The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMONTAVA - PHASE G & IRRIGATION POND - BDR210013 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS 1 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6689 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview Comment responses December 15, 2021 September 03, 2021 Max Moss Fort Collins, CO RE: Montava Phase One, PDR210015 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of Montava Phase One. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through your Development Review Coordinator, Tenae Beane via phone at 970-224-6119 or via email at tbeane@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Development Review Coordinator Contact: Tenae Beane, 970-224-6119, tbeane@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: I will be your primary point of contact throughout the development review and permitting process. If you have any questions, need additional meetings with the project reviewers, or need assistance throughout the process, please let me know and I can assist you and your team. Please include me in all email correspondence with other reviewers and keep me informed of any phone conversations. Thank you! Response: (BHA) Thank you. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: Some of the proposed uses are subject to a Basic Development Review. The decision maker for your BDR project will be the Development Review Manager and/or Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. All documents submitted to the City in association with your Basic Development Review project are available to the public through our website. Formal public notice of your project is at the discretion of the Development Review Manager, including a posted sign, mailing to surrounding neighbors and/or published notice elsewhere. 2 Some of the proposed uses are subject to a Type 1 Review. The decision maker for the type 1 project will be an Administrative Hearing Officer at a public hearing. For the hearing, we will formally notify surrounding property owners within 800 feet (excluding public right-of-way and publicly owned open space). As your Development Review Coordinator, I will assist with preparing the mailing and coordinating the hearing date with your team. A neighborhood meeting is not required for this development request, but it is encouraged. See the comments listed under Planning for more details. Please contact me to schedule a date, time and location for a meeting. Response: (BHA) We have talked with city staff about staggering the submittals and reviews for these phase one improvement areas (Phase G, Phase E, and Farm). This initial submittal is for Phase G, associated infrastructure improvements, and the irrigation storage pond. Based on our discussions and the PUD Master Plan Phase G these uses shall be processed as a Basic Development Review. Working together with Planning and Engineering we have agreed to have the initial submittal meet the level of a PDP rather than submitting final plans initially. This allows our team to receive comments from the city before finalizing construction plans. We have included the submittal checklist provided to us for Phase G. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: INFORMATION: Please follow the Electronic Submittal Requirements and File Naming Standards found at https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/electronic submittal requirements and file naming standards_v1_8 1 19.pdf?1566857888. File names should begin with the file type, followed by the project information, and round number. Example: UTILITY PLANS_PROJECT NAME_PDP_Rd2.pdf Response: (BHA) We have followed the file naming standards on the fcgov.com website, which are slightly different and simpler than the example above – no project names are indicated. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: I will provide a Project Submittal Checklist to assist in your submittal preparation. Please use the checklist in conjunction with the Submittal Requirements located at: http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/applications.php. The checklist provided is specific to this Conceptual project; If there are any significant changes to this project, please let me know so we can adjust the checklist accordingly. I can send an updated copy of the Submittal Checklist to ensure you are submitting the correct materials. Response: (BHA) We have included and followed the submittal checklist you provided, thank you. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: As part of your submittal you will respond to the comments provided in this letter. This letter is provided to you in Microsoft Word format. Please use this document to insert responses to each comment for your submittal, using a different font color. When replying to the comment letter please be detailed in your responses, as all comments should be thoroughly addressed. Provide reference to specific project plans or explanations of why 3 comments have not been addressed, when applicable. Response: (BHA) Responses are included with our submittal. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: The request will be subject to the Development Review Fee Schedule: https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/fees.php. I will provide estimated fees, which are due at time of project submittal for formal review. This is an estimate of the initial fees to begin the development review process based on your Conceptual Review Application. As noted in the comments, there are additional fees required by other departments, and additional fees at the time of building permit. The City of Fort Collins fee schedule is subject to change – please confirm these estimates before submitting. If you have any questions about fees, please reach out to me. A convenience fee of 2% + $0.25 will be added to all credit card payments under $2,500. A convenience fee of 2.75% will be added to all credit card payments over $2,500. Response: (BHA) We have provided fees associated with Basic Development Review Planning and TDR worksheets plus the PFA fee. If any additional fees are required please let us know. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: Submittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being the cut-off for routing the same week. Upon initial submittal, your project will be subject to a completeness review. Staff has until noon that Friday to determine if the project contains all required checklist items and is sufficient for a round of review. If complete, a formal Letter of Acceptance will be emailed to you and the project would be officially routed for review, followed by a formal meeting. Response: (BHA) Understood. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: INFORMATION: Temporary Service Changes - City of Fort Collins Development Review In order to continue providing thorough reviews and giving every project the attention it deserves, the City of Fort Collins is implementing temporary changes in how we serve our development customers. As you may be aware, we are experiencing staff shortages in a number of key departments, which has begun to impact the timeliness of our reviews. We recognize that development and construction play a critical role in our community’s vibrancy and economic recovery, and we have been exploring options for mitigating impacts to our customers. As a result, we will be making some temporary service changes. Beginning Monday May 10th one additional week of review time will be added to all 1st and 2nd round submittals (increase from 3 weeks to 4 weeks). Response: (BHA) Understood. Department: Planning Services Contact: Jenny Axmacher, jaxmacher@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 4 08/24/2021: OVERALL - OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT: Neighborhood meetings are not required for these submittals, but community engagement is recommended as part of the review process. Outreach should seek to understand potential impacts to existing residents of the area, inform the broader community, and engage with potential future residents. City staff coordinates closely with applicants on public engagement efforts, and will provide support to notify community members, facilitate inclusive participation, and promote transparency. The Neighborhood Development Liaison is available for consultation on engagement in the development review process. Response: (BHA) We have been working with Alyssa Stephens and plan to conduct a neighborhood meeting about Montava following receipt of the initial round of comments on our Phase G BDR submittal. Max has also been participating in a series of neighborhood listening sessions in the northeast Fort Collins area. We look forward to continuing outreach with the NEFC community about the project as it develops over time. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL - MEETINGS AND EVENTS: For the proposed phases, staff recommends hosting (1) a virtual project update with general Q&A and (2) at least one targeted event with the immediately adjacent neighborhoods (Maple Hill and Storybook in particular). At this time, Neighborhood Services continues to recommend virtual events to prevent transmission of the highly contagious delta variant of COVID-19. These events would not be required prior to submittal, but should occur prior to the second round of submittal. Mailed notice would be required two weeks in advance of any neighborhood meeting or event. Response: (BHA) Agree, see response to comment 1 above. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL -ONLINE ENGAGEMENT: The City of Fort Collins has developed a communication plan for Montava to promote transparency and share information with the public throughout the review process. For this phase, this will include web updates and email notification upon PDP submittal, prior to any public hearings or neighborhood meetings, and upon decision. Social media updates will also be utilized to promote public hearings and neighborhood meetings. The City currently hosts a dedicated site for Montava on OurCity , the City’s online public engagement platform. Close coordination with City staff is recommended to provide accurate information, answer development questions, and review feedback. Response: (BHA) Agree, please let us know how we can support this outreach. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL -INFRASTRUCTURE: Consider exploring a PDP Infrastructure Plan to establish and implement the street network, utilities, including proposed non-potable supply system, and drainage infrastructure for all three phases prior to completing the reviews for the individual phases. See comments from Engineering for additional details. Response: (BHA) After further discussions with staff, we are submitting road, drainage and utilities designs in conjunction with our Phase G BDR plans. We look forward to receiving comments with the initial round of review to confirm this information is helpful and sufficient. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 5 08/24/2021: OVERALL - INFRASTRUCTURE: The City’s regulations for Compact Urban Growth (Land Use Code Section 3.7(C), Adequate Public Facilities and (D) Level of Service) require that all public facilities and services necessary to serve the development must be in place prior to the issuance of any building permits for the development. This includes the provision of transportation, water, wastewater, storm drainage, fire and emergency services, electrical power, and any other public facilities/services required to serve the development. Water and wastewater systems must meet the requirements established by the special districts that serve this area (ELCO and Boxelder). If a future transition away from one of the utility providers is envisioned, please provide details on the proposed logistics for this transition. Response: (Max) Design of infrastructure including roads, storm drainage and utilities to support Phase G are included with the submittal. This currently includes service from both ELCO and Boxelder. Montava has purchased water rights in ELCO to begin the development of the project. Other water rights are also contracted for and will be secured as needed. Montava continues to work on its water court case for a more affordable long term water supply and will transition to that supply when it is available for areas of the development not built in ELCO. This assumes ELCO does not decide to work with us to expand its water supply portfolio as we have offered many times and continue to offer. Montava will utilize the sanitary services of Boxelder sanitation either as a wholesale customer by providing additional support services through the metro district, or as a direct customer as Boxelder has continued to evaluate its rate structures and work with our development team in very productive ways. Either way, our services for sewer will go through Boxelder. We strive to set up the most affordable solution long term that will enable the Fort Collins desired development pattern of affordable homes. We will provide updates on any future plans for transition away from any provider as any confirmed plans are approved. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL - CONNECTIVITY: While the framework of public streets appears to meet connectivity requirements, staff has concerns about the availability of visitor/on street parking, delivery access/loading, the offset alleys and green spaces, and lack of connectivity in between the major public street connections. Is there a reason the alleys are offset and disconnected? The concern with this approach is that it limits movement for all modes of transportation. Offset streets are particularly challenging for pedestrians and cyclists to cross safely. Consider a balanced approach between providing unconventional geometries while still maintaining direct pedestrian/cyclist spine way connections. Please also see comments from Traffic and Engineering regarding street cross sections. Response: (BHA) Based on these comments and subsequent discussions with staff, we have reduced the offset alleys to better address these concerns. Pedestrian connectivity is provided throughout Phase G. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL - TRAIL CROSSINGS: Are the two trail crossings at Timberline/Mountain Vista and across Timberline still intended to be grade 6 separated? Response: (BHA) A trail underpass at Mountain Vista is planned and indicated in the drawings. As the trail continues north, we have planned a bike/ped-focused street and trail design with the trail alignment along the east side of Timberline north to a dutch-style roundabout at future intersection of Timberline and County Club intersection. We have been working with multiple city departments to inform this design to best support the neighborhood scale and ease of access to the park, town center, and neighborhoods. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL - The following comments provide references for regulations that will apply as you prepare your complete submittal. LANDSCAPING: Your formal submittal will require a landscape plan that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 3.2.1 unless modified as outlined in Section 7.2 of the “PUD Uses, Densities, and Development Standards” document (e.g. modified standards for full tree stocking, parking lot screening, foundation plantings). Some of the important considerations when developing your landscape plan include: Providing street trees spaced at 30 40 foot intervals Parking lot perimeter and interior landscaping will be required. Areas next to buildings with low visual interest should provide tree and shrub plantings to screen these areas of low visual interest Note that with the exception of the street tree spacing requirements that you may group plantings together and average out the tree spacing to meet these requirements. Response: (BHA) Our landscape plans indicate street trees at 30-40 intervals. This submittal of Phase G does not include any multi-family or commercial uses with parking lots but we will consider this comment for future phase submittals where this is applicable. PARKING: You will need to meet requirements for parking, bicycle parking, and general access/circulation as approved in Chapter 6 of the PUD Uses, Densities, and Development Standards. Please refer to this section when finalizing your site plan. Specific things to consider in addition to the number and dimensions of parking spaces required include: the location of accessible parking spaces, the location of visitor parking, inclusion of parking lot islands and landscaping, bicycle and pedestrian safety and connectivity, and parking lot screening. Response: (DPZ) Montava is subject to the parking standards located in the Montava PUD Master Plan. A parking analysis exhibit has been provided demonstrating compliance for this development phase. In this phase, all parking for detached and attached single family homes are provided within their sites. Additional parking is provided on-street. The parking for the multi-family future development will be determined along with that program. Overall this phase provides parking in excess of the requirements that Montava is subject to. SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN: Staff recognizes that specific site and architectural details for the residential buildings have not yet been finalized. When you submit your formal application, the site layout and architecture of the buildings will be reviewed as outlined in Chapters 5 and 9 of the PUD Uses, 7 Densities, and Development Standards document. Several standards from the Land Use Code will also apply: 3.5.1(I) Outdoor Storage Areas/Mechanical Equipment 3.5.1(J) Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards 3.5.2(D) Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking 3.5.2(D)(1) Orientation to a Connecting Walkway 3.5.2(D)(2) Street Facing Facades Response: (DPZ) Montava is subject to the site and building standards located in the Montava PUD Master Plan. The existing standards do not address architectural style, which is under development currently. However the PUD Master Plan addresses issues identified here. These are applied on a per-lot basis. Housing will be held to the standards of the PUD Master Plan which requires minimum standards to address these conditions. WASTE MANAGEMENT: Your submittal will need to include information about trash and recycling on the site and how the waste management system will function for both residents and haulers. Land Use Code Section 3.2.5 outlines requirements for trash and recycling. Response: (Max) Montava intends to negotiate a single provider of trash and recycling service in line with Fort Collins policies. This single point of service will provide a more cost effective solution for residents as well as a more structured system throughout the entire community. SOLAR ENERGY: Will the residential buildings have solar panels? If so, the standards in Land Use Code section 3.8.32 (Solar Energy Systems) will apply. Response: (Max) We support and will not preclude the use of solar panels on the homes. We have included early concepts for the homes and as final designs progress between the Montava Town Architect and our builders we will be able to identify where solar panels are feasible and will follow the requirements of section 3.8.32. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL INFORMATION: The subdivision to the west is Storybook, not Storybrook. Please ensure that the correct name is used. Response: (BHA) Acknowledged and apologies for this misspelling in the PDR documents. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: FARM – PHASING: the plans for the farm in this PDR include more phasing than shown in the prior PDR. Will separate approvals be pursued for the phases? Please provide greater detail regarding the farm operations for the initial phase so that Staff may confirm the correct review process requirements. Response: (BHA) We intend to have the farm and crops operational in early phases of Montava, but the more public aspects of the farm (market, farm stand) are planned for later in the development. We have talked with city staff about staggering the submittals and reviews for these phase one improvement areas (Phase G, Phase E, and Farm). This initial submittal is for Phase G, associated infrastructure improvements, and the irrigation storage pond and does not include the farm area. We intend to make a submittal for the initial farm operations within the next few weeks Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 8 08/24/2021: FARM - URBAN AGRICULTURE: The standards in Land Use Code section 3.8.31 for Urban Agriculture will apply (as vested in the PUD Master Plan and Overlay). These standards are intended to ensure that agricultural activities and residential uses can be successfully integrated. Please refer to this section for information about setbacks for hoop houses and compost piles, impact mitigation, food distribution, licensing, etc. Response: (BHA) We will include these considerations in our separate submittal for the initial farm operations – refer to response to Comment 11 above for more information. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: FARM - FARM COMPOSTING: Are there plans for composting facilities associated with the farm? If so, standards in Land Use Code section 3.8.24 will apply. These standards require that composting facilities are located at least 660 feet from residential uses. Composting facilities must also treat and contain all run off on site. A nuisance condition control plan will be required and must be approved by the Director. Response: (BHA) We will include these considerations in our separate submittal for the initial farm operations – refer to response to Comment 11 above for more information. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: PHASE G - OPEN SPACE: The open space amenity was previously labelled as a park and detention area. Is detention still proposed? The area shown is about half the size of the park/green space identified in the approved PUD. Please provide more detail about the plans for this open space amenity area. Response: (BHA) We are balancing the storm drainage and water quality requirements with shared neighborhood park and open spaces throughout the neighborhood. We have provided more detailed information in the submitted grading and landscape plans for your review. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: PHASE G – OPEN SPACE: The southern pedway/open space belt should make a deliberate connection directly into the Open Space Amenity in G. Response: (BHA) The open space areas along Mountain Vista Drive will generally be required to be used for storm drainage and detention so are not active pedestrian areas. There are several pedestrian connections linking all blocks to the open space areas via neighborhood sidewalks. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: PHASE G – OPEN SPACE: Consider connecting and extending the three northern pedway/open space areas to create a pedestrian spine. Response: (BHA) These greens have homes fronting onto them with connected sidewalks. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: PHASE G – OPENSPACE: Is the area labelled “Irrigation Water” a second irrigation pond? Response: (BHA) One irrigation storage pond is planned concurrent with the initial phase of development. This pond is sized to serve the west half of Montava – phases west of Giddings Road. We have included irrigation infrastructure plans to indicate more detail about this planned system. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: PHASE E – LIVE/WORK: What is the intention for the Livework / 9 Do-More units? Are customers anticipated to visit these units? How will street access/parking/deliveries/loading be handled for these uses? Response: (DPZ) We have talked with city staff about staggering the submittals and reviews for these phase one improvement areas (Phase G, Phase E, and Farm). This initial submittal is for Phase G, associated infrastructure improvements, and the irrigation storage pond and does not include the farm area. We will provide more detail on the uses/parking/delivieries anticipate for Phase E in this separate submittal package, anticipated to be submitted immediately after our initial round of review on Phase G. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: PHASE E -MASSING: The placement of the northern-most three-story townhome block appears to present a privacy concern for the surrounding proposed SFDs. What is envisioned by surrounding a block of three-story units by SFDs? How will privacy concerns be mitigated? Response: (DPZ) Comment noted and we will provide more information and response with the future Phase E submittals. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: PHASE E – TEMPORARY USES: Will additional details on the proposed temporary uses and structures be provided with the Phase E plans or as a separate phase? Response: (BHA) We have talked with city staff about staggering the submittals and reviews for these phase one improvement areas (Phase G, Phase E, and Farm). This initial submittal is for Phase G, associated infrastructure improvements, and the irrigation storage pond and does not include the farm area. We will provide more detail on the extents of Phase E and any temporary uses with our Phase E submittal package, anticipated to be submitted after our initial round of review on Phase G. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 OVERALL: ADDRESSING: For properties fronting on green space and backing to alleys, how will unit addressing be handled? Response: (DPZ) This is to be discussed with PFA for emergency services. They may be addressed either on the alley or pedestrian way depending upon emergency service needs. Department: Historic Preservation Contact: Maren Bzdek, 970-221-6206, mbzdek@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: The existing residence on parcel 6 has been cleared for future demolition by a staff survey of structures that are more than 50 years old within the Montava project boundary. No further historic review is required for that residence. Response: (BHA) Thank you for this information. The developer will follow standard procedures for demolition of any structures. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL -The PDR indicates that the improvements to the 10 Mountain Vista and Timberline intersection, along with the bridge to the east, would be designed by the City. Additional discussion with City Engineering should occur as this hasn't been committed to by the City at this time. The proposed details of scope, timing, and funding would need to be discussed for verification if this approach can be utilized. I'm aware of conversations previously around the fall of 2019 where the timing of the bridge on Mountain Vista was discussed and who leads and there appeared to be options where either the City or the development managed this. Response: (BHA) We have continued these discussions with the city, confirmed the intersection suitability as a roundabout, and have included preliminary design plans for the Mountain Vista/Timberline intersection in our plans for review. We look forward to the review and for continuing these discussions regarding infrastructure improvements and appropriate cost-sharing based on the city requirements. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL - In general with the potential phasing of approvals for entitlement and construction of the overall development, each phase is required to improve their abutting street frontages to the roadway classification of the abutting streets. With respect to Phases E and G, the frontages of Mountain Vista Drive and Timberline Road are specified as a 2 lane arterial on the Master Street Plan and would be built to the roadway classification. For Phase E, Country Club Road appears to border the northern boundary and is classified as a collector. The type of collector (major collector without parking vs. minor collector with parking) should be explored in detail and considered in the overall context of the overall development. For the Farm, Richards Lake Road and Giddings Road are the abutting main streets and are both classified as minor arterials. Response: (M/M) Understood, the utility plans for Montava – Phase G Roadway and Infrastructure design package includes improvements for Mountain Vista and Timberline roadways. The roadway improvements are intended to support the planned developments for Phases E and G. The proposed Timberline and Mountain Vista geometry is consistent with the Master Street Plan and are designed to be built to the 2-lane arterial roadway classification. The only exception is that Mountain Vista only shows half the design as HF2M does not own the parcel south of Mountain Vista and the southern half will need to be developed when that parcel is developed in the future. Phase G is phased before Phase E and the Farm and as such Country Club Road, Richards Lake Road and Giddings roadway designs have not yet commenced but it is understood that additional coordination will be needed as the design progresses. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL - The non-arterial and collector streets are less apparent with respect to their intended roadway classification and proposed design. Is it the intention to identify these road cross-sections at this time? I'm acknowledging that the PUD Master Plan did provide for variances to certain roadway classifications which were then intended to be held for the right-of-way width and road width. It would be helpful if perhaps these phases included a labelling of the proposed roadway classifications and the proposed street cross sections. Response: (M/M) Agreed, in the provided utility plans for Phase G typical roadway sections are provided on the cover sheet and the respective classifications are noted Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 11 08/24/2021: The traffic study required for the phase(s) will need to address how the proposed phases will impact intersections and potentially identify level of service concerns that could require off-site improvements to roadways beyond the adjacent frontages and/or mitigation measures. It is presumed that further conversations will be had once the initial work of the traffic study is provided and reviewed. Response: (Ruth) We have scoped the TIS with the Traffic department and a TIS will be submitted for review. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL - A roundabout appears to be proposed at the intersection of Timberline Road and Country Club Road, which wasn't identified specifically in the PUD Master Plan and the corresponding Master Street Plan update. Both Timberline Road and Country Club Road are considered streets eligible for partial reimbursement for widening these streets beyond the local width. The additional widening needed to implement a roundabout vs. a conventional intersection would likely not be eligible for reimbursement. The design for the roundabout would need to be reviewed and understood with how it is intended to be built. Would it potentially be built as a complete roundabout with three approach legs built in the first phase? Response: (Ruth) Correct, as we’ve continued in discussions with city staff we are planning a bike/ped-focused street and trail design including a dutch-style roundabout at future intersection of Timberline and County Club intersection. We have been working with multiple city departments to inform this design to best support the neighborhood scale and ease of access to the park, town center, and neighborhoods. The preliminary alignment of the roundabout is shown in the infrastructure plans, but more detail will be provided with the subsequent Phase E submittal. With Phase E we do anticipate that it could be built with three of the four approach legs built initial if that is desired. We look forward to continuing the discussions on the design and appropriate reimbursement eligibility with this initial round of review. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL - It may be of benefit to explore a PDP Infrastructure Plan that establishes and implements the framework of streets (rights-of-way and adjacent easement widths), utilities, and drainage infrastructure as a backbone to these three phases. Currently it's a little difficult to ascertain how these phases are to be built (whether together or separate) and an infrastructure plan for these three phases could be an option. With the Farm phase being disconnected and not abutting Phases E or G, does there need to be the creation of "off-site" (but still internal to Montava) transportation improvements that link the phases together? If not abutting roadway improvements to provide sidewalk and bikelane facilities, would interim bike/pedestrian trail facilities be of benefit to better facilitate non-vehicular movements through the site with this initial phase? Response: (BHA) We have talked with city staff about staggering the submittals and reviews for these phase one improvement areas (Phase G, Phase E, and Farm). Working together with Planning and Engineering we have agreed to have the initial submittal meet the level of a PDP rather than submitting final plans initially. This allows our team to receive comments from the city before finalizing construction plans. We are submitting road, drainage and utilities designs in conjunction with our Phase G BDR plans. We look forward to receiving comments with the initial round of review to confirm this information is helpful and 12 sufficient. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL - There seems to be a purposeful intent to not align private drives function as alleys and create offsets across public streets from them. The typical requirement is to align these vehicular movements, not create offsets, and look to meet driveway separation requirements as a part of LCUASS. The direct cross connectivity of movements across streets whether for alleys or for pedestrian walkways is the assumed ideal and the introduction of offsets would require a variance request for evaluation. Response: (BHA) Based on these comments and subsequent discussions with staff, we have reduced the offset alleys to better address these concerns without the need for a variance. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL - The termination of Timberline Road that would ultimately be built (and any other temporary dead end public street in the development) would require the construction of a 100 foot diameter temporary turnaround. Response: (M/M) Where Timberline Road is currently terminating a temporary access road is being extended to pumphouse building for non-potable pump station. Where Timberline terminates at the pumphouse a 100-foot diameter temporary turnaround is being provided. Please refer to the Public Improvement Construction Plans for Montava Non-Pot Pump Station plans for additional details Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL - Street turns where the intersection isn't a traditional four-legged intersection, but a right turn movement in one direction would be specified to be built with a "knuckle" as indicated in LCUASS detail 7-24. Response: (M/M) Knuckles have been designed at applicable locations per the LCUASS details. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL - The soils report from EEC in 2017 does not appear to have analyzed soil conditions for the portion of the overall development that is west of Timberline Road's north-south alignment. Phase G will need to have a soils report comprising its area for review under its PDP. Response: (BHA) We have included a separate soils report for this 40-acre area that was excluded from the original study. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL - The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards has been updated effective August 1, 2021. The current link to these standards can be found here: https://www.larimer.org/urban-area-street-standards-2021 It is noted and acknowledged that the PUD Master Plan had variances approved pertaining to street cross sections and Y-intersections. The link should be used as a basis for all other street standard requirements. Response: (M/M) Comment noted. Street sections within Phase G have been designed per previously approved cross sections from the PUD. Department: Traffic Operation 13 Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL The anticipated change in traffic volume will meet the threshold of requiring a Traffic Impact Study. Based on section 4.2.2.B of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), a full Traffic Impact Study will be required. We have scoped the study with your traffic engineer, and need clear phasing associated with the traffic studies. It may make sense to complete separate studies for the individual proposals. Response: (Ruth) The TIS will cover Phase E and Phase G together with the Farm also included. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL Can you provide information on what the cross sections are proposed for each of the roads? We would also like to better understand design philosophy as it relates to site connectivity and some of the cul-de-sac arrangements, and off set alleyways. These off sets can be problematic for site distance, and can cause safety issues. We would like to see improved connectivity through the site for all modes. Response: (DPZ) There are no cul-de-sacs planned. The portions that appear like cul-de- sacs are a collection of roughly 8 homes that face onto greenways, and we have provided more detail now with the BDR submittal for Phase G. Concerning streets, the typical street cross sections are found in the PUD Master Plan. In Phase G, the design of streets matches the PUD Master Plan street types. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL, PHASE G, PHASE E We'll need to work with you on the intersection of Timberline and Mtn Vista. The submittal noted that the bridge and intersection design will be by the City. I've passed this information on to our engineering capital group. There is not currently a design for this project in development with the city. The Traffic study will give us more information about when improvements in this location will be required. Response: (BHA) We have continued these discussions with the city, confirmed the intersection suitability as a roundabout, and have included preliminary design plans for the Mountain Vista/Timberline intersection in our plans for review. We look forward to the review and for continuing these discussions regarding infrastructure improvements and appropriate design and cost-sharing based on the city requirements. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: We have asked the design team for more information regarding quantities for the roundabout report so we can move that conversation forward. Response: (Kimley-Horn) A draft roundabout report was shared with city staff in October, and we have made revisions based on comments received. We will be submitting an updated report with the TIS with our submittal. In addition, please see comment response memo from Kimley-Horn included as attachment to this response letter. Department: Erosion Control 14 Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: Information Only: (Overall) This project is located within the City's MS4 boundaries and is subject to the erosion control requirements located in the Stormwater Design Criteria, Chapter 2, Section 6.0. A copy of those requirements can be found at www.fcgov.com/erosion Information Only: (Overall) Based upon the supplied materials, site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft. and/or meets one of the other triggering criteria (sensitive area, steep slopes, or larger common development) that would require Erosion and Sediment Control Materials to be submitted. For Final: (Separate for each of Phase G, E and Farm) Please submit an Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.3) Please ensure that the Erosion Control Plans provided include a individual sequence sheets in accordance with (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.3.2) Please ensure that the Erosion Control Plans, Escrows, and Reports include phasing requirements (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.3, 6.1.4, & 6.1.5) For Final: (Separate for each of Phase G, E and Farm) Please submit an Erosion Control Escrow / Security Calculation based upon the accepted Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria. (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.5) Response: (M/M) Comment noted. The current submittal includes preliminary design plans, but we understand this requirement at time of final. For Final: (Separate for each of Phase G, E and Farm) Please submit an Erosion Control Report to meet City Criteria. (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.4) Response: (M/M) Comment noted. The current submittal includes preliminary design plans, but we understand this requirement at time of final. Information Only: (Overall) Based upon the area of disturbance or this project is part of a larger common development, State permits for stormwater will be required since the site is over an acre and should be pulled before Construction Activities begin. Response: (M/M) Comment noted. Appropriate permits will be obtained by the contractor and/or owner as required. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: For Final: (Phase G) The City Manager’s development review fee schedule under City Code 7.5-2 was updated to include fees for Erosion Control and Stormwater Inspections. 15 As of January 1st, 2021, these fees will be collected on all projects for such inspections. The Erosion Control fees are based on; the number of lots, the total site disturbance, the estimated number of years the project will be active and the Stormwater Inspection Fees are based on the number of LID/WQ Features that are designed for on this project. Based on the proposed site construction associated with this project we are assuming 401 lots, 34.97 acres of disturbance, 13 years from demo through build out of construction and an additional 3 years till full vegetative stabilization due to seeding. Which results in an Erosion Control Fee estimate of $23127.1. Response: Based on the updated Phase G site plan there are a proposed 202 lots and 35.13 acres of disturbance. Updated project duration will be provided in subsequent submittals, prior to approval, as additional home builder construction scheduling becomes available. We could not make any assumptions at this time for the number of LID and WQ features, each porous pavers will be $365.00, each bioretention/level spreaders $315.00, each extended detention basins $250.00, and each underground treatment will be $415.00. Stormwater LID/WQ Inspections to be $TBD. Response: Comment noted. It is likely that LID and WQ features will be quantified as the plans and storm water design progresses. Please note that as the plans and any subsequent review modifications of the above-mentioned values change the fees may need to be modified. I have provided a copy of the spreadsheet used to arrive at these estimates for you to review. Please respond to this comment with any changes to these assumed estimates and why, so that we may have a final fee estimate ready for this project. The fee will need to be provided at the time of erosion control escrow. For Final: (Phase E) (Same as prior fee comment for phase G with a different fee estimate) Based on the proposed site construction associated with this project we are assuming 554 lots, 39.25 acres of disturbance, 8 years from demo through build out of construction and an additional 3 years till full vegetative stabilization due to seeding. Which results in an Erosion Control Fee estimate of $22733.01. Response: (M/M) Comment noted and we’ll provide more information when we submit plans for Phase E. For Final: (Farm) (Same as prior fee comment for phase G with a different fee estimate) Based on the proposed site construction associated with this project we are assuming 1 lots, 73.3 acres of disturbance, 2 years from demo through build out of construction and an additional 5 years till full vegetative stabilization due to seeding. Which results in an Erosion Control Fee estimate of $3595.25 Response: (M/M) Comment noted and we’ll provide more information when we submit plans 16 for the Farm. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: For Final: (Farm Specific Comment) This area will need some clear delineation for what the final condition will look like with specified vegetation and landscaping versus the farm area. There will need to be a clear description in the erosion control report describing how the farm area will be considered stabilized and farmed condition during the entire build out of the remaining areas of the farm. This open yard and storage bin area leads me to believe this will be used for construction material storage during the entire build out. If this area is to be used as a storage yard for the other phases this area will need to be described and called out as such. Response: (M/M) Comment noted. Stabilization for the farm will be identified with the PDP for that phase. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL - Master plan and criteria compliance (site specific comment): The design of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the Boxelder/Cooper Slough Master Drainage Plan as well the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. The stormwater criteria manual can be found at the following link: https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-f orms-guidelines-regulations/stormwater-criteria Response: (M/M) Comment noted. Phase one is being designed to closely conform to the selected alternatives identified in the Cooper Slough Master Drainage Plan prepared by ICON Engineering, Inc. Additionally, the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual is being referenced as the primary guidance document for design of the proposed drainage systems within each individual site. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL - Documentation requirements (site specific comment): A drainage report and construction plans are required and must be prepared by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Colorado. The drainage report must address the four-step process for selecting structural BMPs. Response: (M/M) Comment noted. Preliminary and final drainage reports and construction plans for the Montava development to be provided for each individual phase. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL - Stormwater outfall (site specific comment): The stormwater outfall options for Phase One will vary as this phase consists of sites that are in different locations. Drainage Infrastructure may need to be built in areas not included in this phase as to provide an adequate drainage system that meets all City Stormwater Criteria. Response: (M/M) Comment noted. Stormwater outfalls will be analyzed and designed for each individual phase. 17 Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL - Detention requirements (site specific comment): Onsite detention is required for the runoff volume difference between the 100-year developed inflow rate and the 2-year historic release rate. Please note, the agreement with the ditch company may be less the City’s detention standard. Response: (M/M) Comment noted. Phase G detention facilities are being designed to reduce 100-year developed discharges to 2-year historic rates in accordance with the PUD Master Drainage Study and City of Fort Collins criteria. Regional detention is being provided for development sites outside of Phase G (Phase E and the Farm), which reduce discharges to pre-developed rates. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL - Detention drain times (standard comment): Per Colorado Revised Statute §37-92-602 (8) that became effective August 5, 2015, criteria regarding detention drain time will apply to this project. As part of the drainage design, the engineer will be required to show compliance with this statute using a standard spreadsheet (available on request) that will need to be included in the drainage report. Upon completion of the project, the engineer will also be required to upload the approved spreadsheet onto the Statewide Compliance Portal. This will apply to any volume-based stormwater storage, including extended detention basins. Response: (M/M) Comment noted. Detention pond drain times to be documented showing compliance with CRS 37-92-602 (8). Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL - Water Quality and Low Impact Development requirements (standard comment): All new or modified impervious areas require stormwater quality treatment. In addition, the City requires the use of Low Impact Development (LID) methods to treat stormwater quality on all new or redeveloping property, including sites required to be brought into compliance with the Land Use Code. There are two (2) categories of LID requirements; the development will need to meet one of the two following options: 1. LID with Permeable Pavers: When using the permeable pavers option, 50% of the new or modified impervious areas must be treated by LID methods. Of the new or modified paved areas, 25% must be pervious. 2. LID - without Pavers: 75% of all new or modified impervious areas must be treated by LID methods. This typically consists of a rain garden or bioretention system, but other options are allowed. The remainder of the water quality treatment can be accomplished ‘standard’ or LID water quality methods. Accepted methods are described in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM), Chapter 7: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-fo rms-guidelines-regulations/stormwater-criteria Response: (M/M) Comment noted. Stormwater improvements are being designed per the LID requirements identified above. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL - Inspection and maintenance (standard comment): 18 There will be a final site inspection of the stormwater facilities when the project is complete and the maintenance is handed over to an HOA or another maintenance organization. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for on-going maintenance of all onsite drainage facilities will be included as part of the Development Agreement. More information and links can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/stormwater-quality/low-im pact-development Response: (M/M) Comment noted. Thank you. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL - Fees (standard comment): The 2020 city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $9,447/acre of new impervious area over 350 square feet and there is a $1,045/acre of site review fee. No fee is charged for existing impervious area. These fees are to be paid at the time each building permit is issued. Information on fees can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen t-development-fees or contact our Utility Fee and Rate Specialists at (970) 416-4252 for questions on fees. There is also an erosion control escrow required before the Development Construction permit is issued. The amount of the escrow is determined by the design engineer, and is based on the site disturbance area, cost of the measures, or a minimum amount in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual. Response: (M/M) Comment noted. Thank you. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL - Offsite Stormwater Flows (standard comment): The development will need to account for any offsite flows from existing upstream properties and safely convey these flows to the outfall location. Response: (M/M) Comment noted. Offsite stormwater discharges are being accounted for as part of the proposed development improvements. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: Other service district (site specific comment): This project site is located within the East Larimer County (ELCO) Water District and the Boxelder Sanitation District for water and sewer service. Please contact them for development requirements. Response: (M/M) Comment noted. We will coordinate with ELCO on specific development requirements. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: Water conservation (standard comment): The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply. Information on these requirements can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/standards Response: (BHA) Understood. Working together with Planning and Engineering we have agreed to have the initial submittal meet the level of a PDP rather than submitting final plans initially. This allows our team to receive comments from the city before finalizing 19 construction plans. Based on your input in this initial review round, we will provide more detailed information on planting and irrigation with our next submittal. Department: PFA Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2869, marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/20/2021 08/20/2021: FIRE LANES Fire access is required to within 150 feet of all exterior portions of any building, or facility ground floor as measured by an approved route around the perimeter. For the purposes of this section, fire access cannot be measured from an arterial road (Mountain Vista Dr and Timberline Rd). Any private alley, private road, or private drive serving as a fire lane shall be dedicated as an Emergency Access Easement (EAE) and be designed to standard fire lane specifications noted in comment 2. In addition, aerial apparatus access requirements are triggered for buildings in excess of 30' in height. Phase E appears to have some buildings that might be out of access due to the majority of the building being located along the Pedways. If buildings are out of access, Pedways may need to be improved to meet fire lane standards. Response: (M/M) Fire access has been provided throughout the Phase G development via the local roadways and private alleys. Private alleys have been dedicated as EAEs as identified on the plat. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/20/2021 08/20/2021: FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS Please provide documentation for the note stating an 18 foot wide alley was approved by the Fire Chief. Fire lanes are required to meet the specification found below and any alternative methods must be submitted for approval. A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In addition to the design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire lane must meet the following general requirements: -Fire lanes established on private property shall be dedicated by plat or separate document as an Emergency Access Easement. -Maintain the required 20 foot minimum unobstructed width & 14 foot minimum overhead clearance. Where road widths exceed 20 feet in width, the full width shall be dedicated unless otherwise approved by the AHJ. -Additional fire lane requirements are triggered for buildings greater than 30' in height. Refer to Appendix D105 of the International Fire Code. -Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting 40 tons. -Dead-end fire access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved turnaround area for fire apparatus. -Dead-end roads shall not exceed 660 feet in length without providing for a second point of access. Dead-end access roads in excess of 1320 feet in length require a third point of access. Dead-end access roads in excess of 2640 feet in length require a fourth point of access. -The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum 20 of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. Turning radii shall be detailed on submitted plans. -Dedicated fire lanes are required to connect to the Public Way unless otherwise approved by the AHJ. -Fire lane to be identified by red curb and/or signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times. -Fire lane sign locations or red curbing should be labeled and detailed on final plans. Refer to LCUASS detail #1418 & #1419 for sign type, placement, and spacing. Appropriate directional arrows required on all signs. - In remote rural applications, fire lane standards may be modified with the approval of the fire marshal; examples might include reduction in road width or road surface. International Fire Code 503.2.3, 503.2.4, 503.2.5, 503.3, 503.4 and Appendix D; FCLUC 3.6.2(B)2006 and Local Amendments. Response: We do not have an approved variance in writing from the previous fire chief, just the series of ongoing discussions on strategies for fire access needs in a small-lot alley community. We look forward to the continued discussions as we move into this more detailed level of design for Phase G. We can provide auto-turn diagrams and a fire lane plan if helpful based on comments received. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/20/2021 08/20/2021: STRUCTURES EXCEEDING 30 FEET IN HEIGHT - IFC Appendix D105: In order to accommodate the access requirements for aerial fire apparatus (ladder trucks), required fire lanes shall be 26 foot wide minimum on at least one long side of the building. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building or as otherwise approved by the fire code official. Response: (M/M) Comment noted. Buildings in excess of 30 feet are not included with this submittal. Multi-family project will be under a future separate submittal and plan set – future phase. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/20/2021 08/20/2021: MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS - IFC D106.2: Multiple-family residential projects having more than 200 dwelling units shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads regardless of whether they are equipped with an approved automatic sprinkler system. Response: (M/M) Multi-family project will be under a future separate submittal and plan set – future phase. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/20/2021 08/20/2021: ALLEY LOADED UNITS There is a reasonable expectation that emergency services personnel can quickly arrive at the primary door to the residence. This is usually the main egress door. Plans containing alley loaded lots present an added obstacle for access. Alley loaded units shall be provided with a main egress door to the rear (alley) side of the structure or if main egress door faces onto a greenbelt or other landscape feature, they shall be provided with an approved sidewalk 21 connecting to the alley so as to provide direct and efficient access to any individual unit. Future plans should include all walkways to the main egress door. Response: (M/M) Comment noted. Applicable egress access shall be provided to each unit and shall be further identified and shown in subsequent submittals as additional SF home builder information is obtained. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/20/2021 08/20/2021: RESIDENTIAL HYDRANT REQUIREMENTS - IFC 507.5 and PFA Policy: Within the Urban Growth Area, hydrants to provide 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter. Response: (M/M) Water loops and hydrant spacing per the requirement above has been provided. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/20/2021 08/20/2021: COMMERCIAL/MULTIFAMILY HYDRANT REQUIREMENTS - IFC 507.5 and PFA Policy: Hydrants to provide 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter (EXCEPTION: In buildings equipped with standpipe systems, a hydrant is required within 100' of the Fire Department Connection). Response: (M/M) Multi-family project will be under a future separate submittal and plan set – future phase. Department: Light And Power Contact: Austin Kreager, 970-224-6152, akreager@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL: Light and Power will serve the proposed development. Generally, Light and Power has electric facilities surrounding the proposed project limits. Electric facilities exist along Richards Lake Rd, Giddings Rd, and Mountain Vista Dr. Response: (M/M) Noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL: Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges and any system modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this development. Please contact me to discuss Light and Power fees or visit the following website for additional information related to fees: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen t-development-fees Response: (M/M) Thank you. Comment noted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL: During utility infrastructure design, please provide adequate space along the public roads and private drives to ensure proper utility installation and to meet minimum utility spacing requirements. 10ft minimum separation is needed between all water, sewer, storm water, and irrigation main lines. Light and 22 Power has a 3ft minimum separation requirement from all other utility lines/infrastructure with the exception of telecom facilities Utility coordination meetings are available and recommended early in the Project Development Plan process to assist in utility infrastructure design and to ensure proper separation requirements are being met for providers. Response: (M/M) Typical utility layouts for the various SF lots/blocks have been provided for initial review and comment. Utility layouts for the entirety of phase G will be provided with subsequent submittal addressing initial comments received. Thank you for offering coordination meetings and it is anticipated that meetings will be held following the return of comments. We will reach out to schedule those meetings. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: PHASE E AND G: Transformer locations will need to be coordinated with Light & Power. Transformers must be placed within 10 ft of a drivable surface for installation and maintenance purposes. The transformer must also have a front clearance of 10 ft and side/rear clearance of 3 ft minimum. When located close to a building, please provide required separation from building openings as defined in Figures ESS4 - ESS7 within the Electric Service Standards. Please show all proposed transformer locations on the Utility Plans for your PDP submittal. Response: (M/M) Transformers have been placed accordingly. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL: Streetlight placement along public roads will need to be coordinated with Light & Power. Shade trees are required to maintain 40 feet of separation and ornamental trees are required to maintain 15 feet of separation from streetlights. A link to the City of Fort Collins street lighting requirements can be found below: http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/Ch15_04_01_2007.pdf Light and Power does not light public and/or private alleys or private drives. All required lighting along private drives is private. Response: (M/M) Comment noted. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL: Any existing electric infrastructure that needs to be relocated as part of this project will be at the expense of the developer. Please coordinate relocations with Light and Power Engineering. Response: (M/M) Comment noted. At this time it is not anticipated to relocate any existing electrical infrastructure. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL: Any existing and/or proposed Light and Power electric facilities that are within the limits of the project must be located within a utility easement or right of way. Response: (M/M) Noted. Applicable easements will be provided and dedicated on the plat. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL: All utility easements and crossing permits (railroad, ditch, flood plain etc.) 23 needed to serve this development will need to be obtained by the developer. Response: (M/M) Comment noted. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL: Electric meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and Power Engineering. Each residential unit will need to be individually metered. For multifamily and single family attached products, please gang the electric meters on one side of the building, opposite of the gas meters. All residential units larger than a duplex and/or 200 amps is considered a customer owned service, therefore the owner is responsible to provide and maintain the electrical service from the transformer to the meter(s). There are proposed changes to code to consider all buildings other than single family detached homes to be customer owned electric services to the meter. Response: (M/M) Individual meters and ganged electric/gas meters have been shown in the typical utility layouts for review. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL: For additional information on our renewal energy programs please visit the website below or contact John Phelan (jphelan@fcgov.com) https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential/renewables/ Response: (M/M) Thank you. Comment noted. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL: The City of Fort Collins now offers gig-speed fiber internet, video and phone service. Contact John Stark with Fort Collins Connexion at 970-207-7890 or jstark@fcgov.com for commercial grade account support, RFPs and bulk agreements. Response: (BHA) It is the developer’s intent to include Connexion in Montava. As we receive comments from city staff on these preliminary plans we’ll also reach out to the Connexion representatives separately if appropriate. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL: Thank you for showing the proposed utility infrastructure for alleyways. There are a few small issues with this proposal that we look forward to working through with you once more detail is available. Response: (M/M) Thank you. CAD files can be provided to assist in the review. Please reach out if that would be beneficial and of interest. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Scott Benton, (970)416-4290, sbenton@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL: Please provide documentation of sufficient water rights that will support the water supply of the irrigation ponds. Response: (Max) The non-potable irrigation system in Montava will be built on a foundation of adjudicated potable wells that exist on the property and that provide many times more water than needed to irrigate. The overall irrigation needs for Montava are 600-700 AF per year when completed, and the wells are currently providing by themselves over 2,000 AF 24 per year. Additionally, Montava will be utilizing a water treatment system that has proven impactful called Aqua4D. This system enables the ground water to be more usable for the plants. Lastly, the irrigation water supply will be supplemented by WSSC water and NPIC irrigation water blending to the degree necessary to support healthy landscape over the long term. These water rights are owned or contracted for, and plans are being developed that enable the distribution of the water into the irrigation ponds. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL: As stated on the PUD Master Plan, a more detailed Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) is required within the project area, as it is within 500 feet of LUC defined natural habitats and features (irrigation canal, jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands). Please note the buffer zone standards range from 50-100ft for these features. The ECS should address all items (a)-(l) of LUC 3.4.1(D)(1) available for view online. In addition, ensure that the study identifies feature(s) size, the "top of bank" of the ditch, the edge(s) of wetlands, and whether jurisdictional wetlands may be impacted by the proposed project. Namely, the No. 8 ditch and any wetlands within located within Phases E, G, and the Farm should be delineated. If prairie dogs are onsite or within 500ft, the ECS should specifically address the presence of active prairie dogs including estimate of number of individuals and entire size of the colony within the project area. The ECS should address all items (a) (l) of LUC 3.4.1(D)(1) available for view online and include prairie dog mitigation options. The ECS is due a minimum of 10 working days prior to PDP submittal. Response: (BHA) The ECS has previously been submitted for review. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL: Please note that the City requires mitigation of all wetlands, whether or not they are considered jurisdictional by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Response: (BHA) Understood. The wetlands are limited to areas associated with the No. 8 ditch, and we intend to mitigate any wetland areas disturbed by improvements to the ditch with the project. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL: Information from the ECS informs design of a "natural habitat buffer zone" or "NHBZ". Thus, the ECS should explore the relationship of the proposed impacts to natural features to the overall mitigation plan as outlined in the ODP and PUD. Will impacts proposed in this PDR be mitigated by these phases of development or in subsequent phases? Response: (BHA) We have talked with city staff about staggering the submittals and reviews for these phase one improvement areas (Phase G, Phase E, and Farm). This initial submittal is for Phase G, associated infrastructure improvements, and the irrigation storage pond. In Phase G, there is a 50’ buffer zone indicated adjacent to the No. 8 Canal and its associated wetlands. To facilitate connectivity between the planned neighborhoods, community park and town center, the developer is planning to pipe the No. 8 canal from Mountain Vista Drive to the extension of Country Club Drive. These wetlands impacted by piping the canal will be mitigated with the development with the intent of creating a higher quality wetland environment and increased habitat than that of the existing ditch. We will be seeking a concurrent 404 permit for this mitigation and look forward to your comments on this improved mitigation plan. 25 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL: Please clarify what parts of the No. 8 ditch will be piped and which will be raised/widened as per the PUD Master Plan as part of Phase E, G, and the Farm. Either approach will require a letter from the ditch company indicating approval of these changes. Response: (BHA) To facilitate connectivity between the planned neighborhoods, community park and town center, the developer is planning to pipe the No. 8 canal from Mountain Vista Drive to the extension of Country Club Drive. Our design team has been working with the ditch company on these plans, has received direction on the pipe design that should be used, and will share these preliminary plans with them concurrently with our review by the City. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL: Contact the assigned Development Review Coordinator (DRC) prior to submittal if trees will be impacted. A review of trees shall be conducted by City Environmental staff to determine the status of existing trees and any mitigation requirements that could result from the proposed development. The site visit can be conducted in tandem with Forestry’s site visit. Please contact assigned Development Review Coordinator directly at 970-221-6689 or email DRCoord@fcgov.com to schedule a tree inventory site visit. Please plan for at least two weeks to get an onsite meeting scheduled, especially during April - October. Response: (BHA) The only existing trees on the Phase G property are the row of junipers that were planted adjacent to the east edge of the Storybook neighborhood as part of their development plans. The intent is to protect these trees in place with our development. We met with the Forestry Department on site to inventory these junipers and have included this information in the plans. My apologies (Angie) for not including the City Environmental staff on this site visit. We are happy to visit the site with Environmental staff if you determine after review of the existing tree plan that you would like to review this row of junipers. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL: Please note the oil well disclosure requirements for Plats. Plats for any property within 1,000-ft of existing oil wells must include a note informing future property owners that lots are in close proximity to an existing oil and gas location. For residential developments requiring a declaration pursuant to the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act, a statement shall be included in such declaration specifying the lots within such residential development upon which dwellings may be constructed that are within 1,000-ft of an oil and gas location. The approved plat for such residential development shall be attached to the recorded declaration. Where no such declaration is required, the property owner shall record a statement on the property where the dwelling is located indicating that such property is located within one thousand feet of an oil and gas location. Response: (M/M) The Phase G plan does not fall within 1,000-feet of any wells, so we have not included this note on the plat. However we will include these requirements on future plats where these apply. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: FARM: Overflow parking is potentially allowable in the oil and gas buffer near the farm but a number of outstanding questions need to be answered to determine definitively. What is the proposed surfacing for the overflow parking? Will the ground require excavation to add gravel? Will the 26 overlflow parking require any grading? Likely requirements include maintaining 25-feet of open space around the actual well with signage and fencing (or similar) indicating no trespass in that central area. Response: (BHA) We have talked with city staff about staggering the submittals and reviews for these phase one improvement areas (Phase G, Phase E, and Farm). This initial submittal is for Phase G, associated infrastructure improvements, and the irrigation storage pond and does not include the farm area. We intend to make a submittal for the initial farm operations within the next few weeks, and will address these comments with that submittal. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL: 5 years of monitoring at the oil wells should begin once development plans have been approved. Response: (BHA) Understood. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: PHASE G – RESIDENTIAL AND PHASE E – TOWN CENTER: The proposed phases will disturb existing wetlands, therefore a written statement from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be provided to the environmental planner that demonstrates the plan fully complies with all applicable federal wetland regulations established in the federal Clean Water Act. Response: (BHA) Existing wetland areas have been mapped and identified in the ECS. We plan to mitigate any wetland disturbance through a concurrent 404 process with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL: Please clarify what features of the proposed phases are intended to satisfy the PUD requirement of two Nature in the City features per PDP, per Phase? Response: (BHA) For Phase G we are planning to incorporate 1) pollinator paths along the neighborhood greens that incorporate rain gardens for water quality and 2) small bird/butterfly gardens as focal points along other shared neighborhood greens. These locations have been shown conceptually on these preliminary plans, and more detail will be developed after receiving your comments in our initial round of review. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL: Please note that the Lighting Code (LUC 3.2.4) has been updated. However, there is still no allowable light spillage in to natural features or Natural Habitat Buffer Zones. Response: (BHA) As per comment #4, we will not have any Natural Habitat Buffer Zones in Phase G. Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, mroche@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 8/24/2021: OVERALL Please provide street cross sections/diagrams and 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 preferred and are as followed: 27 Additional coordination between Light and Power, Stormwater(?), and Forestry needs to occur to determine alternative utility layout and tree placement guidelines. Street Light/Tree Separation: Canopy shade tree: 40 feet Ornamental tree: 15 feet Stop Sign/Tree Separation: 50 feet between all tree types and signs Driveway/Tree Separation: At least 8 feet from edges of driveways and alleys Utility/Tree Separation: 10’ between trees and electric utilities, public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines 6’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer service lines 4’ between trees and gas lines Response: (BHA) We believe that we are meeting the requirements for tree separation with the plans submitted for your review. Street cross-sections and utility plans are also included. We look forward to your comments to support the design for both trees and utilities. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 8/24/2021: OVERALL Please provide a landscape plan that meets the Land Use Code 3.2.1 requirements. This should include the existing tree inventory, any proposed tree removals with their locations clearly noted and any proposed tree plantings (including species, size, quantity, and method of transplant). The plans should also include the following City of Fort Collins notes: General Landscape Notes Tree Protection Notes Street Tree Permit Note, when applicable. These notes are available from the City Planner or by following the link below and clicking on Standard Plan Set Notes: https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/applications.php Required tree sizes and method of transplant: Canopy Shade Tree: 2.0” caliper balled and burlapped Evergreen tree: 6.0’ height balled and burlapped Ornamental tree: 1.5” caliper balled and burlapped Required mitigation tree sizes: Canopy Shade Tree: 2.0” caliper balled and burlapped Evergreen tree: 8.0’ height balled and burlapped Ornamental tree: 2.0” caliper balled and burlapped Response: (BHA) Existing tree plans and preliminary landscape plans are included in the submittal. Working together with Planning and Engineering we have agreed to have the initial submittal meet the level of a PDP rather than submitting final plans initially as is allowed with a BDR. This allows our team to receive comments from the city before finalizing planting and construction plans. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 8/24/2021: OVERALL Tree Species Diversity 28 Standard LUC standard for Tree Species Diversity states that in order to prevent uniform insect or disease susceptibility and eventual uniform senescence on a development site or in the adjacent area or the district, species diversity is required and extensive monocultures are prohibited. The following minimum requirements shall apply to any development plan. Number of trees on site Maximum percentage of any one species 10-19 50% 20-39 33% 40-59 25% 60 or more 15% The City of Fort Collins’ urban forest has reach the maximum percentage of the following species. Please do not plant the following species and refer to the alternative species list provided by Forestry. Ash (Fraxinus), Honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthose: ‘Shademaster’, ‘Skyline’, etc), Bur Oak (Quercus macrocarpa), and Chanticleer Pear (Pyrus calleryana). Please note that additional species might join this list as we work through the review process. Response: (BHA) As per the response to Comment 2 above, we have included a representative plant list but not final locations or quantities for each plant. Based on comments received from this initial submittal we will keep in mind the species diversity requirements with our final plan submittals. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 8/24/2021: OVERALL 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 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. Response: (BHA) This submittal of Phase G does not include any multi-family or commercial structures or parking lots but we will consider this comment for future phase submittals where this is applicable. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 8/24/2021: INFORMATION ONLY 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 29 additional resources and contact information for you to explore Silva Cells in depth. BHA Design, particularly Angie Milewski, was a leader in introducing City staff to the idea of Silva Cells and are a great resource to explain the benefits of this infrastructure in depth. Response: (BHA) We are aware of this product. As we move from preliminary to final plans we will consider if and where this product might be considered. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 8/24/2021: OVERALL City Forestry and BHA (Angie Milewski) met on site in October 2018 to review all areas that contain existing trees. A formal tree inventory and mitigation meeting shall occur prior to the first round PDP submittal. This inventory and mitigation data will include species, size, condition, and mitigation value, which summarizes the overall value of one particular tree. If a tree is a removed, the mitigation value is defined by the number of trees that would need to be replanted in order to replace the overall aesthetic, environmental, economical, and social value of a tree based on its species, size, condition, and overall character. Based on the full tree inventory and mitigation information received, a certain number of mitigation trees will need to be planted with the development’s boundary. Mitigation trees are upsized to the following calipers: Canopy Shade trees: 2” caliper B&B Ornamental tree: 2” caliper B&B Evergreen tree: 8’ height B&B Response: (BHA) The only existing trees on the Phase G property are the row of junipers that were planted adjacent to the east edge of the Storybook neighborhood as part of their development plans. The intent is to protect these trees in place with our development. We met with the Forestry Department on site to inventory these junipers and have included this information in the plans. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 8/24/2021: OVERALL If applicable, please provide an Existing Tree Removal Feasibility Letter for City Forestry staff to review. Proposals to remove significant existing trees must provide a justification letter detailing the reason for tree removal. This is required for all development projects proposing significant tree removal regardless of the scale of the project. The purpose of this letter is to provide a document of record with the project’s approval and for the City to maintain a record of all proposed significant tree removals and justifications. Existing significant trees within the project’s Limits of Disturbance (LOD) and within natural area buffer zones shall be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible. Streets, buildings and lot layouts shall be designed to minimize the disturbance to significant existing trees. (Extent reasonably feasible shall mean that, under the circumstances, reasonable efforts have been undertaken to comply with the regulation, that the costs of compliance clearly outweigh the potential benefits to the public or would unreasonably burden the proposed project, and reasonable steps have been undertaken to minimize any potential harm or adverse impacts resulting from noncompliance with the regulation.) Where it is not feasible to protect and retain significant existing tree(s) or to transplant them to another on-site location, the applicant shall replace such tree(s) according to City mitigation requirements. Response: (BHA) The intent is to retain the row of existing junipers so no existing trees will be removed with Phase G. 30 Department: Park Planning Contact: Aaron Wagner, aawagner@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: GENERAL Parks Department and PP&D Planning staff can help with any questions you may have regarding these comments. We will be your point of contact for both Parks and PP&D until further notice. Please contact Aaron Wagner (aawagner@fcgov.com) 970-682.0344; or Jill Wuertz (jwuertz@fcgov.com), 970-416-2062, or Parks Planning Technician, 413 S. Bryan Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521 regarding the Parks’ Department’s interest Response: (BHA) Thanks Aaron and Jill. We look forward to working with you. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: GENERAL The cover sheet for the approved PUD has all of the items that PP&D wants for the Trail, trail crossings, irrigation pond, etc. Please refer to the approved PUD cover sheet and coordinate with Parks Planning & Development and the Parks Depts. regarding our interests. Response: (BHA) As we’ve further developed the plans and in continued discussions with city staff, we are planning a bike/ped-focused street and trail design along Timberline north of Mountain Vista including a dutch-style roundabout at future intersection of Timberline and County Club intersection. We have been working with multiple city departments to inform this design to best support the neighborhood scale and ease of access to the park, town center, and neighborhoods and have received support for this solution. As we continue to work with you toward the best solution for the trail, we will also work to understand if any of these conditions from the PUD require modification and the appropriate process for this design progression. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: GENERAL It appears the shared irrigation pond is shown on park property. During the PUD phase, it was established that only a proportionate share of the pond would be on the park site. Please clarify this change and coordinate with PP&D and the Parks Dept. to ensure the pond is located in a viable location that is satisfactory to all parties. If the City, PSD and Montava are to share an irrigation pond(s), the spatial separation currently shown will require additional coordination and infrastructure planning. a. Below is an excerpt from the PDR documents describing the pond and its location. This pond will be located adjacent to the planned City of Fort Collins community park, a future elementary school site, and other planned Montava development areas and is envisioned to serve all three of these entities with shared non-potable irrigation through a distributed system if possible. If this shared system cannot be achieved, a non-potable irrigation system. b. Below is the language from the Approved PUD agreement: If a shared irrigation pond is agreed upon between the City and the Developer and/or Poudre School District, the pond must be located proportionally on Developer and/or Poudre School District property. 31 Response: (BHA) We have indicated the irrigation storage pond design plans with our submittal for Phase G as it will need to be constructed to serve our initial development phase. While we are designing the pond so that it could ultimately be a shared pond serving the city park and the school district, no plans are confirmed for these future partnerships. We look forward to continuing to discuss the benefits of the potential sharing this facility if desired by these entities in the future. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: GENERAL Please clarify and coordinate with PP&D and The Parks Dept. regarding trail alignment associated with this phase. PP&D and Parks would also like to have a better understanding of the timing and role of the City related to the grade separated crossings for the trail at Mountain View and potentially Timberline. Below is language from the approved PUD Master Plan document (pgs 218 – 220). a. Grade-separated pedestrian and trail underpass crossings will be provided by the Developer at locations #2 and #3 as shown on the attached map. The design of such crossings shall be reasonable and feasible under all the circumstances and shall consider the feasible preservation of useable parkland and the provision of convenient, safe and attractive pedestrian access. Crossing design to be mutually agreed to before PDP approval for the relevant phase(s) of the development. b. The Montava PUD Master Plan identifies grade-separated pedestrian and trail underpass crossings at locations #1 and #4 on the attached map. The Developer acknowledges that an equitable, proportionate share of the design and construction cost of such underpass crossings will be necessary; such cost sharing shall be identified and mutually agreed upon before PDP approval of the relevant phase(s) of the development, recognizing that adjacent developments and the City (Park Planning & Development) should equitably and proportionately share in such cost. Response: (BHA) Based on response to comment #2, we will continue to work with you on the best design for this regional and neighborhood amenity through the neighborhood and the details of your comments above. We have submitted our plans for Phase G for review to help us continue these discussions. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: GENERAL Please coordinate with PP&D and the Parks Dept. regarding necessary easements for the trail along ditch #8. Additionally, please clarify the intent of potential regrading within Ditch #8 for the SW neighborhood and Town Center. A Letter of Intent from the ditch company will be required prior to hearing. An understanding of the regrading will need to be thoroughly understood. Below is the language from the Approved PUD Master Plan (pg. 219) The ditch corridor cross sections describing potential changes referenced on pages (pg 91 & 221) show a 4:1 side slope, this grading exercise needs to be coordinated with Utilities, Traffic, PP&D, Parks, Stormwater and other depts. a. A public access and trail easement along the proposed #8 ditch corridor will be provided by Developer between trail crossings #1 and #4. As indicated conceptually in the Master Plan and the cross-section on the attached exhibit, the easement area along any portions of the ditch that are not piped north of the Community Park will be designed to create a wider, more natural experience. South of the park and adjacent to the Town Center, the easement area along 32 any portions of the ditch that are not piped are planned as a narrower section designed to facilitate connections into the adjacent neighborhoods and mixed-use areas and with the ditch in close proximity of North Timberline Road to facilitate ditch maintenance. Final design of the trail, ditch, ditch maintenance access and associated easement widths, along with equitable and proportionate cost sharing for design and construction of the trail, will be determined at the time of PDP for the relevant phase(s) of the development. Response: (BHA) To facilitate connectivity between the planned neighborhoods, community park and town center, the developer is planning to pipe the No. 8 canal from Mountain Vista Drive to the extension of Country Club Drive. Our design team has been working with the ditch company on these plans, has received direction on the pipe design that should be used, and will share these preliminary plans with them concurrently with our review by the City. We will also plan to establish easements as required for the trail and crossings. Department: Building Services Contact: Katy Hand, khand@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: INFORMATIONAL: Please visit our website for a list of current adopted building codes and local amendments for building permit submittal: https://www.fcgov.com/building/codes.php https://www.fcgov.com/building/energycode https://www.fcgov.com/building/application.php Response: (BHA) Our architects intend to follow the current building codes as we move from the planning/engineering reviews into building permit plan development. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: Provide site-wide accessibility plan in accordance with CRS 9-5. This requires accessible units per that state standard. This requirement includes single family attached homes and accessible path must be provided into the dwelling entrance (no step). Accessible units should be distributed throughout the site in various building types. Site grading should be planned accordingly Response: (BHA) Our initial submittal is a preliminary level. As we receive comments from the various departments we will incorporate these paths to the attached units as required. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: -Single family, duplex and townhomes (defined as: units each on their own platted lot/parcel) should be designed under the adopted IRC code. -Multi-family, Commercial, mixed use building should be designed under the adopted IBC Response: (BHA) Understood, and our architects intend to follow these when we reach the building permit stage of our designs. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: Townhomes and duplexes require an minimum of a P2904 (plumbing code) sprinkler system. Plan for adequate water service and pressure accordingly. Response: (BHA) Understood, and our architects intend to follow these when we reach the building permit stage of our designs. 33 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: Multi-family Items: -10% of all parking spaces must be EV ready (conduit in place) -A City licensed commercial general contractor is required to construct any new multi-family structure. -Multi-family Residential located within 1000ft of rail tracks, 500 of highway, or 250ft of a 4 lane road must provide ext wall composite sound transmission of 39 STC min. -R-2 occupancies apartment/condo must provide 10ft setback from property line and 20 feet between other buildings or provide fire rated walls and openings per chapter 6 and 7 of the IBC. -City of Fort Collins amendments to the 2018 IBC require a full NFPA-13 sprinkler system in multifamily units with an exception to allow NFPA 13R systems in buildings with no more than 6 dwelling units (or no more than 12 dwelling units where the building is divided by a 2 hour fire barrier with no more than 6 dwelling units on each side). -If trash chutes are proposed in the building, dedicated recycle chutes must also be provided. -Accessibility is required per IBC, ICC-A117.1 and state law CRS 9-5 -Accessible parking and loading zones must be provided in covered and open parking areas per current IBC including van spaces where required Response: (BHA) Our current Phase G plans do not include multi-family in this initial phase but we will include this information with future submittals for multi-family uses. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: Townhome (with property lines) Items: - ·Attached single-family provide 3ft setback from the furthest projecting element to property line or provide fire rated walls/ projections and openings ,must be limited or fire protected per chap 3 of the IRC -(2) 1hr walls (i.e.) 2hr fire barriers constructed between townhomes should be continuous to the roof deck and furthest projecting element per current IRC and local amendments (this includes covered patios and decks). Response: (BHA) Understood, and our architects intend to follow these when we reach the building permit stage of our designs. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL: As of January 1, 2015, all development plans are required to be on the NAVD88 vertical datum. Please make your consultants aware of this, prior to any surveying and/or design work. Please contact our office for up to date Benchmark Statement format and City Vertical Control Network information. Response: (M/M) Comment noted. The project has been setup on the NAVD88 vertical datum. 34 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: OVERALL: When submitting the Subdivision Plats for this property/project, addresses are not acceptable in the Subdivision Plat title/name. Numbers in numeral form may not begin the title/name. Please contact our office with any questions. Response: (M/M) Comment noted. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Don Kapperman, Comcast, don_kapperman@comcast.com, Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: Comcast has no issues at this time. Thanks Contact: Heidi Jensen, Boxelder, 970-498-0604, heidij@boxeldersanitation.org, Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: See attached comments from Boxelder Sanitation District. Response: (M/M) Noted that review comments will be coming based on initial submittal. Contact: Randy Siddens, ELCO, 970-493-2044, randys@elcowater.org, Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: See attached ELCO response. Response: (M/M) Comments noted. Utility layouts within alleys have been updated and shown for typical layout within proposed lots/blocks. Applicable setbacks for buildings will be provided in subsequent submittals but it is noted that 15’ setback from watermains to buildings is required. The requested additional easement width (20’) has been provided on the west side of the existing easement covering the 24” elco water main located on the west side of the no.8 ditch. This is shown on the final plat. Contact: Ryan Donovan, Larimer and Weld Irrigation Co, 970-622-8181, ryan@lcwaterlaw.com, Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: Please find attached a letter on behalf of Larimer and Weld Irrigation Co., Larimer and Weld Reservoir Co., and WRCC, Inc. 1. Storm Water. No official storm water or drainage plan has been provided to the Companies. If such a report exists, then a copy should be provided to the Companies. If no such report exists, then obviously Montava will need to provide one to the City, and the Companies request a copy be sent to them. The strong preference of the Companies is that storm water be discharged in such a way as to avoid the No. 8 Outlet Ditch altogether. If that is not to occur, then the Companies would need to approve any plans to discharge storm water into the No. 8 Outlet Ditch, upon protective terms and conditions reached with Montava. In addition, as the City is well aware the area around the No. 8 Outlet Ditch from Mountain 35 Vista Drive northward is facing extreme development pressure. The City should develop a comprehensive storm water drainage plan that addresses all the proposed development in this area, rather than conducting piecemeal reviews. Response: (M/M) The Cooper Slough Masterplan and subsequent revisions prepared by ICON Engineering, Inc. along with the Montava PUD Master Drainage Study and Phase G Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by Martin/Martin, Inc. are being provided to the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Co. in support of the proposed piped improvements adjacent to the ditch adjacent to Phase G. The improvements take into account the decreed irrigation flow of 250 cfs as previously identified by the ditch owner. 2. Water Supply. Presumably the “Farm” will be lawfully irrigated using existing groundwater wells on the property. However, the Companies have serious concerns about what water sources Montava has the legal right to use for serving Phases G and E with potable water. With Montava’s water court case still very much pending and in the early stages, the City and other water uses need to know where the treated water is coming from. Response: (Max) Montava has purchased water rights in ELCO to begin the development of the project. Other water rights are also contracted for and will be secured as needed. Montava continues to work on its water court case for a more affordable long term water supply and will transition to that supply when it is available for areas of the development not built in ELCO. This assumes ELCO does not decide to work with us to expand its water supply portfolio as we have offered many times and continue to offer. 3. No. 8 Outlet Ditch Easement. At all times during and following construction, the Companies’ right to access the ditch for repairs, operations, maintenance, etc. must be respected. This includes prohibiting any physical intrusion into the ditch and easement area, but also extends to activities proximate to the ditch that may cause settling or disturbance to the ditch banks or increase seepage from the ditch. Long term, proper fencing and signage should be constructed whereby Montava residents are denied access to the ditch and ditch access road. Response: Comment noted. Thank you. Contact: Samantha Lasher, Larimer County, 970-498-7723, Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/25/2021 08/25/2021: Larimer County Planning comments are as follows: 1. What is the level and type of development proposed for the various open space/park amenities in Phase 1? For example, what are the plans for the “Partially Improved Park,” located east of Phase G? Weed management within the proposed open spaces will need to comply with all requirements set forth in the Larimer County Noxious Weed Management Plan. Response: (BHA) We have talked with city staff about staggering the submittals and reviews for these phase one improvement areas (Phase G, Phase E, and Farm). This initial submittal is for Phase G, associated infrastructure improvements, and the irrigation storage pond. We are indicating more information on these planned use areas with this submittal. Future development areas that are disturbed by construction will meet erosion control and weed management requirements. 36 2. Will there be a road connection to the Farm from Phases E and G? Will property owners be able to access/use the farm during Phase 1 and if so, pay into a fee system for use of the farm? Response: (BHA) We intend to get the farm and crops operational in early phases of Montava, but the more public aspects of the farm (market, farm stand) are planned for later in the development. Road connections would be planned and designed when public uses of the farm are designed. 3. Will the Phase E and G neighborhoods have access to the proposed non-potable irrigation delivery system or will it not be available until the entirety of the Montava development is built? Response: (BHA) The non-potable pond will be built with the initial phase of development. We have included plans for this pond with our Phase G submittals. Contact: Sarah Brucker, State of CO Water Resources, 303-866-3581, sarah.brucker@state.co.us, Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: Please see attached for comments from the Colorado Division of Water Resources. Response: (M/M) Stormwater detention facilities are being design in accordance to the provisions identified in Colorado Revised Statute 37-92-602(8), also identified in the City of Fort Colling Stormwater Criteria. Contact: Steven Rothwell, Larimer County Engineering, srothwell@larimer.org, 970-498-5715, Topic: General Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/31/2021 08/31/2021: Please see the attached comments from Larimer County Engineering for Phase 1 of the Montava PUD Master Plan. 1. To address transportation adequate public facility needs, the County requests that the City require the Montava development to evaluate any needed transportation improvements that are warranted as a result of this project. Montava should be responsible for constructing any necessary improvements or be expected to participate in any designs and construction of such improvements. Response: (Ruth) A traffic impact study will be included with our submittal. It will identify any intersection that is not anticipated to meet the County and City's standards.Responsibility will be discussed with the County/City and based on the percent contribution the project has at the intersection. 2. The TIS for each phase of the Montava Development needs to include Country Club Road as well as the intersections of Country Club Road with Lemay/Gregory. Larimer County appreciates being invited to the TIS Scoping Meeting earlier this month. We look forward to reviewing the TIS once it has been completed. Response: (Ruth) Comment noted. 3. With each phase of the Montava Development, the County requests that the City closely monitors the capacity and safety of Country Club Road as the substantial increase in background traffic over the recent years has increased neighborhood concern over the capacity and safety of the current road 37 configuration. As the Montava development phases commence and continue, we understand that the City will continue discussions with the County on potential mitigation measures and plans to address, or improve, vehicle and pedestrian mobility along this corridor. Response: (Ruth) Comment noted. 4. As future phases commence, there will be a major impact to City roadways as well as County roadways that are not yet annexed by the City. To mitigate for these impacts, it is essential that the Turnberry extension to the south is diligently pursued, as well as the needed connections to the west such as the planned extension of Suniga Road, It is the County’s position that these connections need to be functional before substantial traffic generating development is permitted within the Montava Development Area. Response: (Ruth) The phased traffic needs of the area and project will be determined. Conditions will be analyzed based on phasing of the project. It is the applicants understanding that the City continues work on the extension of Turnberry and Suniga. 5. The developments in this area pose a substantial change to the citizens and homeowners in this area. The County asks that the City and Developer continue to do outreach to these citizens and commit to making an effort to coordinate with them and mitigate their concerns where applicable and reasonable. Response: (BHA) We are working together with the city to continue neighborhood outreach as a key part of the Montava planning. BNSF Railway comments: BNSF has not reviewed any design details or calculations for structural integrity or engineering accuracy. BNSF accepts no responsibility for errors or omissions in the design or execution of the project. If a contractor needs to work within 25 feet of BNSF track or within BNSF property, the contractor must contact BNSF Real Estate/Permitting consultant Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) for a permit. Their contact information can be found on our website at www.bnsf.com. If any changes are made to the plans affecting BNSF property, plans must be resubmitted for review. Here are our general comments: - Show BNSF property boundaries on plans more clearly. - BNSF will need to review the drainage plan as current drainage might be altered near tracks - Fencing plans will need to be reviewed by BNSF to ensure it complies with BNSF standards for - If grading on BNSF property is required, grading plan will need to be reviewed by BNSF, and permits will be required to occupy BNSF property as well as a BNSF supplied flagger will be required and paid for by agency or contractor - If access to BNSF property is required, an agreement with BNSF will be required as well as safety badging for all employees on BNSF property Response: Our initial development is planned for Phase G, and preliminary plans for this phase have been submitted. We plan to meet BNSF requirements for future phases near BNSF properties. Attachment: See attached comment response memo from Kimley-Horn with additional responses to Traffic Operations Comment #4.