HomeMy WebLinkAboutMONTAVA PUD - ODP180002 - MONTAVA SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - 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
December 28, 2018
January 23, 2019 – Response to Comments
Angela Milewski
BHA Design Inc
1603 Oakridge Dr Suite 100
Fort Collins, CO 80525
RE: Montava PUD, ODP180002, Round Number 2
NOTES:
1. In order to highlight responses to the most PUD Master Plan comments received, comments labeled
‘INFORMATION’, ‘INFORMATION ONLY’, OR ‘PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN’ have been deleted from
this comment response letter, and older dated versions of current comments are shown in grey.
2. Additional Comments received from Clay following the After 1/8/2019 meeting at 281 N College Av internal
discussion among: Clay Frickey, City Planner, Kendra Boot, City Forester, Molly Roche, Forestry
Specialist, and Stephanie Blochowiak, Environmental Planner, have been added at the beginning of the
responses below.
Comment Summary:
Additional comments received 1/9/2019 RE: Permitted Frontage Yard Types
T5 – Urban, Pedestrian Forecourt, Shallow Yard, Door Yard
1/9/19 Comment 1: On p44 of the Montava PUD Design Standards adjust language for Planting in
the Urban frontage yard and Pedestrian Forecourt frontage yard requirements to the following.
"Planting – Permitted within raised containers, hanging planters and vertical garden features, block
face must contain minimum 10% plantings beyond public street trees."
This will ensure minimums to meet comparable look and feel of current urban areas of Fort Collins
including current downtown.
Response: We have added this revised language to Table 5.7-3
T4 – Door Yard and Shallow Yard
1/9/19 Comment 2: Require one upright, columnar tree in landscape areas more than 12 feet in
depth.
2
Response: (DPZ) We’ve adjusted the frontage planting standards to reflect the forestry
goals of 20-40ft spacing of ornamental trees and 30-40ft spacing of canopy trees with a
minimum of 50% canopy trees. The new frontage yard requirements are set up to require
ornamentals where the setbacks are shallow and where they are deeper, the forestry
standard of 50% canopy trees per the spacing requirements specified above. This is
language adapted from the urban forestry standards within the existing landscape code
RE: Exterior Lighting
1/9/19 Comment 3: On p56 of the Montava PUD Design Standards adjust references from Dark
Sky to International Dark-Sky Association (IDA).
Response: These revisions have been made.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Clay Frickey, 970-224-6045, cfrickey@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment 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) A table with the densities for the three underlying zone districts has been
added as Table 3.1-2
Comment Number: 16 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) Amendments of this Montava PUD Master Plan shall be in accordance
with LUC Section 4.29(I)(2) and Section 2.2.10(A) and (B). References to the amendment
standards and process have been added to Chapter 2 (Use), Chapter 3 (Density) and
Chapter 4 (Development Standards). See Sections 2.2.3, 3.1.3 and 4.1.3.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
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.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 12/21/2018
12/21/2018: DESIGN STANDARDS: The narrative describing T4 states it will
allow live-work units and a range of small scale businesses. The permitted use
list for T4 on pages 16 and 17, however, does not mixed-use dwellings or
commercial as permitted uses. Please update the permitted use list to allow
these uses and what level of review to which they will be subject.
3
Response: (BHA) Thank you for this comment. We have added mixed-use dwellings and
commercial with proposed levels of review to the permitted uses for T4 and T5. We also
have corrected some additional discrepancies where the use tables for each transect was
not consistent with the overall Permitted Uses Table.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 12/21/2018
12/21/2018: DESIGN STANDARDS: Multi-family buildings over and under 14
units are subject to a BDR in the T4. You could just say multi-family is permitted
in the T4 subject to a BDR so there is one less permitted use in the district and
simplify the permitted use list.
Response: (BHA) Revised as per this comment.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 12/21/2018
12/21/2018: DESIGN STANDARDS: Section 3.4.2 of the Design Standards
states that the E zone doesn't have a minimum or maximum residential density.
The E requires a minimum density of 7 du/ac. Please revise this section to
reflect the minimum density required in the E zone.
Response: (BHA) This section has been revised, and a table with the densities for the
three underlying zone districts has been added as Table 3.1-2.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 12/21/2018
12/21/2018: DESIGN STANDARDS: On Table 5.4-1, please re-label all of the
fields that say "Dwellings" and replace it with "Principal Buildings". This will
make the table align with the setbacks provided in the previous section of the
Design Standards.
Response: (BHA) Table corrected.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 12/21/2018
12/21/2018: DESIGN STANDARDS: Section 5.13.1 contains many references
to the Land Use Code. Please remove the first two paragraphs of this narrative.
The remaining portion of the narrative is a fine description of the need for the
modifications to our lot and building standards.
Response: (BHA)The first two paragraphs have been removed.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 12/21/2018
12/21/2018: DESIGN STANDARDS: For the Cottage Court frontage type, we
have a concern about the lack of a minimum area requirement for the court like
you propose for the Pedestrian Forecourt. I understand the Cottage Court will
be in a more suburban context but our concern is that we get Cottage Courts
without much functional green space with buildings that don't address the street.
Response: (DPZ) Minimum size standards for this frontage type have been added.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 12/26/2018
12/26/2018: DESIGN STANDARDS: Based on our discussions related to
utility easements in the T4, I wanted to add to the discussion based on the
proposed setbacks and projections shown on Tables 5.1-2 and 5.7-5. It seems
that if we didn't allow projections into the setbacks in T4, we would be one foot
away from our standard LCUASS utility easement requirement and would be
very close to achieving the utility separations we're looking for in Montava. My
principal concern is that a lot of the projection types proposed would, for all
intents and purposes, preclude locating utilities between the principal structure
and the sidewalk. As a compromise, is the Montava team willing to not allow
projections into the setback in the T4 as a way to accommodate the various
utility providers slated to serve Montava?
4
Response: (DPZ) Based on our ongoing discussions with the utility providers we have
identified the locations where utilities will be located with different neighborhood types.
Easements will be provided in specific areas as needed to accommodate utilities as is
outlined in the variance requests. As such, we do not wish to change the proposed
setbacks and projections as these still apply where utility easements are not required. A
variance has been included with the submittal.
Department: PFA
Contact: Andrew Rosen, 970-416-2599, arosen@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/30/2018
12/28/2018:
Update after Staff Review meeting
>The Project Team stated that they are confident they can meet all of PFA's
concerns regarding both the 150ft perimeter access and aerial access to each
building and structure.
>Due to the setback of buildings from some of the proposed streets, Fire
Access will be required from side streets or the rear of buildings and the drive
aisles through parking areas can be utilized for this access.
>All Fire Lanes will be verified by Autoturn using the PFA 50ft Truck template.
>PFA comments have been satisfied at this time for hearing and will be
revisited as the project team provides future project submittals.
>Comments 2 through 16 below only still active for the project team's reference (but have been
deleted from this response letter)
Response: (DPZ) We agree with above comments from PFA.
12/26/2018:
>Please note that all prior PFA comments remain active and are here as a
resource for the project team. PFA has had productive offline discussions with
the Project Team and will have more specific comments when complete plans
are provided.
>The following is provided as a summary and clarification of PFA concerns to
date:
1) The 150ft access requirement is to all portions of the exterior perimeter of
each building.
2) Should any building be greater than 30ft in height then aerial access
requirements will be triggered which require 26ft wide Fire Lanes no closer than
15ft to the building and no further than 30ft from one long approved side.
3) Any fire lane maneuvering will be verified by Autoturn utilizing the PFA 52ft
long truck template.
4) It is understood that hydrant locations will be shown at time of PDP
submission.
5) The provided documents indicate that short term rentals will be a permitted
use. The project team should note that PFA and the City of Fort Collins may
soon be classifying short term rentals as an R1 occupancy.
Response: (DPZ) We agree with above comments from PFA.
5
11-14-2018 UPDATE
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.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Austin Kreager, 970-224-6152, akreager@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
12/26/2018: UTILIZATION OF ROW:
It has become clear through our discussions with the Montava team, that the T5
zone is not the only area of contention. It appears that the T4 zone will need to
be examined closely to ensure utility separations are met as well.
Response: (DPZ) We’ve had several meetings regarding ROW and utility locations for T4
zones as well, and have provided justifications in the variance requests based on these
discussions.
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.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
12/26/2018: UTILIZATION OF ROW:
After discussions with Max, we will consider allowing special street lights in a
few select areas that are installed, maintained, and owned by the Montava
District. We have yet to see how the details will work on this potential plan.
Before this would be approved, a solid plan would need to be laid out to ensure
public safety at all times as well as protect the utility from taking on undue
6
hardships.
Response: (Max) Understood. Details of specialty lighting will be provided at time of PDP
for each phase.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/09/2018
12/26/2018: SITE DESIGN:
Thank you for submitting cross sections. As we discussed in the utility
coordination meeting, there are some revisions that we look forward to seeing.
Hopefully a clearer picture can be painted once the electric facilities are located
in the parkway and gas facilities are included on the cross sections. We will not
be in the alleyways with the exception of the T5 zone if it is proven feasible.
Please keep in mind that we will be requiring ten foot separation from your
privately owned non-pot utility.
Response: (DPZ) Understood, and some changes have continued based on the meetings
regarding ROW and utility locations since the last submittal. We have provided updated
exhibits to demonstrate utility locations, and justifications in the variance requests based
on these discussions.
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.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/15/2018
12/26/2018: UTILIZATION OF ROW:
The response to our comment from the first round was not adequate. We will not
be installing our facilities in the "green space" when homes front onto green
space. We need truck access to our facilities, and green space installation
does not provide that. We will not be providing power from the alleys for the
majority of Montava. Light and Power has spent a large number of resources
moving legacy facilities out of back lot and alley construction areas. We are not
entertaining alley installation with the exception of the T5 zone. Please keep in
mind that we must have adequate space to go from one alley to the next in the
T5 zone as well as provide us with the separation necessary for our streetlight
feeds. If power goes in the alley in the T5 zone, we will still need power in the
parkway for every blockface to provide streetlights.
Response: (DPZ) Thank you for the comments and ongoing discussions since our last
round of review. We have provided updated exhibits to demonstrate utility locations, and
justifications in the variance requests based on these discussions.
11/15/2018: INFORMATION:
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.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/26/2018
7
12/26/2018: UTILIZATION OF ROW:
Light and Power is typically located in the parkway in between the sidewalk and
the roadway. Locating our facilities in the parkway will provide for easier, more
cost effective installation and maintenance. Locating our facilities under
sidewalks would cost an excessive amount of money in flow fill as well as
increased vault costs due to increased weight ratings for the lids.
Response: (DPZ) See updated exhibits to demonstrate utility locations, and justifications in
the variance requests based on our ongoing discussions
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/26/2018
12/26/2018: UTILIZATION OF ROW:
Thank you for submitting the cross section drawings, and thank you for
participating in the utility coordination meeting. I look forward to seeing updated
cross sections showing Light and Power under the parkways, gas behind the
sidewalk, and utility easements on the backside of ROW. Providing utility
easement for part of a block facing, but not in others would not be conducive to
the installation of a utility infrastructure network.
Response: (DPZ) While not based on these typical standards, we’ve been meeting with
you and other utility providers to demonstrate how utilities would be accommodated in the
special site conditions (alleys, greens, etc) for Phase 1. See updated exhibits to
demonstrate utility locations, and justifications in the variance requests based on our
ongoing discussions.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/12/2018
12/19/2018: PHASING:
The updated vested property rights request letter addresses the phasing of the
installation of stormwater infrastructure by stating 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. 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.
It is fine to address the phasing of stormwater infrastructure installation in this
way at the PUD stage. Please ensure that this information is also included in the
design narrative and the drainage report.
Response: (Lucia) Consistent with the Request for Vested Property Rights, Chapter 8 of
PUD Design Narrative will be revised to add the following paragraph to address the
phasing of public improvements:
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. In particular, stormwater and drainage improvements will need to be
8
installed as necessary to ensure there is no downstream impact above the existing
condition as new development occurs.
In addition, the phasing of stormwater infrastructure installation has been addressed in Section 6.6
of the Master Drainage Study
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 does not.
Please note that this comment/question has not yet been addressed. Please
provide a response. In addition, note that the City does not want regional
infrastructure owned or maintained by the metro district. Metro district
maintained improvements should be considered private infrastructure. Public
infrastructure will need to be maintained by the City.
Response: Regarding the statement in Attachment C of the Request for Vested Property
Rights that “The Districts will have authority to build and in some cases, to maintain these
public systems,” please see the clarification of Metro District responsibilities in Chapter 9
of the PUD Design Narrative submitted on December 6, 2018, which states:
“The Districts are organized for the purpose of financing the cost of public
improvements and providing services related to such public improvements. The
Districts are authorized by the Special District Act to provide many types of public
improvements, subject to limitations in the Service Plan approved by the City . . .
The Districts anticipate providing services for all of those things that it has statutory
authority for and that are not the responsibility of the City or other entities . . .”
This means, e.g., that no regional infrastructure, which would be a City responsibility,
would be owned or maintained by the Metro District.
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 doesn t.
9
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/19/2018
12/19/2018: STORMWATER:
PUD Standards Booklet:
Page 6 indicates that there will be a Natural Areas and Stormwater Special
District. Does this mean that the stormwater special district will maintain the
stormwater infrastructure (ponds, swales, box culverts, outlet structures, piping,
etc?) for the regional and local systems? Please provide clarity to the intent and
functions of the stormwater special district.
Response: BHA
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/19/2018
12/19/2018: STORMWATER:
PUD Street Sections Booklet:
I’ve provided redlined questions/comments in the streets booklet pdf itself.
However, generally my comments can be summarized with:
• It would be very helpful to have a utility layout for the entire project area to be
able to see how you’re servicing each parcel and to help me understand better
the street cross-sections that don’t show every utility. I realize that this is the
PUD level and design is liable to change, but its very difficult to agree to the
configuration of many of the street cross-sections without understanding the
overall layout behind them.
Response: (DPZ, Martin/Martin) We’ve had follow-up meetings to discuss and
demonstrate how utilities would be accommodated in the special site conditions (alleys,
greens, etc). See updated exhibits to demonstrate utility locations for Phase 1. But we do
not anticipate developing utility layouts for the entire project area at this PUD Master Plan
level.
• The Civil plans show much of the storm drainage conveyance outside of the
street section. Perhaps doing a utility layout will help validate and minimize the
placement of storm piping under the road.
Response: (DPZ, Martin/Martin) We’ve indicated the overall conveyance in concept, but do
not anticipate developing utility layouts for the entire project area at this PUD Master Plan
level.
• Please note that standard wet utility separation requirements are 10’. This is a
Fort Collins standard as well as a State standard.
Response: (DPZ, Martin/Martin) Understood
• Along Mountain Vista – I recognize that there are two existing waterlines that
you need to accommodate with the proposed street cross-section – have you
tried shifting the cross-section either north or south to make the proposed utility
placements better?
Response: (DPZ, Martin/Martin) Yes, representative cross-sections have been revised to
show how this condition could be accommodated.
• On several cross-sections you show the non-potable (NP) waterline located in
or close to the gutter. Please note that this will make it difficult to place valves
and is going to lead to increased maintenance costs because maintenance on
the line would require tearing up curb and gutter.
Response: NP has been relocated based on the various discussions.
• Storm lines will need to be separated from trees by 10’
10
Response: Understood.
• The Water Valley development in Windsor also has their own non-potable
water system and many of the NP lines in that development are located at the
back of lot – have you considered this option?
Response: We have, but we also have different conditions than Water Valley (alleys,
greens). We have tried to demonstrate how utilities would be accommodated in the special
site conditions and utility providers planned for Montava for further review.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/19/2018
12/19/2018: STORMWATER:
PUD Civil Plans:
Please label all minimum and maximum slopes on the grading plan. (repeat)
It would be helpful if you would show storm pipe and inlet locations. The water,
sewer and storm piping was shown in the previous submittal. I realize that the
utilities are now being shown on the street cross-sections, but due to the amount
of scrutiny on the street cross-sections to date, I think putting the utilities back on
the plans would help to answer a lot of the questions that staff has.
Storybook detention volume will need to be replaced/accommodated with your
new detention basins. Please note this on the plans.
The legend indicates that the blue areas as stormwater water quality ponds
in many cases these are also detention basins. Please update the label to
clarify this.
Water quality ponds and in some cases, detention ponds are shown online with
the major conveyance channels through the site. Detention facilities may be
located online with major conveyances, but water quality systems are not
appropriate to be located online with major channel conveyances for several
reasons:
• The major channels routing through the site that are conveying offsite flows
are regional in nature and are anticipated to be owned and maintained by the
City. These areas will not be allowed to be used to meet your onsite stormwater
quality or LID requirements.
• Major channels located within the site that are only conveying onsite flows,
but that are still conveying large amounts of stormwater will not be allowed to be
used to meet your onsite stormwater quality or LID requirements because of
concerns of over-inundation of the water quality structures with stormwater flows,
leading to pollutants not settling out as intended and/or concerns around
too-frequent maintenance or replacement of the LID or water quality structures.
• Placement of LID systems (i.e. rain gardens or vegetation buffers) adjacent
to and outside of the major channel conveyances would be allowed and should
be considered.
Conversely, smaller channels or stormwater conveyance areas (i.e. “internal
greenways”) that are only conveying smaller amounts of onsite, local flows could
be utilized to help meet the water quality and LID requirements for this project.
Placement of LID systems within these smaller, local channels will be
acceptable.
11
We agree that a treatment train approach is an appropriate solution to meeting
the water quality and LID requirements for this project.
Response: (Martin/Martin) Minimum and maximum road slopes note added to plans. Storm
pipe and inlet locations added to plans. Storybook detention volume added to new
detention basins and note added to plans. Detention vs WQCV pond label added to
legend. Per meeting with The City, LID elements can be placed adjacent to channels and
divert smaller storm events and let the larger storm events continue through the channel.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/21/2018
12/21/2018: STORMWATER:
PUD Master Drainage Study:
Section 6.3.3 – Please discuss any impacts to spills in the L&W Canal caused
by moving the No. 8 spill upstream.
ICON Engineering has reviewed the Montava Master Drainage Study and has
provided comments in a memo dated 12-21-18. This memo will be sent to
Martin and Martin via email separately. Comments in this memo will also need
responses with the next submittal.
Response: Martin/Martin has provided elaboration in Section 6.3.3 with regards to the
impacts of moving the No. 8 diversion upstream. The language indicates that ICON has
updated the unsteady HEC-RAS modeling for the L&W and determined that the
development improvements do not cause adverse impacts as proposed. The No. 8 will see
a negligible increase in flow through the development and an overall decrease in flow
downstream of the development. Responses to ICON Engineering comments have been
provided in a separate document.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 12/25/2018
12/25/2018: [transportation] The submitted variance requests for street cross
sections and angle of intersection are required to be signed and stamped by
the P.E. of record requesting the variances.
With regards to the justification in each request, the justification for the cross
section variance stated that it will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and
welfare and will not reduce the design life. There wasn't an analysis to support
this statement however, and an analysis to support this conclusion should be
provided.
With regards to the angle of intersection justification, it was proposed that a
stop control would be provided at the third leg as part of the justification. The
determination of which leg (or all legs) of an intersection would be stop
controlled would be through coordinated review with Traffic Operations. The
Y-intersection exhibit on page 33 of the variance request apparently shows for
the collector roadway depiction that a stopped control appears to be added on
the south easterly leg of the intersection? If so, this would appear to be in
12
conflict with the introducing of a stop control along the predominant movement
(the Master Street Plan amendment shows a collector classification for the
southeast and northwest legs of the intersection, while the northeast leg of the
intersection would not be a collector street). I may just not be understanding the
justification and intent on the variance request, but I'm looking to ensure that the
predominant movement in the development is designed as the through
movement at an intersection. Perhaps additional discussion and coordination
with Traffic Operations would help.
Response: (Martin/Martin) Variance letter have been revised as requested. PE Stamp
added to variance requests
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/25/2018
12/25/2018: [transportation] The general understanding that we're looking to
confirm is that the cross sections are intending to provide parameters for the
development with regards to right-of-way width for the various road
classifications, as well as the roadway width. The actual components
comprising of the road and right-of-way width (i.e., sidewalk widths, bike lane
placement, travel lane widths may vary from the depicted cross sections.) Also,
the utility placement shown on the cross sections are not intended to be
"vested" in this same manner and the utility providers would need to coordinate
with the development plan if certainty is expected.
Response: This is our understanding as well. The detailed cross-sections and utility
exhibits demonstrate planned conditions and utility locations, but the resulting requests for
variance are more simplified.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/25/2018
12/25/2018: [site design] The street cross section variance should also be
documenting whether the 15 foot utility easement is being provided along
arterials and 9 foot utility easement is being provided on local and collector
streets, as these easements are called out on LCUASS standard cross
sections. In instances where the utility easement is not being provided, the
variance should be stating this. Engineering would look to obtain approval from
all the utility providers as evidence to support reduced or eliminated utility
easements. Please note that LCUASS requires that between the sidewalk and
curb in right-of-way that there are no above ground utility appurtenances (such
as pedestals, transformers, etc.) It may demonstrate to be a challenge to meet
this requirement with limited space for utilities behind the sidewalk. Note that
Figure 12-1 of LCUASS provides utility separation general requirements.
Response: We’ve had follow-up meetings to discuss and demonstrate how utilities would
be accommodated in the special site conditions (alleys, greens, etc). The result is a
request for variance to not provide continuous utility easements in certain areas, but
instead to provide alley and green area easements, and pocket easements as needed to
accommodate the utilities in these areas.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 12/25/2018
12/25/2018: [transportation] The usage of the 102' right-of-way (1A and 1B) is
of concern to Transportation. This roadway cross section in LCUASS is
intended to be used in constrained arterial conditions in our urban core, and not
intended to be used in new development. The 115 foot 4 lane arterial section
(Figure 7-2F) should replace 1A and 1B (which is the same right-of-way width
for 2A and 2B). The 115' provides the ability to ensure that the intended access
control types onto arterials (shown on PUD-12) can be built in a manner that
13
provides access control with medians. The consistent application of 115'
right-of-way is also achieved whether a protected bikelane is ultimately
implemented (2A/2B) or non-protected. It should be noted that the additional
width from the 102' to 115' would be fully eligible for reimbursement under the
City's Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Program.
Response: Understood – the 102’ ROW request has been removed.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 12/25/2018
12/25/2018: [transportation] The cross sections show the usage of protected
(elevated) bike lanes in several roadway types (minor collector, commercial
local with bike lanes, as well as the arterial roadway cross sections). If the
understanding is that the intent of the PUD is not to vest whether a bike lane is
on-street or elevated, and roadway width is generically defined to include a
protected bike lane (when road width is traditionally defined to include the area
between the curb and gutter), then I think there is less concern and the
development at time of PDP's would then look at the actual roadway design
components and determine the bike lane location.
There are concerns with the proposal of protected bike lanes that should be
considered, whether at this time, or if PDP is more appropriate that should be
considered:
The use of protected bike lanes would be an additional construction cost over a
standard on-street bike lane. There would be potential City concerns on the cost
differential increase in constructing protected vs. on-street bikelanes where City
reimbursement occurs through the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee
(collector and arterial roadways.) For commercial local roadways, it should be
noted that there is no reimbursement through the Transportation Capital
Expansion Fee Program and the entire cost of the roadway is paid by
development, including the additional cost for protected bikelanes.
The usage of protected bikelanes has been proposed and limited in use to
areas where long interrupted stretches without intersections. There would be
general concerns on using protected bikelanes where there are frequent
intersections (as would seem to be proposed in the PUD) in terms of how to
address the bikelane going from an elevated section to an intersection and
what sort of signage, protection, and other design considerations are needed.
The maintenance (such as snow clearing and bike lane cleaning) is generally
viewed as more difficult in a protected bikelane scenario. Would abutting
property owners and/or a Metro District be indicating acceptance of the
maintenance responsibility, especially with regard to the commercial local,
which would be a fairly low priority for City snow clearing?
The usage of protected bikelanes may indirectly result in more difficulty in
meeting PFA requirements for road width as a means to secure access to the
building from the "front" side and may require secondary access from the rear
as a result.
Response: Agreed. We do not request vesting of these specific design standards for
bicycle facilities. The detailed cross-sections demonstrate planned likely conditions, but the
resulting requests for variance are more simplified to ROW and roadway widths and other
key features that vary from LCUASS standards.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 12/25/2018
12/25/2018: [utilization of right-of-way] Our Director has indicated a willingness
14
to support the placement of a non-potable water utility as a private utility in
public right-of-way. As commented on Comment 20 above, we would view the
depiction of the private system in the cross sections not to be vested, but more
proof of concept. At the time of the individual PDP development the site specific
locations of any proposed non-potable water system will be reviewed and may
then be permitted through a major (revocable) encroachment permit. Part of the
evaluation at the time of PDP is verification that any private system would meet
separation requirements from standard public/franchised utility providers and
that all other alternative locations outside of the public right-of-way have been
explored. The developer and its successors in interest would be responsible for
maintenance of the system, including be the responsible party to provide utility
locates for the private system under Utility Notification Center of Colorado
requirements as required by CRS Title 9, Article 1.5 Excavation Requirements.
Response: Agreed and understood. The non-potable irrigation water mains are to be
predominantly placed in the private alleys.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 12/25/2018
12/25/2018: [site design] I'm understanding that alleys have been clarified as
being private alleys, without right-of-way dedicated to the City. This is fully
supported and addresses City Engineering concerns. Note that non-potable
water located in private alleys would not be subject to revocable encroachment
permit considerations. Also, as private drives serving as alleys, Engineering
would not have jurisdiction to enforce a minimum garage door setback of 8 feet
if the alleys were public -- it appears most of the zoning districts were not
meeting a minimum 8 foot setback had the alleys been public.
Response: Confirming that the alleys are intended to be private, not public. The non-
potable irrigation water mains are to be predominantly placed in the private alleys.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 12/25/2018
12/25/2018: [site design] Our enforcement of fences and walls has required a
minimum of a 2 foot separation from the back of sidewalk. This is evident in our
standard published information regarding fences:
https://www.fcgov.com/building/fences:
"What are the standards for fencing in Fort Collins?
Fencing and walls used for screening or landscape purposes shall meet the
following standards.
5. No closer than 2 feet to a public sidewalk."
Also 2 feet minimum is the standard in Figure 16-1 of LCUASS. The response
indicated a desire to have a separation of no more than 2 feet and provided
images of other projects where sidewalks are aligned with the back of walk. To
the extent that fences are placed exactly at 2 feet such that they are both no
more than 2 feet and a minimum of 2 feet, it appears that there are no further
concerns. Please provide verification that fences exactly at 2 feet will meet the
vision being contemplated, while at the same time adhere to City of Fort Collins
codes and standards.
Response: (DPZ) We would like to eliminate the 2’ setback and have submitted a variance
request for your review and consideration. In support of this to accommodate shy area
concerns, we have modified the development standards to require lower fence height
when a fence is less than 7 feet from the furthest point of the sidewalk.
15
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 12/25/2018
12/25/2018: [transportation] The PUD-12 Arterial Intersections PDF shows
intersection spacings onto arterial streets. LCUASS requirements specify a
minimum of 460 feet intersection spacing onto arterials (with limited access),
however in several cases the minimum of 460 feet is not being met. If there is
an intent to ensure that the spacing is "vested" then variance requests for the
intersection that do not meeting the minimum 460 foot spacing would need to
be submitted and reviewed.
Response: (Ruth) A revised diagram has been included with the resubmittal. Final intersection
control and spacing will be determined at the time of the appropriate PDP for each intersection.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 12/25/2018
12/25/2018: [transportation] The PUD-12 Arterial Intersections PDF illustrates
three potential intersections that could be roundabout controlled (Richard's Lake
and Giddings, Mountain Vista and Giddings, Timberline and Country Club). The
Master Transportation Impact Study however, does not indicate in the report the
potential use of roundabouts in the TIS and in the case of Mountain Vista and
Giddings, only a traffic signal is referenced as a mitigation strategy. How is the
Master TIS intending to look at intersection spacing and/or intersection control
in the development that is specified in PUD-12?
Please note the existence of City Council Resolution 2011-120:
http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?
cmd=convert&vid=4&docid=427333&dt=RESOLUTION&doc_download_date=
SEP-04-2001&RESOLUTION_NO=120
This resolution requires an alternatives analysis at all planned arterial/arterial
and planned arterial/collector with City Council determination on whether a
roundabout or a conventional intersection should be implemented for each
intersection. Most recently, an alternatives analysis was performed and City
Council recommended a roundabout for the construction of the roundabout at
Lincoln and Cordova: http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?
cmd=convert&vid=4&docid=2472631&dt=RESOLUTION&doc_download_date
=APR-21-2015&RESOLUTION_NO=043
It should be discussed whether the intent at this time with the PUD is to make a
final determination on the type of intersection controls to implement with the
development, or whether it is acceptable to meet the intent of Resolution
2001-120 through the review of the individual PDP's in the future? I'm
understanding that as part of the Transportation Master Plan Update that there
could be an opportunity to recommend potential roundabout locations which
could address in advance (or supercede) the City Council resolution.
Response: (Ruth) A revised diagram has been included with the resubmittal. Final intersection
control and spacing will be determined at the time of the appropriate PDP for each intersection.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 12/25/2018
12/25/2018: [transportation] The response letter indicated the acceptance of 5
feet as the baseline minimum for sidewalk width through the development and
indicated acceptance of the 5 feet is the local width minimum for the
16
development. In the instance where the roadway cross sections would be wider
for components (such as 7 feet for a sidewalk on a collector, when 5 foot is the
standard for a collector), discussion should occur with Kyle Lambrecht on
understanding between Kyle and the developer on what is considered
reimbursable costs through TCEF, or what would be paid for by the developer.
Response: (Max) Understood.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 12/25/2018
12/25/2018: [transportation] The wide medians depicted in the cross sections
(Local Connector With Attached Green 7B, as well as Local Paired One-Way 8)
have wide attached green space/medians. The large green areas would be
expected to be private and not City right-of-way, whereupon the right-of-way
would end at the back of curb adjacent to the green space/median. A blanket
utility and access easement would need to be provided to allow utilities to utilize
this space and to also ensure the sidewalks within the green space are for
public use. In checking with Forestry, it should be understood that the trees
within the green space are not City responsibility (as trees that are in
right-of-way.)
Response: (Max) We understand that these larger greens outside the City rights-of-way would be
private with easements for utilities provided where needed.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 12/25/2018
12/25/2018: [utilization of right-of-way] A previous comment expressed concern
with the indication in the PUD Design Standards 6.4.1 that on-street parking
would be managed by the Metro District. The response provided in 109
indicated I believe that the intention of this is that enforcement of parking
capacity would be that of the Metro District. I would want to be sure if this were
to imply at all the Metro District has the ability control on-street parking in some
manner (such as the Metro District and not the City has the ability to determine
whether parking is to be short term, long term, reserved for certain groups, etc.)
I would like to see that specific language in 6.4.1 be provided that indicates
what is the Metro Districts authority entail to manage on-street parking.
Response: The standards have been modified to change the phase ‘manage’. The intent is
simply to illustrate how on-street parking spaces will be quantified per the minimum
parking requirements, not in context of enforcement.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 12/25/2018
12/25/2018: [utilization of right-of-way] In addition to the previous comment
reference on-street parking, bicycle parking in the right-of-way and how the
public right-of-way could be utilized to meet bike parking requirements would
need to be discussed further with Engineering right-of-way management. We
have required projects to obtain major encroachment permits that would allow
for the right-of-way to be utilized for bicycle parking (through a revocable
permit), as City right-of-way is being utilized to meet a private requirement. We
would need to understand what are the implications on if the City would not
allow (or revoke) the placement of bike parking in the right-of-way when
juxtaposed with 6.10 of the PUD Design Standards and Engineering's
enforcement of City Code 23-81.
Response: Understood, and any required encroachment permits would be requested
based on final design needs at time of PDP.
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 12/25/2018
12/28/2018: [site design] From the review at the staff review meeting on 12/22,
17
Engineering would want to be included on utility separation and location
conversations when in City right-of-way. Also, storm drainage requirements and
their location as discussed at the meeting may be of Engineering concern
should the concept of mitigating private flows in right-of-way be explored.
Response: Agreed, and Engineering has been a part of these ongoing discussions.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 12/25/2018
12/28/2018: [site design] At the staff review meeting on 12/22 it was indicated
that the 2nd floor projections depicted on the T5 cross sections along the
arterial roadways do not extend into right-of-way. It was indicated however that
architectural features such as awnings might project into right-of-way. So long
as these features are not inconsistent with the requirements under 3.5.3(E)(7) of
the Land Use Code, then Engineering wouldn't have any further comment.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 12/28/2018
12/28/2018: [transportation] Please double check the information on the cross
sections and their corresponding tables for discrepancies. Also where multiple
cross sections are shown for the same length of roadway, consider how/when
each cross section is to be used and how well they tie into each other.
Response: (DPZ) We believe any discrepancies are now corrected.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
12/27/2018: TRANSPORTATION: Comment response indicated that some
variances will be needed. When will those be submitted?
Response: (Ruth/BHA) All variances are planned to be submitted for review concurrent with the
Round 3 resubmittal. No variances to street spacing nor access points are planned to be submitted
with the PUD Master Plan. Final intersection control and spacing will be determined at the time of
the appropriate PDP for each intersection.
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 access should limited - especially full movement
intersections.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
12/27/2018: TRANSPORTATION: Thank you for the additional information. It
is very helpful. Is the intent that the general variance request submitted
accompanies the cross section booklet and assumes approval for all?
Response: Updated variance requests are being submitted concurrent with the Round 3
resubmittal based on input received from the City.
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.
18
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
12/27/2018: TRANSPORTATION: The variance request has been received.
City staff remains skeptical about the Y intersections. The justification provided
was primarily related to other communities that have done them, and that sight
distance will be maintained. Staff reluctance is that un-warranted all-way stops
will not be used, and as such in most locations, the 'through street' will be have a
jog in it. Mini-roundabouts would be an excellent alternative in some locations.
If stop controlled Ys are used, parking will be restricted to maintain sight
distance.
Response: (Martin/Martin) We want the ability to vary from the intersection angle requirements
where we have three-leg intersections where all angles are 90 degrees or greater. We are not
requesting any specific means of controlling those intersections and are open to determining the
appropriate control method for each with Traffic Operations at PDP. A revised variance letter has
been submitted.
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
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?
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
12/27/2018: TRANSPORTATION: Comment response indicates that local
road cross sections should be reviewed by staff. Further comments listed
below.
Response: The detailed cross-sections demonstrate planned likely conditions and are for
supplemental information only. The resulting requests for variance are more simplified to
ROW and roadway widths and other key features that vary from LCUASS standards.
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.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/27/2018
12/27/2018: TRANSPORTATION: Cross sections 1a and 1b are shown to be
the constrained arterial without median and 102' ROW. These are new, unbuilt
areas without significant constraints. The same road section is also shown as
2a and 2b. How would these sections transition from 102 to 115’? It is staff's
position that these should be assumed to be 115' ROW. Which sections /
widths are built when can be deteremined at PDP.
Response: Understood – the 102’ ROW request has been removed, revised to 115’ ROW.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/27/2018
12/27/2018: TRANSPORTATION: Street section 2a and 2b in the cross
section booklet says 74 ft roadway. Should be 83 ft.
Response: This has been revised to count the median in the roadway width, revised to 83’.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/27/2018
12/27/2018: TRANSPORTATION: Giddings is shown as both cross sections
3a and 3b. As noted in a comment above, how will ROW width change? Those
locations with a potential for a median should be assumed and constructed with
19
a 93 ft ROW.
Response: The Giddings sections have been revised and will not have a median. The
ROW width will be 84’ and the Roadway Width will be 52’.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/27/2018
12/27/2018: TRANSPORTATION: There are two different street sections for
local road type 6. Should be separated to be 6a and 6b.
Response: Type 6 has been revised to separate. Please note it is request to have the 6B
roadway width reduced to 27’ with parking only on one side. Note that 6a is only
allowed in areas that are single family detached dwellings with driveways.
These locations appear to have alleys and the depiction does not show
driveways?
Response: The depiction does not include an alley but shows driveways (but with no cars
shown).
6b should be shown to meet typical standards of 51 ft ROW and 30
ft roadway. It may be easiest to simply show both roadways with 53 ft ROW and
30 ft roadway with the difference being whether there are driveways and parking
on both sides, or parking on only 1 side.
Response: We can adjust the ROW to 51ft but prefer to maintain the narrower roadway for
narrower travel lanes in this area. Also, given the requested larger sidewalks, the extra
width would result in narrow parkways. Justification has been provided in the variance
request for further review.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/27/2018
12/27/2018: TRANSPORTATION: Can you please clarify the ROW width
shown for sections 7 (both more and less urban)? The graphic shows 66 ft
ROW and the table indicates 60 ft ROW.
Response: Section 7 updated to clarify ROW is 60’.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/27/2018
12/27/2018: TRANSPORTATION: The alley information does not show which
alley type is used where (more urban versus less urban). Is this information
available?
Response: Each street section now has a corresponding alley section.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 12/27/2018
12/27/2018: TRANSPORTATION: An important element is to clarify that the
cross section details beyond right of way and roadway widths are for
information only, and are illustrative to show proof of concept only. Details will
be determined at PDP. This should be very clear in the approval documents.
Response: Agreed, and hopefully now clarified.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 12/27/2018
12/27/2018: TRANPORTATION: The cross section tables note in numerous
locations that lower than typical speed limits will be used 'for pedestrian safety'.
Traffic Operations fully supports pedestrian safety and speed limits are
therefore determined based on accepted approaches and standards. It should
be clear in the approval documents that speed limits are not being approved
with the PUD submittal.
Response: Understood, and we’ve removed this from the documents.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 12/27/2018
12/27/2018: TRANSPORTATION: On the plan sheets on page 10 that
discusses the bike network, are the low volume roads shown the alleys? With
20
very narrow widths, and lots of turning movements not sure that they should be
noted as preferred bike routes.
Response: These are not the alleys, but streets (low volume).
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/27/2018
12/27/2018: TRANSPORTATION: The overall layout will tend to encourage
cut-through traffic.
Response: We understand the concern. Actual intersection controls and final geometry will
be developed at time of PDP based on final uses and detailed traffic studies to address
any specific concerns.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/27/2018
12/27/2018: TRANSPORTATION: Determination of intersection control at the
major intersections is not required with the PUD but should be identified as
soon as feasible in the PDP process. As the submittals notes, there may be
some locations where a roundabout is preferred. Approval documents should
note that those decisions will be made later, and the process to determine
control type will be the standards City process.
Response: Agreed that the standard city process will be followed at time of PDP. If there
are any specific notes required for the PUD plans, please let us know.
Contact: Tom Knostman - tknostman@fcgov.com,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
11/13/2018: FROM 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
21
17. No vesting is assigned until all plan concepts and variances are granted and
documented in a DA.
18. Call with questions.
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-416-4320, slorson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/26/2018
TRANSPORTATION 12/26/2018: 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. 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.
2. The staff recommendation will likely not include the section of Bar Habor
between Mountain Vista and Conifer.
3. 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: (Ruth) Understood. The MSP Amendment was reviewed by the Transportation
Board on Jan 16 and will proceed to City Council with its recommendation for approval.
Please let us know if any revisions to the MSP are requested.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 12/14/2018
12/14/2018: OIL AND GAS. PUD APPROVAL. Thank you for the updated
alternative compliance request and this request format is nearly complete.
Round 1 PUD comments included direction to title the document "Alternative
Compliance Buffer Reduction Plan". On the letter first page please change to
read:
RE: Montava PUD Alternative Compliance Buffer Reduction Plan – LUC 3.8.26
Alternative Compliance Request.
Response: (BHA) Correction made
Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 12/14/2018
12/14/2018: OIL AND GAS. PUD APPROVAL. Thank you for the updated
alternative compliance request and this request format is nearly complete.
Change to "We are requesting an Alternative Compliance buffer … " on page 1
of the alternative compliance request. See edits provided within pdf submitted.
Response: (BHA) Correction made
Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 12/14/2018
12/14/2018: OIL AND GAS. PUD APPROVAL. Confirm within the alternative
22
compliance letter and on site plans that only two oil and gas buffer reductions
are being requested, specifically, for the two wells onsite and located on the
north of the property.
Note City of Fort Collins Land Use Code 3.8.26(C)(4)(b)(2): the minimum buffer
between a high occupancy building unit and any oil and gas location shall be
one thousand (1,000) feet, or the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission designated setback distance, whichever is greater. Public or
private playgrounds, parks, recreational fields, or community gathering spaces
shall not be allowed within a buffer from existing wells.
Response: (BHA) Understood. We are only requesting Alternative Compliance for the two
well sites that are within our property boundaries.
Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 12/14/2018
12/14/2018: OIL AND GAS. PUD APPROVAL. Provide historic documentation
and/or a formal letter from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
(COGCC) confirming the two wells included in the Alternative Compliance
request “have no documented history of active operations and have been
permanently capped and abandoned for many years.” Research and historic
documentation needed supporting this claim in addition to information
regarding approximately WHEN is it estimated the permanent capping
occurred and using which methods of capping.
Response: (BHA) We have included the available documentation for the two well sites.
Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 12/14/2018
12/14/2018: OIL AND GAS. PUD APPROVAL. City staff understand
challenges and unanticipated consequences associated with any extensive
excavation efforts searching for the wells and that excavation has occurred to
2ft depth to try and locate visible signs of the two northern wells. Is it possible
the evidence is at 4 ft or 6ft depth? Also: what is the general width of test
wells 1.5ft , 3 ft, 18ft - what dimensions in relation to proposed reduced
buffer? Provide historic documentation and/or a formal letter from the Colorado
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) confirming general depths of
test wells and general depths for operational wells.
Response: (BHA) As you can see the documentation is limited in terms of the well depths.
The well site locations have been confirmed with the GPR survey, but the depths are
unknown. We are conducting the recommended soil testing, soil gas screening in multiple
locations around the well sites based on TRC Solutions scope of work and EPA
recommendations to confirm no negative conditions exist.
Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 12/14/2018
12/14/2018: OIL AND GAS. PUD APPROVAL. Submit formal letter from TRC
Solutions documenting all activities to date that have been completed to detect
hazardous materials or site contamination. This data and documentation must
be submitted at or before a project Hearing for the Montava PUD if desiring to
have any reduced oil and gas buffers approved and vested.
Response: (BHA) The soil/soil gas testing efforts by TRC Solutions were scheduled to
occur,but are now currently on hold due to the Federal Government shutdown pending
approval of their final SAP by the EPA. The testing will be scheduled as soon as the EPA
approval is received. The Alternative Compliance buffer reduction is requested for
approval with the condition that favorable results will occur with both the initial testing and
the ongoing monitoring testing that is required.
23
Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 12/14/2018
12/14/2018: OIL AND GAS. PUD APPROVAL. Provide clarifications on what
the images included in the Montava PUD Alternative Compliance Buffer
Reduction Plan pages 3 and 4 are showing. What do the different colors
represent? Please include legend(s) and explanation so the average reader
knows how the images support the narrative and alternative compliance
request.
Response: (BHA) We have revised the request to simplify these diagrams.
Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 12/14/2018
12/14/2018: OIL AND GAS. PUD APPROVAL. The current submittal speaks to
the "equally well or better than" criteria specifically for the decision maker to
consider approval of a reduced oil and gas buffer for the two onsite wells.
Additional justification is needed and should be provided once the site
investigation and sampling activities are completed by TRC Solutions. This
information should be available to decision makers at or before project Hearing.
Response: (BHA) The soil/soil gas testing efforts are currently delayed as noted above
(Comment response 44). The Alternative Compliance buffer reduction is requested for
approval with the condition that favorable results will occur with both the initial testing and
the ongoing monitoring testing that is required. We have provided justification based on
these conditions.
Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 12/14/2018
12/14/2018: SITE DESIGN. PUD APPROVAL. Include the oil well locations
and buffers illustrating the setback requirements AND the location of the active
red-tailed hawk nest and buffer on the Montava Master Plan Illustration on page
3 of the Montava PUD Design Narrative. Please ensure these buffers remain on
ALL Design Narrative and Standards documents showing the Montava PUD
Master Plan through Hearing and Final PUD Approval should the project
proceed.
Response: (BHA) These locations and buffers have been added to the PUD Master Plan drawing.
Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 12/14/2018
12/14/2018: SITE DESIGN. PUD APPROVAL. Please have BHA use their
design skills to professionally update and incorporate the Nature in the City
(NIC) draft menu example provided by City staff into the Montava PUD Design
Standards. These explicit design concepts are meant to ensure that the
proposed development "will also be incorporating Nature in the City in
appropriate locations throughout Montava" and ensure these NIC elements
cannot be eliminated at a later date by another developer or property owner
completing different Phases of the Montava PUD.
Response: (BHA) We have added specific NIC program elements into the Civic Space
Program Table 10.1-4 of the Design Standards, and have indicated that a minimum of two
of these elements be incorporated into each phase. This codifies the requirement to
include NIC features in common open spaces, but still allows flexibility for detailed design
that will occur at the PDP for each development phase.
Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 12/14/2018
12/14/2018: SITE DESIGN. PUD APPROVAL. Regarding response to
Montava PUD Rd 1 comment #40 Additional Information please provide
community names and locations in examples and photos submitted. Note many
of these example communities appear to be in the United States east coast,
24
which is a very different environmental context than Fort Collins and this has
implications for vegetation growth expectations.
Response: (BHA) After our comment review discussion, we have removed these photos
from the documents, but are happy to share more information if needed to supplement this
discussion prior to hearing.
Comment Number: 50 Comment Originated: 12/14/2018
12/14/2018: SITE DESIGN. PUD APPROVAL. The T5 Urban Center Mixed
Use is the tightest place to provide traditional landscape elements including
trees. There is an opportunity for the Montava Town Center and other urban
areas to commit to a determined percentage of all rooftop square footage to be
used as a combination of green roofs, blue roofs, and biosolar roofs and/or a
certain percentage of west, east or south-facing buildings to have green
screens. This would ensure the planned Montava community does not replicate
development projects completed elsewhere and would support innovative urban
landscape design.
For example, something similar to the Green Roof and Green Buildings Initiative
in Denver, Colorado, and the metrics set there; note the work of developer Kyle
Zeppelin regarding this topic.
Response: (BHA) We are certain that innovative design solutions will be explored at the
PDP level for each phase based on the trends in water use and sustainability goals for the
community weighed with the goals for use, character, and housing affordability for each
phase. The PUD standards do not prohibit these innovative concepts. But we do not wish
to include minimum requirements for these specific elements at this PUD level beyond the
requirements of existing codes.
Comment Number: 51 Comment Originated: 12/14/2018
12/14/2018: SITE DESIGN. PUD APPROVAL. For proposed "Dark Sky
lighting friendly zone s" - instead of clarifying now what technical specifications
or design elements are needed in each zone, change to general statement. In
the PUD Design Narrative and Design Standards documents, simply mention
that the development will align with International Dark-Sky Association (IDSA)
recommendations in all zones and phases of the Montava PUD.
Response: The revisions as noted in updated comment 3 from 1/9/2019 have been made.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, mroche@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1.1 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
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
12/26/18: UTILIZATION OF RIGHT OF WAY/SITE DESIGN
PUD STANDARDS BOOKLET: Pg. 31: Please reference and acknowledge
25
designated and required square feet of landscaping, gardens, green/blue roofs,
trees, shrubs, etc per each proposed lot width, frontages, sides, and rear lots.
Response: Square footage of open space is determined by the lot size and lot coverage.
Only the front yards are specifically controlled.
PUD STANDARDS BOOKLET: Pg. 42: Forestry has concerns with the option
for certain yard types offering the option between trees and shrubs. We would
like to better understand lot widths per yard type to know if large trees are
feasible to plant near street trees. Where possible, private lot trees are
recommended.
Response: The ability to plant trees is based more on the depth of the yard than the width.
Generally lots are between 22 and 50ft wide. As the lots are narrower, the buildings are
closer to the sidewalk. In wider lots, they are further. The yard types are associated in that
way. We will review these standards and ensure that those lots large enough are required
to have trees without substituting for shrubs, and be sure the rest are properly aligned.
PUD STANDARDS BOOKLET: Pg. 68 (Private Lot Landscaping): Please
provide additional information regarding amendments to the LUC sections:
3.2.1(D)(1)C;(E)(1); (E)(2)D; (E)(4)B – specifically, how do these LUC
modifications and new code requests supersede current LUC standards and
meet the urban canopy goals of Fort Collins?
Response: 3.2.1.D.1.C best reflects the yard standards and urban canopy goals. The PUD
standards state how they supersede this section. For 3.2.1.D.1.C we are aligning the
ability to provide landscaping with the size of the yard.
PUD STANDARDS BOOKLET: Pg 68 (7.3 Landscape Materials – edible
landscaping: Certain species restriction on edible landscape, specifically
fruit-bearing trees) will be enforced in the City right-of-way as well as any plant
material shown to encroach into public right of way. Plant species list to be
reviewed at each stage PDP.
Response: Understood. We wish to allow the use of edible species but understand city
restrictions will need to be met for City right-of-way trees. This detail would be provided at
time of PDP.
11/13/18:
SITE DESIGN:
Forestry will defer to the project planner, Clay Frickey, regarding private 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.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
12/26/18: UTILIZATION OF RIGHT OF WAY
Continued:
Thank you for including 6’ minimum parkways on some street types and larger
parkways where feasible. Forestry has provided redlines on the Street Sections
booklet that points out some areas where parkway widths are shown narrower
than the Land Use Code standard width. Forestry would like to see the
minimum parkway width at least on all street types, but where feasible increase
26
the parkway width to allow for improved tree planting areas. For instance, there
are several street types that have very wide center medians – perhaps these
medians could be narrowed to accommodate a wider tree lawn and sidewalk.
On other street type diagrams, the sidewalk is shown significantly greater than
the required width noted in the Land Use Code – perhaps certain sidewalk
widths can decrease to allow for the larger parkway width.
Response: We have attempted to provide greater tree lawns in as many locations as
possible to still support the plan goals. There are some instances where we are not able to
provide more space than the minimum requirement.
11/13/18:
BIG PICTURE/UTILIZATION OF RIGHT OF WAY:
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
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.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
12/26/2018: UTILIZATION OF RIGHT OF WAY
CONTINUED:
See Forestry comment 3 and redlines on the Street Sections book.
Response: Redlines adjusted for where possible. The locals remain with a 6ft parkway in
many locations, following LUCASS. There is a conflict in the Industrial Local where we’ve
been requested to widen all sidewalks which reduced the parkway from 6.5 to 6ft. We have
increased the parkway width from the LUCASS minimum on Minor Collector section 4 in
T4 and T3 districts, Residential Local sections 6A and 6B, and Connector Local 7A. New
section 7B, a modified Connector Local, also increased the parkway width from LUCASS
6ft standard to 7ft. Additionally the new section 8, Paired One-Way Local in T4 and T3,
includes a standard 6ft parkway on one side and widened 9ft parkway on the other side.
11/13/18:
UTILIZATION OF ROW:
Please provide street cross sections that take into consideration
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
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
27
12/26/2018: UTILIZATION OF RIGHT OF WAY
Continued:
Thank you for providing detailed utility layouts on the street sections booklet.
Please define ELCO Water line standards as it relates to tree separation
requirements. Does the proposed utility layout for ELCO water meet their
standards?
Response: Tree separation requirements are 10’ minimum. The cross sections now show
10’ minimum separation from ELCO mains. ELCO has requested their mains to be
typically located 7’ from curb flowline and cross sections are updated accordingly.
11/13/18:
UTILIZATION OF ROW:
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
standards are as followed:
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
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
12/26/18: UTILIZATION OF RIGHT OF WAY/SITE DESIGN
Continued:
Forestry is concerned that the use of street trees is not clearly spelled out in the
PUD Development Standards, particularly in the T5 and T4 transects. 7.4.2
Private Lot Landscaping Standards: “The relationship supports walkable
streets, but leaves no space for landscaping between the building and streets.”
This creates an image that there will be no room for street trees. If this is the
case, Forestry does not support this modification since it contradicts our
requirements for tree lined streets. If we are misunderstanding the intent of this
statement, please include language to this section that street trees will be
provided within the public right-of-way in all transects.
Response: The development standards address private property standards. Street tree
spacing requirements of the Land Use Code are not intended to be modified. The intent for
tree lawn widths are indicated in the street cross sections.
11/13/18:
28
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.
Comment Number: 8 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?
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
12/26/18: SITE DESIGN
Continued:
Thank you for providing additional information about tree stocking in T5, T4, and
T3. In Table 10.1-3 Civic Space Types – Design, Forestry has concerns
regarding the number of trees required per square foot of civic space types (1
tree per 4000 square feet). These numbers appear to exhibit very low density
tree requirements. Are these bare minimum requirements? In this table, it might
be more appropriate the provide tree canopy goals per civic center size.
Response: These are minimum requirements, allowing for flexibility for implementation of
various types of civic space designs (open lawns, gardens vs more naturalistic tree areas).
The civic spaces are designed for multiple activities. 1:4000 square feet equates to canopy
over 1/4 of the civic space, at a minimum. In considering your concern, we will adjust the
minimum numbers to prefer more trees for specific design types appropriate. Please
advise.
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
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
29
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.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/16/2018
12/26/18: SITE DESIGN
CONTINUED:
Silva Cells have been implemented on a few capital projects in Fort Collins and
on Pearl Street in Boulder, CO. We would like to see Silva Cells incorporated
as possible future infrastructure design per each PDP phase in the PUD
Standards Booklet.
Response: BHA
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.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/27/2018
12/26/18: STREET SECTIONS BOOKLET
Please define parkway types: continuous, long tree well, square tree well,
varies, etc. Many visuals in the street sections booklet contradict the parkway
type identified. There are several inconsistencies in this document throughout
the drawings. Please provide details for what each parkway type intends to look
30
like in terms of width, depth, Silva Cells, tree grates, irrigation, ground cover
type (mulch, turf, rock mulch, etc). Forestry recommends 25 square foot
minimum tree well and 5x10’ tree grates.
Response: (DPZ)
Parkway types described in the street drawings and summary table include:
1) Continuous – a continuous landscape strip running along the length of the curbing & sidewalk,
often referred to as a tree lawn.
2) Long tree well – a dedicated planting area which is larger than an urban tree well / tree pit but
more limited than a continuous planter. The distance between roadway and sidewalk varies by
street section, from 6 feet to 10 feet. The length of the planter is determined by the tree type
and spacing; for trees spaced 30 feet on center, the planter length is typically 16 feet, retaining
14 feet of paved area between planters. This planter is intended to be demarcated by low
landscape fencing and filled with ground cover. The type of ground cover and irrigation has not
been determined.
3) Urban tree well – a grated planter in very urban conditions. The width and depth of urban tree
wells have not been determined, however they are generally depicted at 6 foot by 6 foot, or 36
square feet. We will consider larger planting areas and tree grates, as well as other means of
increasing root area, as cost permits.
In all cases, we have not yet determined the ground cover type, irrigation, or suppliers / models of
tree grates, fencing, and other materials.
On several of the exhibits, larger center or side medians are shown. Are these
intended to be within the public right-of-way or privately maintained? Please
note the party (private/public) responsible for maintaining these landscaped
tracts. Further discussion about the tree maintenance in these areas should be
had with City Forestry.
Response: The larger side medians outside the public right-of-way would be privately owned and
maintained.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 12/19/2018
12/19/2018: Thank you for modifying the request to align the City's existing sign
section.
City Council just passed an update the Sign Section of the Land Use Code.
We will need to look at the sections that are being requested for
exemption/modification to ensure it is the correct sections are being cited.
Response: (DPZ) Please let us know if any corrections are required.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 12/19/2018
12/19/2018: As I read the modification/exemptions I am trying to understand
the projecting sign exemption. We do allow projecting signs to extend further
away from the building face than 12". What is not allowed is to project past the
roof line more than 12". Is the request to extend past the roof?
Response: (DPZ) We have removed this request
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 12/24/2018
12/24/2018: The code does not have a separate sign type for Marquee signs.
31
What is the need to distinguish this type of sign separate from the available sign
types?
Response: (DPZ) We have removed this request
Department: Park Planning
Contact: Suzanne Bassinger, 970-416-4340, sbassinger@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/19/2018
12/19/2018: Open Space, Trails, Parks
PUD Design Narrative:
Section 2.2 Compliance with PUD Overlay Regulations.
Subsection (B)(k) Public Amenities Commensurate with the Scope of the
Montava Development :
Add the following information to this section for clarity and reference:
Under Community Park please insert a statement indicating the proposed
park site varies in size from the recommendations of adopted plans:
The 2008 Parks and Recreation Policy Plan indicates the Northeast park
planned in this area is a 100-acre park site, scheduled as the last community
park to be constructed in the Fort Collins park system, with development
occurring 2025 or later. The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan (2009) indicates that
future programming needs for the community park in this area are between 100
to 120 acres in size.
Response: (BHA) Added
Add a section titled Regional Recreational Trail and state that Montava will
accommodate the alignment of the future Northeast Paved Recreational Trail
adjacent to the Larimer & Weld No. 8 Outlet Ditch, as indicated in the 2013
Paved Recreational Trail Master Plan.
Response: (BHA) Added
Please note: Park Planning & Development staff have been working with the
applicant to accommodate the proposed community park size. However, staff
cannot recommend that the community park complies with our adopted policies,
including both the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan and the Mountain Vista
Subarea Plan. Approval of the variance from adopted policies for the
community park size will have to occur at the hearing level.
Response: (BHA) Understood.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/19/2018
12/19/2018: Open Space, Trails, Parks
In PUD Design Narrative:
Chapter 5 – Natural Features Protection
Please incorporate reference to the Northeast Paved Recreational Trail as
shown in the 2013 Paved Recreational Trail Master Plan. The future Northeast
trail will be an integral element in the alignment, function and natural features of
the No. 8 ditch and as such, please indicate this in both the narrative of this
section and in the schematic titled “Proposed improvements to the No. 8
Canal”. Include on the cross-section schematic the location of the future
recreational trail within a designated Public Access and Trail easement of
30-50’wide, located outside of the Larimer & Weld Irrigation Company
easement. The recreational trail cannot be located on the ditch access and
maintenance road.
32
Response: (BHA) Reference to the Regional Trail has been added, with the revised cross-
section indicating the relationship of the trail, canal, and maintenance access road as a
prototypical section.Final design details will continue to be reviewed at the PDP level.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/19/2018
12/19/2018: Open Space, Trails, Parks
In the PUD Design Narrative: Chapter 10- Policy and Public Benefit Analysis
Please reference the following two documents and indicate that Montava will
address and comply with these adopted policies and plans: the Parks and
Recreation Policy Plan (2008) and the 2013 Paved Recreational Trail Master
Plan. In areas where the Montava master plan proposes to deviate from these
policies and plans, please specify the proposed changes.
Response: (BHA/Max) We have indicated in the narrative.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/19/2018
12/19/2018: Open Space, Trails, Parks
In the PUD Master Plan Development Standards, Chapter 10. Civic Space
10.2: Consider adding Paved Recreational Regional Trails as a civic space,
with a minimum easement width of 30-50’, containing both paved and soft
surface trails.
Response: (BHA) Added.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/19/2018
12/19/2018 Open Space, Trails, Parks
In PUD Master Plan - Plan Set:
Include the location of the paved recreational trail on the grading plans. The
Northeast Trail alignment is planned to run parallel and directly adjacent to the
No. 8 outlet ditch, from Mountain Vista to Richards Lake Road. The trail
easement must be located outside of the Larimer & Weld Irrigation Company
ditch easement.
Response: (Martin/Martin) Paved trail added to grading plans. Noted.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/19/2018
12/19/2018: Open Space, Trails, Parks
In PUD Master Plan - Plan Set:
Include at least two (2) typical trail cross-sections with the grading plan. One
cross-section would represent the preferred typical section: a 50’ easement
width within which is located a 10’ paved surface, a 4’ soft surface trail with 4’
separation between the paved and soft surface trails, and 3’ level shoulders
either side of the trails. The 50’ easement allows the horizontal alignment room
to meander and create spaces for additional amenities (benches, art, bike
repair stations).
A second cross-section must be included to indicate a minimum trail
cross-section that could potentially be used through site-constrained urban
areas. This minimum cross-section could be used for trail segments less than
500’ in length before transitioning to the preferred typical full-size section. The
minimum trail cross-section would consist of a 12’ paved surface and 4’ level
shoulders. The minimum easement width is 24’. Park Planning and
Development must approve all locations and alignments proposed to utilize the
minimum trail cross-section.
33
Response: (Martin/Martin) Typical cross-sections added to grading plans.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/19/2018
12/19/2018: Open Space, Trails, Parks
In the PUD Master Plan - Plan Set:
Thank you for indicating the three (3) proposed grade separated crossings for
the Northeast Trail at Mountain Vista, Richards Lake Road (both arterials) and
the extension of Country Club Road (collector). Please add and label a future
proposed grade separated crossing for the Northeast Regional Trail at the
minor collector represented by the extension of the existing Maple Hill Drive.
Widened easements appropriate for accommodating ADA compliant
approaches to these future crossings will be required. Park Planning &
Development will be available to assist in configuring adequate easements on
future PDP submittal documents.
Response: (BHA) Based on our discussions, we have indicated the planned area of grade-
separated crossings to the plans.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
12/21/2018: FOR HEARING:
Please update when the sheet index is finalized.
Response: (BHA) Corrected
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.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
12/21/2018: FOR HEARING:
Please add the boundary information to the legal description when it is finalized.
Response: (BHA) Awaiting updated PUD boundary information. Will add to Cover Sheet
prior to hearing.
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.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
12/21/2018: FOR HEARING:
There is still text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See
redlines.
Response: (BHA) The text masking corrections have been made to the plans that have been
determined to become part of the PUD Master Plan drawing sheets.
11/13/2018: OTHER:
There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See
redlines.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
12/21/2018: FOR HEARING:
Please correct all marked. See redlines.
Response: (BHA) Corrected
34
11/13/2018: OTHER:
All notes labeling "C&S Railroad" and "Burlington Northern Railroad" should be
changed to "BNSF Railway".
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/21/2018
12/21/2018: FOR HEARING:
There are sheet numbers missing. See redlines.
Response: (BHA) Corrected
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/27/2018
12/27/2018: FOR HEARING:
There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: (BHA) Corrected
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Brian Zick - Boxelder Sanitation,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
12/21/2018: 1) The proposed development is within the Boxelder Sanitation
District regional planningService 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.
5) The District has a process for reviewing development projects. Because we
are a utility provider, we generally don t get involved in land use decisions. The
development review process is typically established by the county or
municipality that has jurisdiction over the proposed development. Our reviews
consist of procedures established in our Rule and Regulations and Standards
and Specification. We encourage all developers within our District to discuss
our review process with our staff so that we can provide the best service
possible and not interrupt or hold up the review process that is typically being
conducted by other municipalities or counties. Attached is a checklist that
shows
the steps in our review process. This will vary from project to project, but are
guidelines that we follow. To date, the Montava developer has not started the
development review process with Boxelder Sanitation District.
We look forward to review future submittals on this project. Please feel free to
35
contact me if you have any questions.
Response: (Martin/Martin) Noted
Contact: Don Kapperman - Comcast,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/20/2018
12/20/2018: Comcast facility has to be in a utility easement—The standard 9
foot front lot easement behind the sidewalk will work. If Comcast is in the rear lot
then there needs to be at least a 5 foot easement.
Response: (Martin/Martin) Telcom is shown joint trench with electric in the street parkway
within the ROW or in a private alley with an easement.
Contact: Gloria Hice-Idler - CDOT,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 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.
If you have any questions, please contact Tim Bilobran at (970) 350-2163.
Response: (Martin/Martin) Noted.
Contact: Katie Gray - Larimer County Engineering - kgray@larimer.org,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/26/2018
12/26/2018: On Giddings Road the applicant is wanting to scale back from a
four lane arterial section to a two lane arterial section. The primary reason
stated is that although the projected traffic exceeds the capacity (17,300 vs
15,000) the grid system will allow the excess traffic to divert to Timberline and
Turnberry. While this may be the way things could work it would result in longer
periods of high congestion on Giddings and will load the east-west connections
in order to divert the excess traffic. In the Traffic Study the projected ADT is
shown as 17,300 to 19,400. Making the case based on the minimum number
they cite indicates this is a best-case condition. Designing based on the best
case for traffic which exceeds the capacity for the roadway seems to be a risky
proposal. Add to this that the 2017 traffic count on the north leg of the
Giddings/Richards Lake intersection already exceeds the 2040 baseline
projected for the south leg in the Traffic Study, the traffic on Giddings may be
significantly under-estimated.
On Country Club Road the baseline 2040 traffic volumes are projected to be
8,500 vpd. Our 2018 traffic count has an ADT of 7,500 vpd. With significant
additional traffic expected from the Waters Edge and Country Club Reserve
developments we could see 2040 background traffic volumes in the
9,000-9,500 vpd range which significantly exceeds the ADT expected for a
collector-class roadway. Continuing to add traffic to this roadway without
significant improvements should be discouraged.
36
We appreciate the opportunity to review this project. The County wants to
ensure that County Club Road remains an adequate public facility in response
to the increased traffic volumes from the nearby developments. We look forward
to discussing these comments with the City to find the best solution.
Response: (Ruth) We understand a meeting was to be held between Larimer County and the City
of Fort Collins. We are not aware of the outcome but will respectfully proceed with the MSP
Amendment recommendations unless additional comments arise.
Contact: Ken Mott - CenturyLink,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/20/2018
12/20/2018: It is standard that CenturyLink is in the utilities easement behind
the sidewalk, this is usually at lest 3 feet. CenturyLink would also require a 10
foot square easement for equipment for every development section.
Response: (Martin/Martin) Telcom is shown joint trench with electric in the street parkway
within the ROW or in a private alley with an easement.
Contact: Megan Harrity - Larimer County Assessor,
Topic: General
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.
Thank you,
Megan Harrity
Subdivision Supervisor
Larimer County Office of the Assessor
970-498-7065
mharrity@larimer.org
Contact: Randy Siddens - ELCO,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/13/2018
12/26/2018: 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: No water lines are shown on the
grading and utility plan set. A detailed review of water line layout for the project
is not possible until future submittals show the water lines. The street cross
sections showing utility line locations have been reviewed, see attached for
comments.
Any written agreements required to complete water line connections to the
property must be completed prior to final approval of the project construction
drawings.
37
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: (Martin/Martin) Noted.
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.
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
of unencumbered right-of-way or easement width to be in place. The District
assumes more
detail on this issue will be available during the next round of review.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
8. Overall Water Flow Demands: If the project progresses past this stage,
District staff will
38
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.
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.
Contact: Stephanie Rich - Xcel,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/20/2018
12/20/2018: Xcel Energy requires a utility easement for gas main installation.
In single family/multi family situation we will not go underneath the sidewalk.
Because everyone wants to be in that easement separation is a big deal for all
involved. I would say separation with other utilities is non-negotiable.
Response: (Martin/Martin) Gas will be provide in an easement adjacent to the ROW or in a
private alley in an easement. Gas will not be located under a sidewalk.
39
Contact List
Boxelder Sanitation – Brian Zick
• 970-498-0604
• brianz@boxeldersanition.org
Century Link – Ken Mott
• Kenneth.Mott@centurylink.com
CDOT – Tim Bilobran
• 970-350-2163
• timothy.bilobran@state.co.us
Comcast – Don Kapperman
• 970-567-0245
• Don_Kapperman@comcast.com
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
Larimer County Engineering – Katie Gray
• 970-498-5702
• kgray@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
• 970-225-7828
• stephanie.rich@xcelenergy.com
Zoning – Noah Beals
• 970-416-2313
• nbeals@fcgov.com