 8 feet: Forestry, Planning, Traffic, Engineering, and Streets. Other
departments that might be interested in also attending this meeting: Environmental Planner, PFA, Light and Power, and
Transfort. While individual discussions have taken place, we would like to schedule this coordination meeting ASAP
following our submittal of this more detailed and updated cross-section information.
• Please provide a typical right-of-way detail per each transect district that includes locations of utilities (gas, water, electric,
communication, cable, fiber option, sewer, etc), street lights, driveways (if applicable) and street trees. DPZ, Martin/Martin:
We’ve indicated by street type, not by District since there are different street types that run through multiple districts. We show
the multiple districts. Street tree spacing is per the City standards. Final street light and fire hydrant locations will be determined
at PDP, but standard setbacks are anticipated. Easements will be provided as required at time of PDP when determination of
need can be made. However, we have provided examples in the new streets package.
o Please schedule a coordination meeting with Forestry, Light and Power, Stormwater, and Planning to discuss
alternative utility layout and tree placement guidelines. While individual discussions have taken place, we would like to
schedule this coordination meeting ASAP following our submittal of this more detailed and updated cross-section
information.
• Please provide street cross sections/diagrams that account for parkway/landscape strip widths for the following types of
roadways: arterials, collectors, locals, and special local roads. See above
Martina – Traffic Ops
• We’re looking for a table that specifically lists each requested cross section compared to the closest of our LCUASS standards,
and details how (if) its different, or needs a variance. DPZ, Martin/Martin: A comparison table has been provided and is included
with the LUCASS variance request.
• Need way more details for the variance requests. Martin/Martin: The LID variance request letter has been withdrawn at this
time. The LCUASS variance letter for alternate roadway cross sections and alternate “Y” intersections has been updated per the
comments and more information has been provided.
• We’re looking for information on how the proposed access points to the arterials meet access spacing standards. Ruth, DPZ:
We’ve provided updated information with the Arterial Streets diagram
Heather – Stormwater
• SWMM and HEC-RAS model files Martin/Martin: The SWMM model files are included with the resubmittal. Up to this point
ICON has been updating the HEC-RAS model and Martin/Martin does not have the City’s / ICON’s HEC-RAS model.
• If wanting to pursue LID in the ROW, cross-section of the ROW that includes location, description, space requirements for LID
systems Martin/Martin: The LID variance request letter has been withdrawn at this time.
Include stormwater infrastructure into the phasing diagram and anticipated maintenance responsibilities in the narrative
Martin/Martin The proposed stormwater infrastructure has been added to the civil grading and utility plans. Basin boundaries are
shown with a green dashed line and basin labels have been added with area of basin. Stormwater quality ponds are shown with
approximate size to ensure adequate space allocation in the master plan. The pond shapes are conceptual only and will be
shaped and sculpted upon final designs. Stormwater channel conveying stormwater runoff from each basin to each water quality
pond is shown with a red dot, dot dash line.
The stormwater infrastructure maintenance responsibilities statement has been added to the narrative of the drainage report and
is repeated below:
Stormwater Infrastructure Maintenance Responsibilities
67
Stormwater infrastructure constructed to convey, detain, control or treat off-site stormwater flows will be maintained by the City
of Fort Collins. Areas of the regional detention ponds outside of the main drainage channel and excluding inflow and outflow
control structure and other hydraulic elements critical to the function of the stormwater ponds will be maintained by the City of
Fort Collins Natural Area’s department.
Storm sewer infrastructure located in the public right-of-way will be maintained by the City of Fort Collins.
Storm sewer infrastructure, storm channels and stormwater quality ponds located outside of the public right-of-way and used to
convey, detain, control or treat onsite stormwater flows will be maintained by the development.
• Updated drainage report and response to all drainage report comments provided by city staff and ICON Martin/Martin: The
drainage report has been updated per the comments. Comment response to drainage report comments are included with the
resubmittal.
• 970-225-7828
• stephanie.rich@xcelenergy.com
Zoning – Noah Beals
• 970-416-2313
• nbeals@fcgov.com