HomeMy WebLinkAboutMONTAVA - PHASE G & IRRIGATION POND - BDR210013 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - 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
January 14, 2022
May 4, 2022
Angela Milewski
BHA Design Inc.
1603 Oakridge Dr #100
Fort Collins, CO 80525
RE: Montava - Phase G and Irrigation Pond, BDR210013, Round Number 1
Response to Comments
We have had several follow-up meetings with city departments. Here is a description of how some
of the key topic areas have been addressed since the comments were received:
Contents of Round 2 Submittal
Our design team has been working together with City departments over the last 4 months to work
through many of the key coordination topics from our Round 1 BDR submittal. Although there are
still a few unresolved issues (such as the final design for Timberline Road), we are resubmitting
Phase G plans to you to share details of how we are addressing the majority of the comments.
Since this is an unusually large BDR, we began with roughly 30% level plans (instead of submitting
Final Plans as allowed by a BDR). We are now at roughly 60% plan level for Phase G. We feel it
will be valuable for us to receive feedback and for you to see the progress.
So, the current resubmittal includes Phase G plans and plat, and the plans for the offsite irrigation
pond only. This submittal does not include the public infrastructure plans for Timberline and
Mountain Vista since the Timberline design is still under discussion. These plans will be submitted
with Round 3 at a final design level as per our discussions with Planning and Engineering staff.
Building Elevations
We have been working with our Town Architect and builders on plans for each of the residential
product types. Refinements to final building plans (vertical construction) will continue after the site
construction has been approved and begun, but these refinements will conform to the lot sizes
indicated in our BDR plans. Understanding the city requires review of attached unit products, we
have included preliminary building elevations for the Townhomes with this resubmittal. We have
also included ‘lot typicals’ for the SFD products.
Utilities
We have made the decision to make Phase G an all-electric community and do not plan to include
2
or make accommodations for gas service. This has simplified some of the utility coordination issues
and is reflected in the plans.
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing
agencies for your submittal of Montava - Phase G and Irrigation Pond. 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.
** Please note: due to the complexity of this project compared to a typical BDR and the
preliminary level of detail provided in this initial submittal, staff has done their best to identify
all outstanding issues, however due to the nature of this review, additional issues may come
to light through subsequent reviews.**
Comment Summary:
Department: Development Review Coordinator
Contact: Tenae Beane, 970-224-6119, tbeane@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
I will be your primary point of contact throughout the development review and
permitting process. If you have any questions, need additional meetings with the
project reviewers, or need assistance throughout the process, please let me
know and I can assist you and your team. Please include me in all email
correspondence with other reviewers and keep me informed of any phone
conversations. Thank you!
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
As part of your resubmittal, you will respond to the comments provided in this
letter. This letter is provided to you in Microsoft Word format. Please use this
document to insert responses to each comment for your submittal, using a
different font color. When replying to the comment letter please be detailed in
your responses, as all comments should be thoroughly addressed. Provide
reference to specific project plans or explanations of why comments have not
been addressed, when applicable, avoiding responses like noted or
acknowledged.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
Please follow the Electronic Submittal Requirements and File Naming
Standards found at https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/electronic
submittal requirements and file naming standards_v1_8 1 19.pdf?1566857888.
File names should begin with the file type, followed by the project information,
and round number.
Example: UTILITY PLANS_PROJECT NAME_PDP_Rd2.pdf
Comment in Grey highlights are comments shared for information only, so no response is provided
3
File type acronyms maybe appropriate to avoid extremely long file names.
Example: TIS for Traffic Impact Study, ECS for Ecological Characterization
Study.
*Please disregard any references to paper copies, flash drives, or CDs.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
All plans should be saved as optimized/flattened PDFs to reduce file size and
remove layers.
Per the Electronic Submittal Requirements AutoCAD SHX attributes need to be
removed from the PDF’s.
AutoCAD turns drawing text into comments that appear in the PDF plan set,
and these must be removed prior to submittal as they can cause issues with the
PDF file. The default setting is "1" ("on") in AutoCAD. To change the setting
and remove this feature, type "EPDFSHX" in the command line and enter "0".
Read this article at Autodesk.com for more tips on this topic:
https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad/troubleshooting/caas/sfdcarti
cles/sfdcarticles/Drawing-text-appears-as-Comments-in-a-PDF-created-by-Aut
oCAD.html
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
Resubmittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being
the cut-off for routing the same week. When you are ready to resubmit your
plans, please notify me with as much advanced notice as possible.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: 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 10, 2021, one additional week of review time will be
added to all 1st and 2nd round submittals (increase from 3 weeks to 4 weeks).
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
Please resubmit within 180 days, approximately 6 months, to avoid the
expiration of your project.
(LUC 2.211 Lapse, Rounds of Review).
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The Director shall issue a written decision to approve, approve with conditions,
or deny the development application based on compliance with the standards
referenced in Step 8 of the Common Development Review Procedures
4
(Section 2.2.8).
The written decision shall be mailed to the applicant, to any person who
provided comments during the comment period and to the abutting property
owners and shall also be posted on the City's website at www.fcgov.com.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
If the project is approved by the Director, there is a two-week appeal period
from the date of the decision. The project is not able to be recorded until it is
confirmed there are no appeals.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
All "For Final Approval / For Approval" comments need to be addressed and
resolved prior to moving forward with the final documents and recording of this
project. I will provide a recording checklist and process information when we
are closer to this step.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: The City of Fort Collins Development Review and Building Permit
Fee schedule has been updated as of January 1, 2022. Please visit our web
page for more information: https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/fees.php.
Please note, any additional rounds of review outside of 3 rounds may be subject
to a fee.
Response: Understood.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Jenny Axmacher, jaxmacher@fcgov.com
Contents of Round 2 Submittal
Our design team has been working together with City departments over the last 4 months to work
through many of the key coordination topics from our Round 1 BDR submittal. Although there are
still a few unresolved issues (such as the final design for Timberline Road), we are resubmitting
Phase G plans to you to share details of how we are addressing the majority of the comments.
Since this is an unusually large BDR, we began with roughly 30% level plans (instead of submitting
Final Plans as allowed by a BDR). We are now at roughly 60% plan level for Phase G. We feel it
will be valuable for us to receive feedback and for you to see the progress.
So, the current resubmittal includes Phase G plans and plat, and the plans for the offsite irrigation
pond only. This submittal does not include the public infrastructure plans for Timberline and
Mountain Vista since the Timberline design is still under discussion. These plans will be submitted
with Round 3 at a final design level as per our discussions with Planning and Engineering staff.
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: The single family detached home architectural
elevations will be reviewed as part of the building permit process. All other
building elevations will be reviewed and approved as part of this BDR. Please
submit a full package of elevation drawings, including all sides of the building
and all of the proposed different models with the next submittal so a thorough
5
review can be completed. HF2M, DPZ
Response: Building elevations for the townhome buildings are included in this second submittal.
These buildings have not been fully designed at this point in time. We have included site plans
and elevations that details our intended designs, including some variations. Those final building
designs will be completed by our builders, along with their single family detached homes, which
are all subject to internal review from the Montava development team. We intend the final designs
to be similar to those submitted in this set, with potential for minor variation and site-specific
considerations. The development timeline separates the horizontal and vertical components.
Architectural design and construction drawings will progress while we begin the long process of
constructing infrastructure, roads, and grading.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: REVISED Provide a consistent lot typical for
each housing type to show how it will fit on an average lot, meet setbacks, and
comply with occupation/coverage requirements. Include dimensions to show
how the typical designs comply with frontage yard requirements in MUDDS
5.8.4. Provide a lot typical for both corner and interior lots. DPZ
Response: Typical lot plans are included in this second submittal, detailing how each housing type
will fit on average lots. There are three single family detached types, categorized by size: cottage,
small, and medium.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: How will housing model variation be achieved
as described in MUDDS 5.13.7? HF2M, DPZ
Response: In Chapter 12 of the MUDDS, LUC housing model variation is replaced by the
standards of Chapter 5 of the MUDDS, along with justification pointing to the variety of market
segments being targeted in each phase, lot size variation, and other means of variation in the plan.
However, we are providing additional model variety through the internal design review process and
use of multiple builders. Phase G will include 3 different builders for which designs are being
prepared. Variation in model is pursued principally in the form of building elevation, and secondarily
by the mixture of 4 housing type categories: cottages, small and medium single family, and
townhomes which include multiple models. Additionally, our builders are interested in providing
variation within each category. From the design perspective, our team will be working between
builders and designers to compose housing models and elevation styles for variety. However, we
seek harmony in design, not variety for the sake of variety.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: MUDDS includes frontage façade glazing
standards for Transect 4 in table 5.8-4. A calculation for the amount of glazing
on the front facade should be included with all elevation submittals. HF2M, DPZ
Response: Façade glazing percentage is included with the townhome elevations. Single family
detached homes will continue to be subject to these standards, including façade glazing, as those
designs are developed.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Based on the proposed rooflines included in
the townhome elevations, the following lots will likely not be able to take
advantage of PV systems: Block 1, Lots 5-13, Block 2, Lots 6-15. HF2M, DPZ
Response: Understood. We are principally limited where orienting towards Timberline’s existing
6
trajectory. It would not be appropriate to use single family detached homes in this location. The
remaining properties are able to be provided with access, and we feel this still meets the general
intent of the LUC where the majority of homes can take advantage of PV systems.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2022
01/10/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Will this phase include any accessory dwelling
units (ADUs)? ADUs are subject to Section 5.9 of Montava Uses, Densities,
and Development Standards (MUDDS) and require a Type 1 review. ADUs
require additional parking calculations, as well. DPZ
Response: Phase G will not include any accessory dwelling units at this time. Should a future
homeowner elect to pursue an ADU, we understand they will be subject to Type 1 review and the
additional required parking.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/10/2022
01/10/2022: FOR APPROVAL: According to MUDDS, Transect 4 should
provide a transition from Town Center to Storybook through changes in intensity
of impervious surfaces and landscaping, changes in hardness/softness of
materials, and changes in lighting, all components of compatibility. Please
explain how this design accomplishes this transition. DPZ
Response: This is generally achieved through design and lotting. The town center is considered to
be more intensive in that buildings will have larger footprints and in many cases be taller than in the
surrounding neighborhood areas. They will occupy more of their properties, most of which is
otherwise paved. The uses will be varied and active, and buildings of a generally higher residential
density. This intensity of activity and building together is high in the town center, or T5 area. Phase
G includes some T5 properties, principally the multifamily property in the southeast portion of the
phase and townhomes facing onto Timberline and onto Chesapeake for the first two blocks of
Phase G. The T5 areas of Phase G are an extension of the town center’s intensity, which is
appropriate along a major road like Timberline. The remainder of Phase G is T4, which is generally
of a lower intensity, with more impervious surface and landscaped areas, and smaller and shorter
buildings. This character, which is principally single family detached, is lower in intensity than T5,
providing a transition from the town center to Storybook. The sizes and characteristics of homes in
Storybook are similar to those in our T4 area as well. Materials, lighting, and noise transition in
intensity between T5 and T4 as well. Materials in T5 tend to be harder, more masonry with flat
roofs. Materials in T4 are a little softer, with more wood and pitched roofs. Due to the amount of
activity in T5, those areas require more lighting of private properties and of streets, and being more
active are noisier. In T4, properties will be less lit and being principally residential in nature, less
active and quieter. Finally, along the edge of Storybook, a common area is included, with
landscape, drainage for Storybook, and a multi-use trail connecting Mountain Vista to the future
city park. This gap provides a little more space between the edge of Storybook and the first
Montava homes, than the rear setback of adjacent Storybook homes.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/10/2022
01/10/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Consider aligning more of the greenspace
tracts to create at least one direct east-west pedestrian thoroughfare that
crosses and connects the entire phase into the town center. DPZ
Response: One of the sidewalk pairs that runs through the series of greenspaces aligns across all
of those spaces. We shifted the westernmost space down in order to have the view westward on
7
the greenway terminate on the side of a house in Montava which we can design to architecturally
respond to the condition. We did not want to terminate that long view on the landscape buffer and a
rear year within Storybook. This also allows the green court on the western end to be more
intimate, feeling like an outdoor room rather than the end of a long space. To the other end that
space crosses the internal park and water management area, and we intend to continue pedestrian
access to Timberline through the multi-family parcel. Because the sidewalk does align, there is a
direct east-west path established.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: IRRIGATION POND - FOR APPROVAL: REVISED Please provide
proof of ownership of the land proposed to be developed as the irrigation pond
or documentation from Poudre School District stating the applicant can proceed
with the development on their property. Staff would recommend providing a
letter of intent from the school district. The property owner will need to sign the
final, approved plan set. HF2M/PSD, BHA
Response: The applicant is under contract with the Poudre School District to swap land parcels
immediately upon the applicants closing of the AB land. There will be no development on the
property until and after the AB property is squared, and the land swap has been executed with
PSD. Both AB and PSD are well aware of the plating work going on now and letters of intent
indicting such can be provided to the City. The irrigation pond is not going on PSD land, it is going
on land currently owned by AB, but that will be purchased by applicant before construction. We are
aware of the need to have the current landowners executing the final approved plan set.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: IRRIGATION POND - FOR APPROVAL: Provide information on
how the irrigation pond will be utilized with the current permitted water rights and
how the use/configuration of the pond could change with the approval of the
current water court case. See Environmental Planning’s comments for
additional questions. HF2M, TST
Response: The detailed irrigation pond operations have been submitted in this submittal package.
The function and operation of the irrigation system is completely and wholly disconnected from the
water court case. Going forward we will be executing a plan for the irrigation pond that is may be
connected with the augmentation plan only for winter time aesthetics but will not be the only way to
accomplish this goal of keeping the pond full aesthetically in the winter.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: IRRIGATION POND - FOR APPROVAL: Per Exhibit C of the PUD
Master Plan, Section 3, Condition 5 (on the top of the last page of the exhibit), 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, in addition to park property.
Please clarify how can this pond be constructed prior to an agreement with the
other entities, if it must be sited proportionally between the users. BHA, HF2M, TST
Response: The original intent of this language was to assure that City Parks was not overburdened
by this pond being located on their property or taking away from the Community Park experience.
We fully agree with that, and the pond is planned now completely off of City Parks property. It is
possible if necessary to have parks own a small portion of the pond if that is needed for any
reason, but it is not unfairly taking up land from the future Community Park. Assuming staff agrees
and if needed we can clarify this language with a minor amendment to the PUD.
8
Comment Number: 30Comment Originated: 01 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: IRRIGATION POND - FOR APPROVAL: Fencing around the pond
is strongly encouraged for safety. The fence should be aesthetically attractive in
nature while adequately restricting access to the pond area. HF2M, TST, DPZ
Response: We don’t want to fence the pond, we instead have low walls designed along the pond
edge for safety.
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 01/13/2022
01/13/2022: IRRIGATION POND - FOR APPROVAL: A landscape plan for the
pond area was not included with this submittal. Please explain when the
adjacent landscape and development is proposed to be completed and what
will trigger and assure its completion. Staff will ultimately assign a trigger for
completion as part of the plan or DA approval. BHA, HF2M, TST
Response: Concurrent with Phase G we are showing only the minimal amount of site
improvements to make the pond operational. Since this parcel is located adjacent to Phase E, we
plan to include landscape plans and designs for adjacent roads/walks, etc with those plans so it
can be integrated into the design of those adjacent developments.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Identify the tracts on the landscape plan by use,
including any civic space type designations. BHA, DPZ
Response: We have indicated the civic space designations on the Landscape Plans and Site Plans
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: The upright juniper trees on eastern Storybook
property line are hard to see on the plan set. Add a callout note or make the
linework more visible on plan set so that it is clearer that those will remain. BHA
Response: We have made the linework for these heavier and have added a call-out note.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: The plans show cobble mulch all along alley, will
there be a cobble strip across the driveways of the alley loaded garages? BHA, HF2M, DPZ
Response: No, cobble mulch will be continuous only between driveways in alley areas, but the final
driveway locations will be determined at time of building permit. We have also included lot typicals to
convey how homes are planned to be configured on the lots.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION ONLY: Consider opportunities for public art in
roundabouts and other landscape areas. BHA, HF2M, DPZ
Response: We would like to include public art throughout Montava. Any art planned within public
right-of-way (such as within a roundabout) will be indicated on the plans for city review. But art may
also be added within the private shared community spaces and will be subject to approval by the
HOA or Metro District.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Staff encourages a more natural design to the
storm water facility in Tract E. BHA, MM
Response: After further discussion with staff, the walls shown within the Tract E stormwater facility
have been eliminated and a more natural design approach has been achieved. Elimination of the
walls is dependent on over-detaining within the park parcel north of Phase G, which is currently
being coordinated with both the Parks department and Wes Lamarque. The over-detention will
9
allow the southerly basins of Phase G to discharge fully developed flows to the No. 8 ditch and
Tract E would be used strictly for LID purposes.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Provide a design detail, including materials, for
the “soft trail connections” and other items such as seating areas, playgrounds,
etc. BHA, HF2M, DPZ
Response: We have provided more clarity on the locations and types of civic spaces and trail
connections with this appx 60% level resubmittal, but final details are not yet included. We plan to
include more specific design of these areas with the next round (final level) submittal.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Please include species diversification
calculations and include minimum tree size specifications on the next submittal. BHA
Response: We have moved in level of detail from roughly 30% design to 60% design with this
resubmittal. We have refined and updated the plant lists and civic space types but do not yet have
final landscape plans with individual plants indicated. We will include this information with the final
level design plans in the next submittal.
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 01/13/2022
01/13/2022: FOR APPROVAL: See enclosed redlines for additional comments. BHA
Response: The comments from the redlines have been incorporated and responses included in this
submittal.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/10/2022
01/10/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Summarize the PUD standards as applicable
to this phase as notes on a site plan sheet. Identify information such as the
transect, allowed uses, densities, civic space types, and noteworthy, applicable
development standards. BHA, DPZ
Response: We have included a Transect diagram in the Site Plan sheets indicating the applicable
Transects for Phase G. The uses requested in Phase G include Single Family Detached, Single
Family Attached, Two-Family Dwellings, and Townhomes (Multi-Family up to 14 units per building).
All of these land uses are permitted in Transects T4 and T5 under Basic Development Review.
These uses have been indicated in the Site Plans on Sheet S1 – Housing Diagram. Civic space
types have been indicated in the Landscape Plans. We hope this helps to delineate how the Phase
G plans meet the key PUD requirements.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/10/2022
01/10/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Include a net density calculation on the cover
sheet of site plan set. The minimum density is 10 du/acre. Additional density of
3 du/acre is applicable for ADUs. BHA, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Net density for Phase G has been indicated on Site Plan Cover Sheet.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/10/2022
01/10/2022: FOR APPROVAL: REVISED: Based on the current proposal, the
net density is at 7.77 du/acre for Phase G. Please describe how the minimum
density will be obtained through the development of the remaining multifamily
parcel within this phase or update the plans to meet the density requirement
with the current development. BHA, HF2M, DPZ
10
Response: The actual area of Phase G is 34.5 acres as measured to the centerline of Timberline
and the centerline of the street south of the park. However, the density calculation, as specified in
the PUD, excludes streets and open spaces, including only lots and alleys. For ease of calculation
we are including the greenways in the net developable area, which equals 18.2 acres, along with
2.8 acres for the multi-family property. With 186 units on 18.2 acres, the net density of single family
and townhomes is 10.2 du/ac. The multi-family property is estimated to accommodate 100 to 150
units, which is 35.7 du/ac at the lower end. Combined that is an estimated minimum density of 13.6
du/ac. We are in compliance with the net density minimum.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/10/2022
01/10/2022: FOR APPROVAL: The Transect 4 maximum lot area is 60,000 sf
and the maximum width is 250’. The future multifamily lot is proposed to be
133,282 sf and more than 250’ wide. It is assumed based on the PUD Master
Plan Transect Plan that this area is considered to be a portion of Transect 5
which allows lots up to 200,000 sf max and 550 ‘ wide? Is so, please note the
transect boundaries on the site plan. The portions of the site within Transect 5
will then be re-reviewed with the next submittal to confirm compliance with the
Transect 5 requirements. BHA, HF2M, DPZ
Response: A transect map is included in this second submittal, assigned to each property
individually. This aligns with the overall PUD master plan and its transect allocation. The multi-
family property is in T5.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Block 2 Lot 6 and Block 1 Lots 8-13 appear to
violate section 3.5.2 D of the Land Use Code. Please either alter the front
sidewalk so it meets the definition of a major walkway spine or reduce the
distance from a street sidewalk to less than 200 feet. BHA, HF2M, DPZ
Chapter 5 of the MUDDS replaces the standards of Article 3 of the LUC. However, we feel that the
plan complies with the standard identified. No unit is more than 200ft from a street sidewalk. And
those that do not orient directly to a street sidewalk, have entries connecting to a walkway which
connects to a street sidewalk. Almost all of the greenways connect at both ends to a street
sidewalk. Only those along the western edge connect at one end, however these are less than
200ft long and the other end connects to a multi-use trail.
FYI Here is LUC 3.5.2 D:
(D)Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking.
(1)Orientation to a Connecting Walkway. Every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling
unit shall face the adjacent street to the extent reasonably feasible. Every front facade with a
primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting walkway with no primary entrance
more than two hundred (200) feet from a street sidewalk and the address shall be posted to be
visible from the intersection of the connecting walkway and public right of way. The following
exceptions to this standard are permitted:
(a)Up to one (1) single-family detached dwelling on an individual lot that has frontage on either a
public or private street.
(b)A primary entrance may be up to three hundred fifty (350) feet from a street sidewalk if the
primary entrance faces and opens directly onto a connecting walkway that qualifies as a major
walkway spine.
11
(c)If a multi-family building has more than one (1) front facade, and if one (1) of the front facades
faces and opens directly onto a street sidewalk, the primary entrances located on the other front
facade(s) need not face a street sidewalk or connecting walkway.
(2)Street-Facing Facades. Every building containing four (4) or more dwelling units shall have at
least one (1) building entry or doorway facing any adjacent street that is smaller than a full arterial
or has on-street parking.
(3)At least one door providing direct access for emergency responders from the outside into each
individual single family attached dwelling must be located within one hundred fifty (150) feet from
the closest emergency access easement or designated fire lane as measured along paved
walkways. Neither an exterior nor interior garage door shall satisfy this requirement.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Confirm the setbacks lines on site plan show
the minimum setback. Is it possible to also note the maximum setback where
applicable? BHA, DPZ
Response: We’ve indicated maximum setback lines on the lot typicals with this resubmittal. Please
note that setback standards allow certain building elements like roof overhangs, trim, and similar
architectural features, porches, stoops, and similar elements to encroach into the setback areas.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Why are the rear setbacks not consistently
shown as zero which is the Transect 4 requirement? Is it due to utilities or
something else? If so, note why they are different than PUD requirement. BHA, HF2M, DPZ
Response: The rear setbacks vary because of utility easements. The actual setback requirement is
in many cases less than what is actually buildable. To make this clear to builders, we have
indicated the point at which a building could be built, inclusive of easements.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Note allowed fencing locations on either the site
plan or landscape plan? Is any neighborhood perimeter fencing proposed? If
so, please show it on the plans and provide a design detail. Will the allowed
individual lot fencing be limited to specific fence styles? If those styles are
identified, please include design details and identify areas where each fence
type will be allowed. If not, please add a note on the plans if fencing designs will
be subject to HOA or Metro District review and approval. A consistent fence
style or palette of styles is encouraged throughout the development. BHA, HF2M, DPZ
No neighborhood perimeter fencing is proposed.
Fencing will be subject to HOA or Metro District review and approval. In the MUDDS fencing is
restricted in terms of height and locations allowed on individual properties. The style will be further
subject to review and architectural guidelines. Our lot typical diagrams identify locations where
fencing may be constructed.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Add note that the maximum driveway width is
12
12’ unless the driveway is providing access to more than 4 units. BHA, HF2M, DPZ
Response: This requirement is stated in the MUDDS. We would prefer not to duplicate this
information since governed by the MUDDS. Note that we do not consider aprons from the alley to
an adjacent garage to be driveways, only when they exceed 20ft in length or are located along a
street, not an alley.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Why does Road A narrow as it transitions from
the Storybook Development? The on-street parking near those residential units
is very limited due to the transition. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: This segment has been modified based on our discussions with staff. The original goal
was traffic calming. We have modified this segment to provide on-street parking. Traffic calming is
achieved by bulbouts at the multi-use train crossing which occurs close to the property line.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Identify the tracts on site plan by use, including
any civic space type designations. BHA, DPZ
Response: Civic space designations have been added to the Site and Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Why is an attached sidewalk proposed on the
west side of Timberline Road? MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: This was a mistake in the first round drawings and has been corrected.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 01/13/2022
01/13/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Note the frontage assignment for building
orientation on site plan. Confirm the minimum 60% is met for T4 and 80% for
T5 and include calculations on plan set HF2M, DPZ
Response: We have indicated lot frontage assignments to the Site Plan. Compliance with the
frontage buildout standards are at building permit. Frontage buildout is also included in the lot
typicals.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 01/13/2022
01/13/2022: FOR APPROVAL: See enclosed redlines for additional
comments. BHA, DPZ
Response: Redlines received and corrections have been made on plans.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Contents of Round 2 Submittal
Our design team has been working together with City departments over the last 4 months to work
through many of the key coordination topics from our Round 1 BDR submittal. Although there are
still a few unresolved issues (such as the final design for Timberline Road), we are resubmitting
Phase G plans to you to share details of how we are addressing the majority of the comments.
Since this is an unusually large BDR, we began with roughly 30% level plans (instead of submitting
Final Plans as allowed by a BDR). We are now at roughly 60% plan level for Phase G. We feel it
will be valuable for us to receive feedback and for you to see the progress.
13
So, the current resubmittal includes Phase G plans and plat, and the plans for the offsite irrigation
pond only. This submittal does not include the public infrastructure plans for Timberline and
Mountain Vista since the Timberline design is still under discussion. These plans will be submitted
with Round 3 at a final design level as per our discussions with Planning and Engineering staff.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: for information:
I'm noting that all comments are in essence "for approval" as there is no public
hearing or preliminary/final for this project.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: The project should be specifying street names on the plat for
review instead of the generic lettered street names. The continuation of
Chesapeake Drive from Storybook through the site should then be the street
name for Road A. With Road E having the same alignment as Maid Marian Ct
in Storybook, Road E should typically be changed to match as well. Road D
appears to intend to align with Sherell Drive with Road D eventual alignment to
Turnberry Road to the west. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Street names have been added and Chesapeake Drive is continued through Phase G.
We cannot provide continuation to Maid Marian Ct, carrying the same name would be confusing
with no possibility of connection. Regarding Sherell, we are unsure if this will be a possible future
connection. With further discussion of area circulation, it may be preferable to have Road D run
north to connect with Country Club, and if Sherell Drive can be continued in the future, it would
intersect Road D perpendicularly.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: The termination of Road D (Sherell Drive?) to the west as a dead
end street would be required to have a temporary turnaround constructed with a
diameter of 100 feet. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: A temporary turn around will be provided.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: Road A/Chesapeake Drive is not depicted to have on street
parking between Road E and the existing Chesapeake Drive in Storybook.
There is a general concern that the lack of on-street parking along this stretch
will increase the likelihood of "spillover" parking from this development into
Storybook and parking should be provided. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: On street parking has been provided along this segment.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: There appears to be attached sidewalks instead of detached
sidewalks in several locations interior to Phase G (as well as Timberline Road
along the west side) which would typically be detached. The south side of Road
D between Road C and Timberline Road, both sides of Road B south of Road
E, and both sides of Road C south of Road E. Ideally all sidewalks should be
detached and we would want to understand why the detached sidewalks aren't
planned for in these areas. More specific concerns with the attached sidewalk
along Timberline Road is provided as a separate comment. MM, HF2M, DPZ
14
Response: These are mistakes and remnants from past conditions that have been corrected in this
second submittal set.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: The layout of the street system appears to be introducing angle
points rather than curves where the inset parking is created. There's a general
concern that the interior angle points collect debris and are not able to be
reached with street sweepers, and the exterior angle points are likely to be hit
more often by vehicles. We would look to see that curves are provided to
address these concerns. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: These have been revised to include curves at corners.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: The typical intersection bump-out layout on C4.0 raises several
questions. The indication of the transition from curb and gutter to a flush plan
seems to be occurring at the intersection. Under that premise it would seem that
pedestrians, especially wheelchair bound and strollers will be crossing a much
steeper condition than usual with a v-pan vs. a traditional gutter plan because of
the drainage conveyance that is contained within 2 feet as a v-pan vs. a gutter
pan that slopes to one side over the same distance. Additionally does the lack
of a raised curb within the bump-out raise concern with vehicles feeling more
comfortable with driving over the bump-out when making turns? Please provide
more detail on the design and function of these, including a profile view. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: This has been revised to use raised curbs.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: Similar to the previous comment, we'd like to get additional detail
on the raised traffic calming bump-out with respect to how drainage is
designed, whether a curb and gutter system is changed to something different,
and the profile for both vehicular and pedestrian movements? MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Water is collected prior to the surface ramping up and is delivered to the stormwater
system within the greenways. For vehicles, the roadway ramps up to the pedestrian crossing and
then back down. For pedestrians the crossing is flush.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: The intersection of Road B with Road E should be having a
pedestrian crossing along the north leg of the intersection as provided along the
south leg of the intersection. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Yes, all quadrants will have crosswalks, and updates have been made to the Phase G
plans.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: There are retaining walls identified on the site plan that appear to
be directly abutting sidewalks such as along the south side of Road E and the
south side of Road D with the anticipated detaching of the sidewalk along the
south side of the road. These aren't identified specifically in the civil plans and in
general we would have concerns with the proximity of these retaining walls to
the sidewalk and no additional info on depth. BHA, MM, HF2M, DPZ
15
Response: The retaining walls in question were shown for maximizing stormwater detention
volumes and are no longer required.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: The irrigation line is considered a private improvement and is
depicted in various locations to be under the public street system and not
generally outside of right-of-way. The design should be looking to minimize
placement of the line in right-of-way, and in general crossings in right-of-way
would need an encroachment permit. We would need to coordinate initial
conversations with our City Engineer, Brad Buckman on the acceptability of the
irrigation line design's location and to consider what are the permitting and
approval processes necessary. MM, HF2M, DPZ, HINES, TST
Response: The No. 8 irrigation pipe has been re-aligned to minimize encroachment within ROW.
Encroachment permits will be coordinated where the line requires crossing ROW. The non-pot
irrigation system has been located outside of ROW where possible.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: The plat does not indicate the dedication of any utility easements
along the interior public street system, where typically a 9 foot utility easement is
provided. I'm noting that the typical dry utility layout on Sheets 5.9 and 5.10 do
not depict natural gas as a utility and perhaps this speaks to the lack of utility
easements. I believe a utility coordination meeting to confirm the lack of utility
easements along the public streets should be conducted. With electric, phone,
cable, broadband potentially needing raised pedestals/transformers along the
public street system, there may be general concerns as these are not allowed in
the parkway between the sidewalks and the street, and the utility easement
behind the sidewalk is typically where these are situated. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: These utility coordination calls have taken place through the PUD Master Plann and
have been continuing since we received this first round review. We have coordinated utility
placement with providers. We are not providing gas service in Phase G as a sustainability
commitment. With other providers, we have agreed to provide space in the right of way and in
alleys to accommodate their needs, not within easements on properties, aside from pocket
easements where necessary. This is a key feature allowing us to provide unique housing and a
special quality of the street space.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: With the public sidewalk system intersecting at right angles and not
curving around the corner in more typical new developments, we'll want to
ensure that the intersection of the sidewalks fully meet ADA and City standards
with respect to a proper landing with no more than 2% cross slope in any
direction. A variance was granted as part of the PUD that generally allowed
fences and walls to be as close as 4 inches to the back of sidewalk. This wasn't
necessarily contemplated at the time that at intersections there may be
fences/walls that come to a point and I'm wondering about potential accessibility
concerns and sight distance concerns for vehicles at intersections. Might there
be consideration toward providing a view corridor and further set back for
fences and walls at intersections? This concern to potentially consider may be
more pronounced at intersections such as Road C approaching Road D with
sight distance to the west around the curve, and also Road F approaching Road
D with sight distance around the curve to the east. Please look at intersection
16
sight distance requirements. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Typical sidewalk conditions in historic development patterns in Fort Collins, the US, and
worldwide follow this pattern consistently. Any fencing will be subject to site distance requirements
should there be an intersection where it is an issue. Typically sight distance is an issue when there
is a small or non-existent tree lawn. We have provided tree lawns which will tend to negate site
distance problems. From DPZ, we have built many communities which have fences exactly at the
rear of the sidewalk at 90-degree intersections which have been a benefit to the community.
Because sidewalks are 5ft as a minimum, they provide sufficient maneuverability at corners for
ADA and other users. We do not anticipate that every property will have a fence either. Those
details have not been determined at this point, but they will take sight distance into consideration.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: Related to the fences/walls previous comment, I'm looking to
confirm the intended building setbacks that would occur along the street
frontages? It appears most of Phase G is in the T4 - GUN, which would indicate
an 8--16 foot front setback under the MUDADS document, however there may
be some T5 also along the eastern edge of Phase G that would have a 2-1-2
foot setback? I'd like to confirm where the intended building placements might
be throughout this phase? BHA, HF2M, DPZ
Response: The minimum and maximum setbacks have been indicated on the lot typicals. Please
note that the MUDDS document allows for porches, stoops, and some other elements to encroach
into setbacks. No encroachment can violate sight distance standards. Specific building placement
will be determined later at the building permit stage, however lot typicals are provided in the
revised submittal. We do intend to have buildings placed close to the sidewalk in this phase and
the following phase. This may not be typical of recent development in the area, however it is typical
historically and globally, and contributes to pedestrian comfort, traffic calming, and a sense of
community. Similar to any zoning ordinance, buildings within Montava will be required to comply
with the MUDDS. This is not only at the point of initial construction but also for any renovation or
future redevelopment.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: On the Tract Use Table on the plat, please either remove the word
"Alley" or add "Private" to it, or change the label to "Private Drive" as indication
that these roadways are private and not City ownership/maintenance. MM, HF2M
Response: The tract use table has been updated and the label “Alley” has been removed.
Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: The plat appears to demonstrate that abutting Timberline Road
and Mountain Vista Drive rights-of-way are not being dedicated by plat, but are
to be dedicated by separate document. Dedications by separate document are
subject to the newer deed of dedication fees under the 2022 fee schedule as
linked here:
https://www.fcgov.com/engineering/files/engineering-services-fee-intake-form_v
1.pdf?1640212430
If the conveyance can occur via plat instead of separate document, the fees
referenced above would not apply. MM, HF2M
Response: At this time, 60% progress submittal, it is shown that both Mountain Vista and
Timberline Road are to be submitted by separate document. However, additional internal
discussions are being held to expand the plat boundary and include Timberline ROW within the
plat and will be included in the next plat submittal. As Mountain Vista requires additional ROW
17
outside of the ownership boundary, we are planning to proceed dedication of ROW for Mountain
Vista by separate document. That said, we are open to additional input and feedback from the
city.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: Irrigation Pond
Additional conversations are needed on the determination of whether there is a
need to establish the pond legally in some manner, if it is not needed to be
platted at this time. It seems inherent that there’s a need to make the irrigation
“permanent” in some manner since it’s presumably needed for Phase G and
other phases in the west half of Montava as an irrigation source.
Typically since the pond is a permanent and presumed required improvement,
we would typically look for the construction of public infrastructure abutting the
pond or to collect a payment-in-lieu for frontage improvements but this is
perhaps a bit nebulous since there is no platted infrastructure happening
concurrently. The intent of the construction or payment-in-lieu would be to ensure
that future phases of Montava aren’t left “holding the bag” for the improvements
not happening with the pond being built.
Ultimately I'm looking to wrap my head around the premise of whether the pond
is inherently part of the BDR approval such that it should be part of the land
that’s encompassed in the development agreement boundary for Phase G, or
can it be “floating” as an off-site improvement of Phase G that doesn’t need to
be part of the legal boundary of the D.A. for Phase G? It seems at a minimum a
legal description of the pond would be needed. MM, HF2M, DPZ, HINES, TST
Response: The pond area and access will be shown as a Tract or Outlot on the Phase G plat with
future submittals
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: The general typical section for Timberline Road shows an
attached 6 foot sidewalk along the west side of the street. There is general
concern with the design of an attached sidewalk, from the comfort of the
pedestrian directly abutting a vehicular travel lane (with no adjoining parking or
bike lane on street that provides further buffer from vehicular travel lanes) to also
the additional burden on the City to plow Timberling and not burden the
sidewalk with snow clearing operations indirectly accumulating on the sidewalk.
We would want to look towards a more typical section with a detached
sidewalk. I'm noting that the Timberline Road cross section in general with its
non-standard cross section has not had much vetting since initial conversation
pertaining to the dutch roundabout and should be discussed further and
potentially culminate in a variance request to document the non-standard cross
section. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: The attached sidewalk portion was a mistake and has been corrected. Since this set of
comments we have spent a lot of time on Timberline, balancing elements of the standard cross
section with a desire to slow vehicles for the safety of all roadway users. This has occurred in
coordination with the No.8 ditch pipe location and the regional bicycle trail. Overall it is quite
complex and we feel that we have arrived at a solution that provides for the needs of vehicles and
fire access, yet will naturally slow travel speeds through a series of methods. Our goal is to make
this portion of Timberline extremely safe. This is a progression from south to north culminating in
18
the dutch roundabout. We plan to submit the Timberline plans with our next round of review as
discussed.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: I'm noting that the Timberline/Mountain Vista roundabout is
required to be constructed in concrete under LCUASS requirements for
concrete roundabouts, and concrete arterial/arterial intersections in general. MM, HF2M
Response: Understood. We plan to submit the Timberline plans with our next round of review as
discussed.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: The roadway infrastructure plans are a little confusing to follow with
some street names being denoted by letters like the site plan and plat, while
others are denoted by numbers. MM, DPZ
Response: Street names have been assigned and coordinated with emergency response.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: I'm noting that the roadway plans specify pavement type and
depths in some of the drawings. These exact designs are not specified on the
plans and determined at the time of construction and roadway prep, with the
approval occurring with a pavement design report at that time. MM
Response: Understood. We plan to submit the Timberline plans with our next round of review as
discussed.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: For the various utility plans, the City's adopted on its civil/utility
plan sets an updated approval block that would only be used on the cover sheet
and the depicted utility plan approval block can then be removed on all the
sheets. This detail to use on the cover sheet is linked below.
https://www.fcgov.com/engineering/files/utilitysigblock.pdf?1611856399 MM
Response: The cover sheet approval block has been updated and removed from the other plan
sheets.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: We're looking to confirm what is the applicant's intended scope of
total infrastructure being proposed to be constructed that would be associated
with Phase G, and how the TIS provides these considerations as well for the
extent of off-site improvements. MM, HF2M, DPZ, KH
Response: Understood, and we plan to submit updated TIS and infrastructure plans with our next
round of review as discussed.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: Tract M appears to be fully contained within Tract O. It appears that
access to Tract M is preserved through the access easement from Tract O, but
wanted to note that the enclave arrangement of Tract M is unusual. Additionally,
the indication that Tract M is "open space" on the plat should perhaps be
defined, in that there isn't an intention of conveying an open space easement to
the City. MM
Response: Tract M has been removed as a separate tract and is now contained within the limits of
Tract O.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
19
01/11/2022: Tract M appears to be fully contained within Tract O. It appears
that access to Tract M is preserved through the access easement from Tract O,
but wanted to note that the enclave arrangement of Tract M is unusual.
Additionally, the indication that Tract M is "open space" on the plat should
perhaps be defined, in that there isn't an intention of conveying an open space
easement to the City. MM
Response: See comment response comment 24. This comment appears to be a duplicate of
comment number 24.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: We will need to get an understanding on the overall need for offsite
easements/right-of-way that would need approvals from other parties, offsite
landowners, relevant utility providers, ditch owners, and other existing interests.
An exhibit that would identify these parties in conjunction with the improvements
depicted would be helpful. MM, HF2M
Response: We agree that such an exhibit would be beneficial and have continued discussions with
offsite parties. We will begin preparation of this exhibit and will aim to provide to the city for
feedback ahead of the next submittal.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: In general a thorough review could not be completed with the time
and complexity on the project. It is likely that additional comments will be made
as further discussions and reviews take place.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contents of Round 2 Submittal
Our design team has been working together with City departments over the last 4 months to work
through many of the key coordination topics from our Round 1 BDR submittal. Although there are
still a few unresolved issues (such as the final design for Timberline Road), we are resubmitting
Phase G plans to you to share details of how we are addressing the majority of the comments.
Since this is an unusually large BDR, we began with roughly 30% level plans (instead of submitting
Final Plans as allowed by a BDR). We are now at roughly 60% plan level for Phase G. We feel it
will be valuable for us to receive feedback and for you to see the progress.
So, the current resubmittal includes Phase G plans and plat, and the plans for the offsite irrigation
pond only. This submittal does not include the public infrastructure plans for Timberline and
Mountain Vista since the Timberline design is still under discussion. These plans will be submitted
with Round 3 at a final design level as per our discussions with Planning and Engineering staff.
Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
The traffic impact study was received and reviewed.
Overall: Please provide more detail on the proposed bike and pedestrian LOS,
and how Montava will connect into the larger network. We recognize there are
20
significant system gaps. Please also provide a summary of the bike and
pedestrian network on site. Some of this can be pulled from the Master TIS,
and refined for this phase of development.
APF: The overall short term pm peak hour LOS for the intersections at Lemay
and Country Club, Timberline Rd at Mountain Vista, and the NB ramps at
Mountain Vista and I-25 do not meet Adequate Public Facilities requirements in
the Land Use Code. Improvements need to be made to meet LOS E in the
short-term total that are feasible / proportional to impact, or an Alternative
Mitigation Strategy can be negotiated. We can schedule a meeting to discuss
this in more detail.
Improvements: A list of improvements was included in the Master TIS. Please
update this study with what will be included with this phase, and what will remain
for future phases. KH, HF2M, MM
Response: Understood, and we plan to submit updated TIS and infrastructure plans with our next
round of review as discussed.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
The roundabout proposed for Mountain Vista and Timberline will work from an
operational perspective. We would like to meet and discuss this intersection in
more detail with your team. MM, HF2M, DPZ, KH
Response: We look forward to continued discussions and plan to submit updated TIS and
infrastructure plans with our next round of review as discussed.
Contact: Spencer Smith, 970-221-6820, smsmith@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans
Depending on what is proposed for the roundabout, Timberline and Mountain
Vista improvements, we may need interim and ultimate designs submitted that
clearly show what is proposed in the interim condition and what is an ultimate
condition. It looks like the roundabout shown at Timberline and Mountain Vista
is tying into existing Timberline to the south, for example. We would also need
to see an ultimate design for this area. MM, HF2M
Response: We look forward to continued discussions and plan to submit updated TIS and
infrastructure plans with our next round of review as discussed.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans
There will need to be some discussion about the proposed Timberline section
north of Mountain Vista. The City would prefer to see a section that is
consistent with LCUASS. Perhaps the City would be okay with a different
section, but it would likely need to incorporate some items such as detached
walk on the west side of the roadway, for example. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: The attached walk has been corrected. The current cross section does deviate from
standards, however it does so in keeping with the intent of the standards. Sidewalks are present
and detached, meeting the minimum required width. Tree lawns are provided, generally larger than
21
the minimum requirement. Travel lanes are provided to meet the minimum requirement. The
centerlane has been removed because we do not have any turning movements aside from those
handled by round abouts.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans
Has there been any thought as to how/where pedestrians and bikes will get from
the east side of Timberline to the west side along this phase and/or at the future
City park? I think we would want to discuss this further and see how to
accommodate cycle track users getting the park, along with pedestrians, etc.
We would like to work with you to determine the overall bike and pedestrian
network through the site. Regarding the cycle track we would like to better
understand the details of how the bike and pedestrian traffic is handled at the
intersections. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: The plan for Timberline is in progress. At this point in time it includes the two more
substantial round abouts, at Mountain Vista and the Dutch bike priority round about at Country
Club. We have also provided mini round abouts at the two other intersections with sufficient offsets
to provide safe bike and pedestrian crossings, with crossing islands. An additional two mid-block
crossings are provided which also feature crossing islands. In total there are 6 crossing
opportunities for pedestrians and cyclists between Mountain Vista and Country Club, each with
traffic calming measures and crossing islands. We plan to continue our discussions with staff and
including these plans with our next submittal.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: PRIOR TO NEXT SUBMITTAL
Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans
It sounds like the responsibility for the Timberline/Mountain Vista
intersection/roundabout is still up in the air. Depending on who is responsible
for design, construction, funding, etc., there may be additional comments or
revisions to these comments. This may also impact the utility plan set that is
submitted to the City for review and approval. This should be all figured out
prior to a next submittal. MM, HF2M
Response: We look forward to continued discussions and plan to submit updated TIS and
infrastructure plans with our next round of review as discussed.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans
It may be helpful to not include grading on the street plan and profile sheets. I
think the sheets will be much cleaner and easier to review. MM
Response: Understood, and we plan to submit updated TIS and infrastructure plans with our next
round of review as discussed.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans
Please clearly show and call-out/label all existing and proposed laneage, edge
of asphalt, etc. on street plan and profile sheets. MM
Response: Understood, and we plan to submit updated TIS and infrastructure plans with our next
22
round of review as discussed.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans
Please utilize key maps on all sheets, where applicable. MM
Response: Understood, and we plan to submit updated TIS and infrastructure plans with our next
round of review as discussed.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans
Not all roadway naming is consistent. Roads "B" and "C" are also referred to
as Road "5" and Road "7". MM
Response: Road names have been revised and will be included in infrastructure plans with our
next round of review.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans
The median at the Road "C" and Mountain Vista intersection should extend
west a bit more to more fully restrict left turns out of Montava Phase G. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Understood, and we plan to submit updated TIS and infrastructure plans with our next
round of review as discussed.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans
The splitter island descriptions on sheet R3.11 both incorrectly reference "West
Splitter Island". MM
Response: Understood, and we plan to submit updated TIS and infrastructure plans with our next round of
review as discussed.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans
Does the width of the proposed cycle track purposefully change? I see it
labeled as 12 feet and also as 10 feet wide on different sheets. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: The regional bicycle path is indicated at 12ft wide along Timberline.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans
We will need to see more detail on the intersection details for Timberline and
Mountain Vista site access intersections, with subsequent submittals. MM
Response: Understood, and we plan to submit updated TIS and infrastructure plans with our next
round of review as discussed.
Comment Number: 13
Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans
A more thorough signing and striping plan review will be performed once we
23
receive more detailed plans. Some initial comments: There should be bike lane
symbology on Mountain Vista and potentially Timberline, depending on it's final
proposed section. I'd like to see the specific MUTCD street sign images shown
on the signing and striping plans. I can share examples of other plans that we
have approved in the past, for reference. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Understood, and we plan to submit updated TIS and infrastructure plans with our next
round of review as discussed.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans
Please show the pedestrian underpass more clearly on all pertinent plan sheets. MM
Response: Understood, and we plan to submit updated TIS and infrastructure plans with our next
round of review as discussed.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Roadway Autoturn Exhibits
There are several examples of fire truck turning movements that encroach into
roadway parking lanes, over curb and gutter and over curb returns at
intersections. In some cases, the encroachment is the travel path of the bucket
that is several feet in the air and may not pose an issue as long as no signs,
trees, or other tall objects are proposed in those areas. The parking and curb
and gutter conflicts may be more significant and will require PFA input/approval. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: We are coordinating all fire truck turning movements with PFA and have had
discussions regarding requirements for acceptable turn movements that encroach beyond travel
lanes. Autoturn movements will be provided to PFA and the city for review and approvals.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Roadway Autoturn Exhibits
It looks like the movement is incorrectly labeled as "exiting" on Exhibit 6 of 7. MM
Response: Comment noted and has been updated on exhibit.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Phase G Plans
The City would prefer that the street section connecting Montava - Phase G to
Storybrook remain consistent and not taper as shown. Is there a specific
reason for this transition? MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: The connection has been revised with bumpouts rather than tapers. The goal is traffic
calming between developments.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Phase G Plans
There are many areas where alleys intersect public streets with on-street
parking. How are you proposing to prevent vehicles from blocking alley
intersections or parking too close to the corner and limiting accessibility?
Should there be bulb outs at these intersections that keep vehicles from parking
too close? MM, HF2M, DPZ
24
Response: There should not be bulb-outs at alley entrances. On street parking should be restricted
by striping or curb paint.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Phase G Plans
Please label all street names, including adjacent streets in Storybrook. MM
Response: Comment noted and street names have been added to the plans.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Phase G Plans
Please ensure that all pedestrian ramps and walks are able to meet current
ADA standards. Some examples in particular are the NW corner of A/C, SE
and NE corners of A/F, E/C, B/E, etc. Also, in general, City staff does not
support the flush/depressed curb returns. This seems like a safety issue and I'm
not sure if these would meet ADA standards either. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response:The flush curb situations have been revised.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Phase G Plans
I know the comment was made at conceptual review about intersection offsets,
alignments, etc. not meeting our standards and you made efforts to correct
these where possible. There are still a few areas that could be an issue (Alley
1/5, 8/9, 10/15/16, Alley 19 & Rd. C angle with Rd. A, etc.) that would be nice to
correct early on in the review process. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: All offsets that can be easily remedied have been adjusted. The remaining offsets are
few, and they service very few homes, and therefore very little traffic. There is no practical way to
adjust the remaining offsets. Luckily they should not be of concern with very little traffic.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Phase G Plans
There are a couple of spots along Rd. D that may be problematic and unsafe
from a sight distance perspective. This area could be pretty busy with
pedestrian, bike and vehicle traffic to the future park site. We want to make
sure this roadway is safe for all users and avoid creating potential points of
conflict between vehicles and other modes. This may include providing
adequate sight distance easements and/or limiting parking in areas, etc. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Sight distance triangles will be enforced for design elements.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Phase G Plans
At Rd. B and Rd. E, if you are only proposing one set of east/west ramps, would
it make sense to shift those to the north side of the intersection, further from
vehicles turning into the site from Mountain Vista? MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Per other city comments we are providing additional crosswalks, addressing all
25
intersection quadrants.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Phase G Plans
Please replace "Local Entity Engineer" with "City of Fort Collins Traffic
Engineer" in "Traffic Signing and Pavement Marking" notes in construction
notes section of notes sheet. MM
Response: Comment noted and has been updated.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/14/2022
01/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans
The transitions from 2 lanes to 1 on the outgoing legs of the roundabout should
be extended. Please take a look at a couple of other roundabouts in
neighboring jurisdictions for examples: Boyd Lake/Lost Creek in Loveland (just
north of Hwy 34 and west of I-25) and CR5/CR32 in Windsor (north of Hwy 392
on CR5). MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: The infrastructure perimeter roadways and roundabout designs are in progress and
will be submitted with the next review round.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Contents of Round 2 Submittal
Our design team has been working together with City departments over the last 4 months to work
through many of the key coordination topics from our Round 1 BDR submittal. Although there are
still a few unresolved issues (such as the final design for Timberline Road), we are resubmitting
Phase G plans to you to share details of how we are addressing the majority of the comments.
Since this is an unusually large BDR, we began with roughly 30% level plans (instead of submitting
Final Plans as allowed by a BDR). We are now at roughly 60% plan level for Phase G. We feel it
will be valuable for us to receive feedback and for you to see the progress.
So, the current resubmittal includes Phase G plans and plat, and the plans for the offsite irrigation
pond only. This submittal does not include the public infrastructure plans for Timberline and
Mountain Vista since the Timberline design is still under discussion. These plans will be submitted
with Round 3 at a final design level as per our discussions with Planning and Engineering staff.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
Detention Pond E has a retaining wall 12 feet high. The City requires walls this
high to be split into two walls for safety and aesthetic reasons with a landscaped
bench in-between. Please revise. Also, any detention pond with a retaining
wall needs to stay out of any utility easement. BHA, MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Pond E has been moved to the park property north of Phase G and retaining walls have
been eliminated. Pond E will provide over detention for Phase G to allow for more natural design
concepts without walls.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
26
01/11/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
Detention pond A1 has retaining walls up to 10 feet deep in many locations and
up to 12 feet. This is too deep for one wall and needs to be split into two walls.
There is also no maintenance access for these detention basins. The City is
concerned that these ponds are too deep and narrow to meet the City's
"Detention Pond Landscape Standards" and the whole concept of how this
area is to be detained and location/shape of the detention pond needs to be
reconsidered. BHA, MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: The walls shown within Pond A1 have been eliminated and a more natural design
approach has been achieved. Elimination of the walls is dependent on overdetaining within the
park parcel north of Phase G, which is currently being coordinated with the Parks department and
Wes Lamarque. The over detention will allow the southerly basins of Phase G to discharge fully
developed flows to the No. 8 ditch and Tract E would be used strictly for LID purposes.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
Detailed grading plans are required, including for the single family lots. BHA, MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Comment noted. Detail grading plans are in progress and will be submitted with the
final design package, next submittal. We may request an ‘Over the Shoulder’ of the grading plans
to ensure the required information is presented prior to the formal submittal.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
The storm sewer at the northeast corner of the site needs to be located within
the roadway section and may need to be adjusted. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: The storm sewer has been revised accordingly.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR YOUR INFORMATION:
The LID mitigation requirement for single-family development is treating 50% of
the site's impervious area, not 75%. MM
Response: Comment noted. Thank you.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
The City does not allow LID mitigation to be located in the bottoms of detention
basins. This has shown to cause clogging of the soil media and maintenance
issues. Please provide LID mitigation outside of the detention basin. BHA, MM, MAX, MATT
Response: The LID approach has been revised to not include treatment within detention basins.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
Please utilize the City's standard water quality outlet structure for all
extended-detention WQ & pond outlets. MM
Response: The city’s standard water quality outlet structure detail will be utilized for traditional
extended detention basins.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
The City requires detention ponds greater than 4 feet deep to include a
27
detention pond depth gage, which the City has a standard detail. Please show
locations of the gages on the grading plan and include the detail in the plan set. MM
Response: The city’s detention pond depth guage is now specified for ponds greater than 4 foot
in depth.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
Please show detail grading and design information for the rain gardens with all
necessary detail. The City does have a standard rain garden detail. MM, BHA, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Detailed rain gardens are included with revised submittal.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
Drainage easements are required for the rain gardens, storm sewers that carry
100-year flows, and the detention & water quality ponds. MM
Response: Drainage easements are now shown where required.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
There are many locations where the City's minimum separation distances are
not being met between storm water infrastructure and trees. The minimum
separation requirement is 10 feet from trees. Please revise. MM, BHA
Response: Minimum horizontal clearances between storm sewer and trees have been reviewed
and revised accordingly.
Department: Erosion Control
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Contents of Round 2 Submittal
Our design team has been working together with City departments over the last 4 months to work
through many of the key coordination topics from our Round 1 BDR submittal. Although there are
still a few unresolved issues (such as the final design for Timberline Road), we are resubmitting
Phase G plans to you to share details of how we are addressing the majority of the comments.
Since this is an unusually large BDR, we began with roughly 30% level plans (instead of submitting
Final Plans as allowed by a BDR). We are now at roughly 60% plan level for Phase G. We feel it
will be valuable for us to receive feedback and for you to see the progress.
So, the current resubmittal includes Phase G plans and plat, and the plans for the offsite irrigation
pond only. This submittal does not include the public infrastructure plans for Timberline and
Mountain Vista since the Timberline design is still under discussion. These plans will be submitted
with Round 3 at a final design level as per our discussions with Planning and Engineering staff.
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/05/2022
01/05/2022: For Final: (Revised Estimate Based upon provided response)
The City Manager’s development review fee schedule under City Code 7.5-2
was updated to include fees for Erosion Control and Stormwater Inspections.
As of January 1st, 2021, these fees will be collected on all projects
for such inspections.
28
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 202 lots, 35.13 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 $17807.36.
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.
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. HF2M
Response: Understood and we’ll continue to track fees required as the plans progress.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/05/2022
01/05/2022: For Final:
Erosion Control Plans, Reports and Escrows have be initially reviewed and
provided returned redlines for revision. Will look for correction upon next
submittal. MM
Response: Erosion control plans have been updated per comments received.
Department: Light And Power
Contents of Round 2 Submittal
Our design team has been working together with City departments over the last 4 months to work
through many of the key coordination topics from our Round 1 BDR submittal. Although there are
still a few unresolved issues (such as the final design for Timberline Road), we are resubmitting
Phase G plans to you to share details of how we are addressing the majority of the comments.
Since this is an unusually large BDR, we began with roughly 30% level plans (instead of submitting
Final Plans as allowed by a BDR). We are now at roughly 60% plan level for Phase G. We feel it
will be valuable for us to receive feedback and for you to see the progress.
So, the current resubmittal includes Phase G plans and plat, and the plans for the offsite irrigation
pond only. This submittal does not include the public infrastructure plans for Timberline and
29
Mountain Vista since the Timberline design is still under discussion. These plans will be submitted
with Round 3 at a final design level as per our discussions with Planning and Engineering staff.
Contact: Austin Kreager, 970-224-6152, akreager@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/12/2022
01/12/2022: SITE SPECIFIC:
Please provide a viable transformer location for your pump house for the
irrigation pond and show it on your next submittal. TST, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Transformer location is being shown with this submittal
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/12/2022
01/12/2022: Prior to approval:
We look forward to a utility coordination meeting to determine where utility
easements are needed as well as if your proposed routing for your irrigation
lines are viable. MM, TST, HINES, HF2M
Response: Utility coordination meetings have occurred, and we’ve made changes to the plans
based on these discussions. Well look forward to this continued coordination.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/12/2022
01/12/2022: INFORMATION:
Please research Colorado's laws as they relate to a private utility owner and
ensure that there is a plan in place to locate your irrigation lines in the event that
a utility locate request is made. MM, TST, HINES, HF2M
Response: Hines recommends utilizing a tracer wire or equivalent to provide future locates
compatibility, and will include this in their final plans/details for these utilities.
Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-416-2772, tsiegmund@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
Light and Power has electric facilities existing along Mountain Vista Dr that will
need to be extended to feed the site. MM, HF2M, DPX
Response: Comment noted. Coordination is on-going with Light and Power and will continue
through the design process, including extension of existing design facilities.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges and any system
modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this development.
Please contact me to discuss development fees or visit the following website for
an estimate of charges and fees related to this project:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen
t-development-fees HF2M
Response: Understood and we’ll continue to track fees required as the plans progress.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Please show the primary electric routing on the utility plans. We will provide
redlines of the electric routing for the second submittal following a utility
30
coordination meeting. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Thank you for providing utililty routing plans for light & power.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
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
Power has a 3ft minimum separation requirement from all utility
lines/infrastructure. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Adequate spacing has been provided, see revised plans.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
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. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response Comment noted. Coordination is on-going with Light and Power and transformers will
be shown as designs and additional coordination progress.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
FOR APPROVAL:
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. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Existing infrastructure that needs to be replaced will be coordinated with Light and
Power and shown in the construction plans. We will continue to progress the electric plans and
include this information.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
All utility easements and required permits (crossing agreements, flood plain,
etc.) needed for the development will need to be obtained and paid for by the
developer. MM, HF2M
Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
Any existing and/or proposed Light and Power electric facilities that are within
the limits of the project must be located within a utility easement. MM
Response: Comment noted. Utility easements for electric facilities will be shown on the
construction plans and be dedicated by the plat. All utility easements have not been shown
and/or annotated on the plat but will be on forthcoming submittals once dry utility alignments,
including electric, have been established.
31
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
A commercial service information form (C-1 form) and a one line diagram for all
commercial meters, multifamily buildings, and duplexes will need to be
completed and submitted to Light & Power Engineering for review. A link to the
C-1 form is below:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-
forms-guidelines-regulations MM, HF2M
Response: Comment noted. This form will be completed once this information has been
determined.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Streetlights will be placed along public streets. 40 ft separation on both sides of
the light is required between canopy trees and streetlights. 15 ft separation on
both sides of the light is required between ornamental trees and streetlights. A
link to the City of Fort Collins street lighting requirements can be found at:
http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/Ch15_04_01_2007.pdf BHA, MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Comment noted. We are working with L&P to obtain street light locations and will
include them in our plans with the next submittal.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Electric meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and Power
Engineering. Each residential unit will need to be individually metered. For
townhome and duplex 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. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Comment noted. We will continue to coordinate with Light and Power regarding
placement of electric meters.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
This project will need to comply with our electric metering standards. Electric
meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and Power Engineering.
Reference Section 8 of our Electric Service Standards for electric metering
standards. A link has been provided below.
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStanda
rds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf MM, HF2M
Response: Comment noted. We will continue to coordinate with Light and Power regarding
placement of electric meters.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
32
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
For additional information on our renewal energy programs please visit the
website below or contact John Phelan (jphelan@fcgov.com).
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/go renewable
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
The City of Fort Collins now offers gig-speed fiber internet, video and phone
service. Contact Brad Ward with Fort Collins Connexion at 970-224-6003 or
bward@fcgov.com for commercial grade account support, RFPs and bulk
agreements. MM, HF2M
Response: We have been working with Connexion and our intent is to strategically include this service in
our neighborhoods.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contents of Round 2 Submittal
Our design team has been working together with City departments over the last 4 months to work
through many of the key coordination topics from our Round 1 BDR submittal. Although there are
still a few unresolved issues (such as the final design for Timberline Road), we are resubmitting
Phase G plans to you to share details of how we are addressing the majority of the comments.
Since this is an unusually large BDR, we began with roughly 30% level plans (instead of submitting
Final Plans as allowed by a BDR). We are now at roughly 60% plan level for Phase G. We feel it
will be valuable for us to receive feedback and for you to see the progress.
So, the current resubmittal includes Phase G plans and plat, and the plans for the offsite irrigation
pond only. This submittal does not include the public infrastructure plans for Timberline and
Mountain Vista since the Timberline design is still under discussion. These plans will be submitted
with Round 3 at a final design level as per our discussions with Planning and Engineering staff.
Contact: Scott Benton, (970)416-4290, sbenton@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/07/2022
01/07/2022: FOR APPROVAL: WATER ISSUES: As we understand the water
supply situation from your response and after some discussion with fellow staff
members, Montava’s plan to provide adequate water for non-potable irrigation
involves: an ongoing Water Court case (Case No. 20CW3208) to acquire
approval of an augmentation plan to pump two new tributary water wellfields
("New Wells”); using 1.5 already-owned WSSC shares; potentially buying up to
9 NPIC shares; using other existing decreed wells that are included in a
previously-approved augmentation plan (“Existing Wells”); a proposed
nontributary well in the nontributary groundwater is the Dakota Group Aquifer
(“Nontributary Well”); and potentially a need for some potable and non-potable
water treatment systems. Please provide the following:
-Proof of ownership of the WSSC shares and detail of the amount of water that
those shares provide throughout the irrigation season;
-An explanation of how much water from the WSSC shares would be used to
replace well depletions in the proposed augmentation plan and how much would
33
be used for non-potable irrigation;
-Proof of an agreement or other legal instrument that ensures you have the right
to acquire the NPIC shares;
-An explanation of where the different sources of water can legally be used (e.g.,
it appears that Phase G may not be in the NPIC service area; confirmation from
NPIC would address this; and water from the Existing Wells may not be
available for all of the development);
-Identification (by decree and well permit) of any Existing Wells that are
contemplated to be used; and
-Ultimately, documentation of that the New Wells and Nontributary Well can be
operated. HF2M, HINES, TST
Response: Proof of ownership of the WSSC shares will be provided upon execution of that
transaction which is very near term. A detailed irrigation plan including water usage and
appropriation has been included in this submittal. Proof of agreement for NPIC shares is included
in this submittal, although NPIC is NOT intended to be used in the irrigation system west of
Giddings road and is not part of this submittal irrigation plan. The explanation of how the sources
of water can be used is also included in this submittal. The overall well documentation related to
the western pond will be provided for your review.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/07/2022
01/07/2022: FOR APPROVAL: WATER ISSUES: The Water Court case has
the potential to not be concluded for a significant amount of time, or before
construction of Phase G would begin. Please provide a detailed plan that
describes how the WSSC shares, Existing Wells, and potentially NPIC shares
can be used in a feasible manner to meet irrigation needs of Phase G and other
phases that will be built prior to the assumed approval of the augmentation plan
for the New Wells. This plan should address the following:
-An estimate of the irrigation water need for Phase G as well as the
development overall, and the amount and timing of irrigation water currently
available (e.g., we are aware that WSSC shares generally do not provide yield
early or late in the irrigation season);
-How the estimated water need will be accounted for if the New Wells are not
approved for use and constructed by the necessary time;
-An irrigation pond design that accounts for the need to use water attributable to
the WSSC shares, potentially NPIC shares, and the Other Wells within the
prescribed 72-hour time limit and still meets aesthetic and safety design
standards (see Division 1 - South Platte River Administrative Protocol:
Temporary Detention of Direct Flow Rights, dated July 1, 2008);
-An irrigation pond design that meets this intermediate phase need as well as
the larger pond size/design that will accommodate the full hoped-for amount of
water from the New Wells; and
-A contingency plan for the irrigation pond if the proposed augmentation plan is
not approved. HF2M, HINES, TST
Response: The irrigation plan submitted for your review does not depend on the water court
case for anything other than winter aesthetic storage which will be handled by the developer.
The ability to use WSSC and deliver WSSC to the system is being determined by ongoing
agreement negotiations that will be shared upon their completion, which we know must be done
prior to final approval. The shared pond system we are negotiating with Parks and PSD will
include the appropriate wells and WSSC water as outlined in the plan.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/07/2022
34
01/07/2022: FOR APPROVAL: WATER ISSUES: Please provide a plan that
details the required infrastructure for the WSSC shares, NPIC shares, New
Wells, Existing Wells, Nontributary Well, and water transport systems. Aspects
to be included in this plan:
-How water attributable to the WSSC shares will be delivered to the irrigation
pond, including proof of Montava’s rights to use others’ existing infrastructure
(such as the Baker Lateral) if that would be relied upon, and the anticipated
alignment and ROW easement width(s) of transport pipes to the irrigation pond;
-How water attributable to the NPIC shares will be delivered to the irrigation
pond, including proof of Montava’s rights to use others’ existing infrastructure if
that would be relied upon, and the anticipated alignment and ROW easement
width(s) of transport pipes to the irrigation pond;
-The approximate number and locations of the New Wells in the proposed new
well fields;
-The anticipated alignment and ROW easement width(s) of transport pipes from
the proposed new well fields to the irrigation pond;
-expected impacts (both temporary and permanent) of well installation,
structures, access roads, and transport pipes;
-How impacts will be mitigated if mitigation is required;
-Proof of compliance with CDOT or other needed entities to cross I-25 for the
East Well Field;
-How water from the Existing Wells will be delivered to the irrigation pond, and
the anticipated alignment and ROW easement width(s) of transport pipes to the
irrigation pond; and
-Where the Nontributary Well would be located and how water from the
Nontributary Well would be delivered to the irrigation pond, and the anticipated
alignment and ROW easement width(s) of transport pipes to the irrigation pond. HF2M, HINES, TST
Response: The NPIC shares are not being used west of Giddings. The water court case is not
necessary for the functionality of the irrigation system, only for aesthetics in the winter time. The
new well fields are not necessary for the functionality of the irrigation system as described.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/07/2022
01/07/2022: FOR APPROVAL: WATER ISSUES: The East Well Field appears
to be located in a wetland complex directly adjacent to Boxelder Creek outside
of the City’s GMA. However, proof of compliance with Larimer County’s
permitting process will be required to satisfy LUC requirements from Section
(C) General Standard and Section (O) Proof of Compliance. MAX, HINES, TST
Response: This is not relevant for the phase G submittal, but will be addressed at the time of
development for those areas.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/07/2022
01/07/2022: FOR APPROVAL: No. 8 DITCH: This submittal indicates the
piping of the No. 8 Ditch through Phase G. This raises several concerns and
requires addressing further the following:
-PUD Master Plan states that the No. 8 ditch is an amenity and the slopes will
be setback, depicts co-location of regional trail in some areas, and discusses
possible re-alignment. The PUD Master Plan does not discuss piping the ditch.
Please provide a justification for altering the PUD Master Plan and piping
instead;
-If it is determined that piping is allowed, additional process may be necessary
35
(i.e., possibly a minor amendment to the PUD Master Plan);
-As has already been documented, the No. 8 Ditch has been determined to be
a jurisdictional Waters of the US (WOTUS) by the US Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) and a 404 permit from the COE is required to perform this work. Please
provide the documents submitted to COE as proof of compliance;
-If the ditch is piped, the 0.139 acres of jurisdictional wetland will require
mitigation. The ECS states that H2FM is intending to mitigate for all wetland
impacts by creating wetlands along the drainages constructed through the
project area. A wetland mitigation plan is required that shows the location and
quantity of the mitigation wetland(s), demonstrates that adequate hydrology is
available, and defines establishment/maintenance/monitoring procedures and
plans, provides seed mixes and planting plans, etc.
-The PUD Master Plan shows a 50-ft Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) along
both sides the No. 8 ditch, which is also required by LUC 3.4.1. If the ditch is not
piped, then indicate the NHBZ on the site plans and provide an adequate
restoration plan, seed mixes, weed management plan, etc. If piping of the ditch
is approved, then please indicate where the NHBZ square footage will be
incorporated and which phase will provide that square footage.
-Proof of coordination and agreement with the owner of the No. 8 Ditch is
required. MM, HF2M, BHA
Response: All indications are that the No. 8 ditch was inappropriately identified jurisdictional.
This is being addressed directly by the Eaton Ditch Company and is an ongoing matter. At this
time it is our understanding that a 404 process will not be needed, but we defer to the ditch
company on this issue. The No. 8 ditch is proposed to be piped from Mountain Vista to County
Club road, which will create additional open space through the parks property. The ditch owner has
indicated that any open portion of the ditch cannot be utilized as an amenity, which is the key driver
behind piping. We are working in partnership with the ditch as they determine how they want that
system treated not only through Montava but the entire area as a whole.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/07/2022
01/07/2022: FOR APPROVAL: WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN: A weed
management plan is required given the amount of disturbance, the presence of
a state-listed noxious weed (Canada thistle – Cirsium arvense), and as
required by Native Seed Mix note #6. BHA
Response: We have included a set of notes on the landscape plan regarding potential weed
management plan for your review. We can also plan a call or meeting with you to discuss the
recommended methods to be included.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/07/2022
01/07/2022: FOR APPROVAL: As per the ECS’s recommendation, initial
vegetation removal should occur outside of nesting season (Feb 15 – July 31). If
that is not possible, please include a note on appropriate plans (grading,
landscape, etc.) that a ground clearance nesting survey will be provided seven
days prior to initiation of construction. HF2M, BHA
Response: This note has been added to the landscape plans and grading plans.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/07/2022
01/07/2022: FOR APPROVAL: PUD MASTER PLAN - NATURE IN THE CITY:
Please indicate on the plans which features are being utilized pollinator
paths/rain gardens and small bird/butterfly gardens in order to satisfy the Nature
in the City requirements. I see one area labeled as ‘Natural Zone’ but am
unclear where the other areas are.
36
It would be helpful to have overall plan showing what the bird and pollinator
resources are in Phase G and a conceptual plan for the other phases. Also, for
those bird/pollinator areas in Phase G, a table would be helpful that indicates
the species and quantities to ensure bloom times across the growing season
(early, mid, and late), a variety of bloom colors, and wildlife housing resources
(bee houses, bird houses, and bat houses).
Research indicates that there are several factors required to make for truly
impactful wildlife and pollinators: quantity of habitat, appropriate distance
between habitats, bloom times and variety, water and shelter requirements, etc.
Montava is a tremendous opportunity for implementing these new findings and
improving the ecology of the area. I am happy to provide assistance with this
aspect. BHA, MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: We have indicated where planned rain gardens, pollinator paths, bird/butterfly
gardens and the community garden are planned. We have also included preliminary plant list for
several of these items for your review and comment. We’ve appreciated the resources you’ve
shared and will continue to provide additional planting details for these spaces with final design.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/07/2022
01/07/2022: FOR APPROVAL: PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The Phase I provided indicates the presence of 6 Recognized Environmental
Conditions (RECs) and several locations with a historical use that could have
‘adversely impacted groundwater quality from operations prior to regulations’.
Please provide proof of compliance with the regulatory authority (CO Dept. of
Oil and Public Safety) that all necessary requirements are satisfied or if further
actions are needed. HF2M, BHA, MM, ERO
Response: The RECs are associated with the structures/properties further east of the current
phase so do not apply to Phase G development. These will be addressed at the time of review for
development of these areas/phases. We have included a Phase I EA specific to the Phase G
properties only with this resubmittal, and no RECs are indicated in this assessment.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/07/2022
01/07/2022: FOR APPROVAL: LANDSCAPE PLANS: I commend you on the
native-heavy plant palette. Please provide the details of all seed mixes to be
used, including the species (with scientific names), proportions, and seeding
rates. Specific seed mixes should be tailored to the site’s edaphic conditions,
anticipated moisture level, desired aesthetics, ecological goals, and expected
level of traffic. Seed mixes used in Natural Habitat Buffer Zones (NHBZs) are
required to be composed entirely of species native to Fort Collins. Contact the
Environmental Planner to discuss appropriate seed mix(es) and rate(s). I’m
happy to provide assistance with this aspect. BHA
Response: We appreciate the plant and seed mix resources you have shared. We have begun to
separate our plant lists into categories by use (rain gardens, native seed, etc). We look forward to
your comments and continued collaboration on the plant lists.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/07/2022
01/07/2022: FOR APPROVAL: LANDSCAPE PLANS: Please include the
following standard native seed mix notes on the Landscape Plan:
37
NATIVE SEED MIX NOTES
1. THE TIME OF YEAR SEEDING IS TO OCCUR SHOULD BE OCTOBER
THROUGH EARLY MAY.
2. PREPARE SOIL AS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE FOR NATIVE
SEED MIX SPECIES THROUGH LOOSENING AND ADDITION OF
AMENDMENTS THAT PROMOTE WATER ABSORPTION AND RELEASE,
THEN SEED IN TWO DIRECTIONS TO DISTRIBUTE SEED EVENLY OVER
ENTIRE AREA. DRILL SEED ALL INDICATED AREAS AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE AFTER COMPLETION OF GRADING OPERATIONS.
3. IF CHANGES ARE TO BE MADE TO SEED MIX BASED ON SITE
CONDITIONS THEN APPROVAL MUST BE PROVIDED BY CITY
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER.
4. APPROPRIATE NATIVE SEEDING EQUIPMENT WILL BE USED
(STANDARD TURF SEEDING EQUIPMENT OR AGRICULTURE EQUIPMENT
SHALL NOT BE USED).
5. DRILL SEED APPLICATION RECOMMENDED PER SPECIFIED
APPLICATION RATE TO NO MORE THAN ½ INCH DEPTH. FOR
BROADCAST SEEDING INSTEAD OF DRILL SEEDING METHOD DOUBLE
SPECIFIED APPLICATION RATE. REFER TO NATIVE SEED MIX TABLE
FOR SPECIES, PERCENTAGES AND APPLICATION RATES.
6. PREPARE A WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN TO ENSURE THAT WEEDS
ARE PROPERLY MANAGED BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER SEEDING
ACTIVITIES.
7. AFTER SEEDING THE AREA SHALL BE COVERED WITH CRIMPED
STRAW, JUTE MESH, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE METHODS.
PLASTIC-BASED EROSION CONTROL MATERIALS (I.E.,
PLASTIC-WELDED BLANKETS) SHALL NOT BE USED WITHOUT
EXPRESS PERMISSION FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER AS
THESE MATERIALS HAVE PROVEN TO CAUSE WILDLIFE ENTRAPMENT
ISSUES.
8. WHERE NEEDED, TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED
UNTIL SEED IS GERMINATED THEN WEEN THE SEED FROM IRRIGATION.
IF IRRIGATION IS USED, THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR SEEDED AREAS
SHALL BE FULLY OPERATIONAL AT THE TIME OF SEEDING AND SHALL
ENSURE 100% HEAD-TO-HEAD COVERAGE OVER ALL SEEDED AREAS.
ALL METHODS AND REQUIREMENTS IN THE APPROVED IRRIGATION
PLAN SHALL BE FOLLOWED.
9. CONTRACTOR SHALL MONITOR SEEDED AREA FOR PROPER
IRRIGATION, EROSION CONTROL, GERMINATION AND RESEEDING AS
NEEDED TO ESTABLISH COVER.
10. THE APPROVED NATIVE SEED MIX AREA IS INTENDED TO BE
MAINTAINED IN A NATURAL LIKE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC. DO NOT
MOW DURING HOT, DRY PERIODS. DO NOT MOW LOWER THAN 6 TO 8
INCHES IN HEIGHT TO AVOID INHIBITING NATIVE PLANT GROWTH.
11. NATIVE SEED AREA WILL BE CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED WHEN
SEVENTY PERCENT VEGETATIVE COVER IS REACHED WITH LESS
THAN TEN PERCENT OF COVER CONSISTING OF NOXIOUS WEEDS, NO
BARE SPOTS LARGER THAN ONE FOOT SQUARE, AND/OR UNTIL
DEEMED ESTABLISHED BY CITY PLANNING SERVICES AND EROSION
CONTROL.
38
12. THE DEVELOPER AND/OR LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR ADEQUATE SEEDLING COVERAGE AND GROWTH
AT THE TIME OF FINAL STABILIZATION, AS DEFINED BY STATE AND
LOCAL AGENCIES. IF FINAL STABILIZATION IS NOT ACHIEVED TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THE AGENCY, THE DEVELOPER AND/OR
LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL
CORRECTIVE MEASURES TO SATISFY FINAL VEGETATIVE
REQUIREMENTS FOR CLOSEOUT. BHA
Response: Notes have been updated on plans.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/07/2022
01/07/2022: FOR APPROVAL: LANDSCAPE PLAN: Replace Tree Protection
Note #9 with the following text:
“NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTING
SEASON (FEBRUARY 1 TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A
PROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST OR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE A
NESTING SURVEY TO IDENTIFY ANY ACTIVE NESTS EXISTING ON THE
PROJECT SITE. THE SURVEY SHALL BE SENT TO THE CITY
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND, THE CITY
WILL COORDINATE WITH RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERAL
REPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL
RESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION APPLY.” BHA
Response: Notes have been updated on plans.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/07/2022
01/07/2022: FOR APPROVAL: If NHBZs remain in Phase G and/or the
Irrigation Pond, please provide all necessary information to ensure no light
spillage into the NHBZs (B-U-G rating, photometric plans, etc.). Exterior lighting
requirements can be found in LUC 3.2.4. BHA, MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: The No. 8 ditch is proposed to be piped from Mountain Vista to County Club road. The
ditch owner has indicated that any open portion of the ditch cannot be utilized as an amenity or
natural feature, which is the key driver behind piping. The only NHBZ in Phase G was a 50’ buffer
zone from the irrigation ditch, so we assume this NHBZ would no longer apply for the planned
underground piped sections. We do not have any lighting planned for areas within the 50’ buffer
zone of remaining open ditch areas.
Department: Forestry
Contents of Round 2 Submittal
Our design team has been working together with City departments over the last 4 months to work
through many of the key coordination topics from our Round 1 BDR submittal. Although there are
still a few unresolved issues (such as the final design for Timberline Road), we are resubmitting
Phase G plans to you to share details of how we are addressing the majority of the comments.
Since this is an unusually large BDR, we began with roughly 30% level plans (instead of submitting
Final Plans as allowed by a BDR). We are now at roughly 60% plan level for Phase G. We feel it
will be valuable for us to receive feedback and for you to see the progress.
So, the current resubmittal includes Phase G plans and plat, and the plans for the offsite irrigation
pond only. This submittal does not include the public infrastructure plans for Timberline and
39
Mountain Vista since the Timberline design is still under discussion. These plans will be submitted
with Round 3 at a final design level as per our discussions with Planning and Engineering staff.
Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, mroche@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
1/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Please include and label locations of utilities on the landscape plan including
but not limited to water service/mains, sewer service/mains, gas, electric,
streetlights, and stop signs. Please adjust tree locations to provide for proper
tree/utility separation.
Street Light/Tree Separation:
Canopy shade tree: 40 feet
Ornamental tree: 15 feet
Stop Sign/Tree Separation:
Based on feedback from Traffic Operations, it is preferred that trees be planted
at least 50 feet from the nearest stop sign in order to minimize conflicts with
regulatory traffic signs.
Driveway/Tree Separation:
At least 8 feet from edges of driveways and alleys.
Utility/Tree Separation:
10’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines
6’ between trees and water or sewer service lines
4’ between trees and gas lines
10’ between trees and electric vaults BHA
Response: Understood, and these separations will be included in final plans.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
1/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Please label tree species with their species abbreviation and update the plant
list accordingly. Please include species diversity percentages for review.
Standard LUC standard for Tree Species Diversity states that in order to
prevent 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 reached the maximum percentage of
the following species. Ash (Fraxinus), Honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthose:
40
‘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.
BHA
Response: We have moved in level of detail from roughly 30% design to 60% design with this
resubmittal. We have refined and updated the plant lists and civic space types but do not yet have
final landscape plans with individual plants indicated. We will include this information with the final
level design plans in the next submittal. But in the meantime we have removed the above species
from our preliminary plant list.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
1/11/22: INFORMATION ONLY
Per Land Use Code 3.2.1.(D)(c), canopy shade trees shall constitute at least 50
percent of all tree plantings. BHA
Response: Understood. We believe we’ll comply with this requirement with our final plans.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
1/11/22: INFORMATION ONLY
Please adhere to the updated LUCASS standards and include proper parkway
widths. BHA, MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: We are adhering to the LUCASS standards and variances adopted with the PUD.
Department: Park Planning
Contents of Round 2 Submittal
Our design team has been working together with City departments over the last 4 months to work
through many of the key coordination topics from our Round 1 BDR submittal. Although there are
still a few unresolved issues (such as the final design for Timberline Road), we are resubmitting
Phase G plans to you to share details of how we are addressing the majority of the comments.
Since this is an unusually large BDR, we began with roughly 30% level plans (instead of submitting
Final Plans as allowed by a BDR). We are now at roughly 60% plan level for Phase G. We feel it
will be valuable for us to receive feedback and for you to see the progress.
So, the current resubmittal includes Phase G plans and plat, and the plans for the offsite irrigation
pond only. This submittal does not include the public infrastructure plans for Timberline and
Mountain Vista since the Timberline design is still under discussion. These plans will be submitted
with Round 3 at a final design level as per our discussions with Planning and Engineering staff.
Contact: Aaron Wagner, aawagner@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2022
01/10/2022: FOR INFORMATION
Parks Department Planning staff can help with any questions you may have
regarding these comments. Please contact Jill Wuertz (jwuertz@fcgov.com),
970-416-2062, or Parks Planning Technician, Aaron Wagner
(aawagner@fcgov.com) 970-682-0344, 413 S. Bryan Ave, Fort Collins, CO
80521 regarding the Parks’ Department’s interest.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/10/2022
01/10/2022: FOR APPROVAL
41
Please clarify if the roundabout(s), streetscape, underpasses, medians, and
other ROW improvements will be publicly or privately maintained. Parks needs
a good understanding of areas that we will be taking over for budgeting
purposes. BHA, HF2M, DPZ
Response: The intent at this time is to comply with CFC standard procedures for landscape
maintenance, with only medians/roundabouts for arterial roads (Mountain Vista, a portion of
Timberline Road) and the Regional Trail being maintained by the City, with all other streetscapes
being privately maintained. Since we will have a Metro District we are open to further discussions
on maintenance as appropriate. Since the Timberline and infrastructure plans will be included in
more detail with the next review round we’ll plan to coordinate with you on public/private
maintenance of specific areas as those plans are developed.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/10/2022
01/10/2022: FOR APPROVAL
Please clarify how the trail system, ditch system, future park, PSD school needs
and irrigation pond all fit together. Additionally, we need to see how the trail,
ditch, roundabout and all the pedestrian networks will fit together. BHA, MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: As the Timberline Road designs are finalized, we will provide updates on the planned
bike and pedestrian system. We have indicated those planned connections in the Phase G plans
based on our coordination with city staff. We have a parks trail charrette in the next few weeks to
continue the more detailed broader discussion of the trail system. The irrigation system is outlined
in the response which includes irrigation for everything west of Giddings road (see response to
Planning Comments/Irrigation Pond on page 7) This includes the Parks and the PSD elementary
school. The bike/pedestrian network continues to be further refined with city input and Timberline
designs will be submitted along with Phase E in the near future.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/10/2022
01/10/2022: FOR APPROVAL
Please refer to the 2013 Streetscape Standards for landscape requirements for
streetscapes, medians and other publicly maintained areas. Please coordinate
with the Parks and PP&D on these areas. Additional review or coordination
may be required for areas that Parks will be taking over for maintenance.
https://www.fcgov.com/planning/pdf/streetscape-doc.pdf? BHA, MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: As noted above, the current resubmittal includes Phase G areas only. We will be
providing updated plans for Timberline Road and other public infrastructure areas with the next
more final round of review as those plans are still being developed. Our intent is to meet the 2013
Streetscape Standards for any publicly maintained areas.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/10/2022
01/10/2022: FOR APPROVAL
Pond Issues:
1. Please clarify how the water quality be addressed for the multiple entities that
will have a stake in the irrigation pond? HF2M, DPZ, HINES, TST
Response: Water quality will be managed by utilizing a combination of water blending & distribution
treatment. This will provide substantially improved water quality over existing landscapes in the
area that use the groundwater directly for many years. The overall design approach is using 100%
WSSC water when the ditch is in operation and well water in the shoulder seasons. See additional
responses to Irrigation Pond comments. See additional detail in responses to Planning and
Environmental Planning comments above.
42
2. Please clarify how water volumes will be accommodated for the multiple
entities that will be relying on the irrigation pond. Parks needs to keep the run
time in mind as this is a WSSC share and will require us to fill the pond at
intervals for use. How will Parks water needs be balanced with the needs of the
other water users? HF2M, DPZ, HINES, TST
Response: While final pond volumes, watering windows and peak volumes need to be confirmed,
initial irrigation water planning indicates that a peak of TOTAL irrigation water use, which includes
peak park demand, is located within the top 12-inches of the pond. Daily refill from wells and
surface flows will ensure pond drawdown is managed. Our detailed irrigation plans have been
submitted with this response.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/10/2022
01/10/2022: FOR APPROVAL
Parks needs further detail. Is the pond shown on the plans sized for a
partnership with the city? Please clarify the intent of the pond, is it sized with the
city partnership in mind or are you contingent upon the city for moving forward? HF2M, DPZ, HINES, TST
Response: Yes, the intent remains the same - to develop a shared irrigation pond that would be
sized to provide water for portions of Montava, the future elementary school site and the future
Community Park and it is currently sized to manage all the above. The operational plan being
submitted is also designed to manage the irrigation needs of Montava, Montava’s parks, City Park,
and PSD.
Contact: Kyle Lambrecht, 970-221-6566, klambrecht@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: The Park Planning & Development Department is
available to discuss the following comments in more detail. Please contact Kyle
Lambrecht, PE at 970-416-4340, klambrecht@fcgov.com.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Section
3.4.8 “Parks and Trails” addresses compliance with the 2021 Parks and
Recreation Master Plan (“Master Plan”). The Master Plan indicates the general
location of all parks and regional recreational trails. Parcels adjacent to or
including facilities indicated in the Master Plan may be required to provide area
for development of these facilities. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan is
available at https://www.fcgov.com/parksandrecplan/.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: The 2013 Paved Recreational Trail Master Plan
(“Trail Master Plan”) was adopted by City Council and provides conceptual
locations and general trail design guidelines for future regional recreational
trails. The Trail Master Plan is available at
https://www.fcgov.com/parkplanning/plans and policies.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: City of Fort Collins Ordinance Number 014, 2020
approved the Montava PUD Master Plan and Montava PUD Overlay. This
document shall provide guidance on the general improvements for both parks
and trails located within the planned Montava development unless otherwise.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
43
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards
(“LCUASS”), Chapter 16 Pedestrian Facilities and Chapter 17 Bicycle
Facilities provide additional design guidelines for multi use recreational trails.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: Grade separated crossings of arterial roadways
and major collectors are required (LCUASS Chapter 17.3) and provide safe
trail connectivity. Additional easement area for underpass/overpass
approaches may be required in locations of potential grade separated
crossings for the trail. Location and responsibilities of the grade separations
have been preliminarily defined in the Montava PUD Master Plan.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: Local street at grade intersections with a
recreational trail are to be avoided. When necessary, the location of a future
recreational trail at-grade crossing must be coordinated with both Park
Planning and Development and Traffic Operations.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: Park Planning and Development must approve the
trail alignment and design. Recreational trails do not function as widened
sidewalks adjacent or within street rights-of-way.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: The City is interested in continuing discussions
on a shared non-potable irrigation system. If available, can you share current
water quality data for the proposed non-potable irrigation system? HF2M, DPZ, HINES, TST
Response: The system is being designed to create the highest water quality possibly by using
100% WSSC when it is available and the groundwater only in the shoulder seasons. Montava is
also designing the integration of the Aqua4D water treatment system into our overall operations
to provide an additional layer of water quality improvement. This is not a substitute for using
WSSC when available, it is only meant to provide an extra layer of water quality improvement for
the ground water when WSSC is not available.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: The City would also like to discuss the
availability of water, when the water can be accessed, and general operations
of the pond to better understand the proposed system. HF2M, DPZ, HINES, TST
Response: This plan has been submitted. The intention is to enable the city and PSD to have
their own pump facilities in a shared pump station. We will create a master irrigation system IGA
between the parties to detail the operations of the pond to serve everyone’s needs.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Please clarify the intent of the taps on sheet 4 of
7. Will these be potable ELCO Taps? HF2M, HINES, TST
Response: Taps shown are non-potable taps from the irrigation pond
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: The City feels a feasibility study for the three
options proposed for the irrigation pond would be beneficial for both the
applicant and the City. Please complete a high level study on the economics of
water sharing, maintenance, and water quality issues as a part of the feasibility
44
study(ies). The following options have been discussed: 1. Shared
system/partnership between Montava and the City, 2.) Montava serving as a
water provider, and 3.) Two separate systems. HF2M, HINES, TST
Response: Discussions are ongoing and an overall and pond specific report are a part of this
submittal for review. If after this round of review a feasiblity study is still required, we can pull that
together
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Per the project narrative, the irrigation pond has
been sized to serve irrigation needs for Montava, the future 80 Acre, City of Fort
Collins Community Park, and a future Poudre School District elementary school
site. If the pond ultimately only serves the Montava development, will the overall
footprint/location of the pond change? The City is interested in additional
discussions with the Applicant to better understand when a non-potable
irrigation water agreement must be finalized and how this relates to the
Applicant’s development schedule. HF2M, HINES, TST
Response: If this pond only serves the Montava development the location and sizing would likely
stay the same as shown.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Thank you for providing the water demand table
on page 3 of the Utility Plans for the Non-potable Irrigation System. Per the
water demand table, the size of the community park is defined as 77.01 acres.
The Montava PUD Master Plan identifies the size of the future Community Park
as roughly 80 acres. Please provide clarification or an exhibit which defines the
ultimate size of the Community Park, the role the pond plays in the park’s total
acreage, and if roadway frontage is included in the total acreage calculation. HF2M, HINES, TST
Response: The size as shown on page 3 is estimated at 77 ac for the areas west of Timberline and
south of Country Club Road. Ultimately the park size will be 80 ac or greater once land ownership
in and around the non-potable facility on the east side of County Club is determined.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Please provide the location of the non-potable
water pump house, mainline, and other major distribution infrastructure. This
includes stub outs for future expansion, metering systems, flow measuring
systems, and other safety systems to ensure the integrity of the system. HF2M, MATT, HINES, TST
Response: This information is shown on the overall sheets from Hines and Utility Plans from TST
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR HEARING: Please continue to coordinate with the City to
determine the long-term ownership of the pond and its infrastructure. HF2M, HINES, TST
Response: We look forward to continuing these discussions with the city.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: Until the future Community Park site is owned by
the City, the landowner is responsible for all maintenance of this parcel. HF2M
Response: Understood
45
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Thank you for including a preliminary layout of
the trail underpass at the Mountain Vista/Timberline Road intersection in the
infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans. This is an important crossing for the
regional trail. Please plan to develop a trail plan and centerline profile design
for this section of the regional trail as segments of the trail will need to be
constructed with this intersection. This shall include engineering design for the
underpass. Plans must indicate that the final grade within the easement can
provide a trail alignment that meets the American Disabilities Act (ADA)
standards for cross slopes between 1 and 2% and a maximum centerline profile
grade of 5%. Trail cross sections shall also be developed and included with
the plan and profile design. BHA, MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: As our discussions have continued, our goal remains to create a pedestrian/bicycle
prioritized design. As the Timberline Road designs are finalized, we will provide updates on these
details.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: Thank you for providing the geotechnical report for
the Phase G area as part of this submittal. Groundwater levels appear to be
roughly 24’ to 29’ below existing grade in the general vicinity of the trail
underpass. As final engineering plans for the underpass are developed, please
plan to coordinate with the City on means to mitigate groundwater infiltration (if
applicable) and stormwater runoff into the underpass. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Understood, and we plan to submit updated infrastructure plans with our next round of
review as discussed
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: As there are improvements being discussed
and proposed that are departures from the improvements defined in the PUD,
can you develop and provide a high-level exhibit that demonstrates the
interactions between the regional trail, the Community Park, proposed
roundabouts (Mountain Vista/Timberline, Mountain Vista/Turnberry, Country
Club/Timberline), and other multimodal improvements? The City would like to
use this exhibit to further discuss connectivity for the Montava Development
understanding the Applicant’s and City’s goals for a safe and connected
multimodal network for this development. BHA, MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: As our discussions have continued, our goal remains to create a pedestrian/bicycle
prioritized design. As the Timberline Road designs are finalized, we will provide updates on these
details and the overall system.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: If the site is indicated for a future park or regional
recreational trail the plat must dedicate a tract as a “Future City Park Site”
and/or a recreational trail “Public Access and Trail Easement”. Easements
associated with the regional trail and Community Park may be associated with
future phases of the project. Thank you for identifying Tracts C, D, and E as trail
easements as this space may be used to provide connectivity from the
Mountain Vista/Turnberry intersection to the Mountain Vista/Timberline
intersection. MM
Response: Understood. As public access and trail designs further progress, we will continue to
coordinate with the city and add the applicable easements to the plat.
46
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: The Public Access and Trail easement width is
typically 50’ unless additional space is necessary to accommodate grade
separations or approved otherwise. The location of the easement must be
approved by Park Planning & Development and shown on the plat. BHA, MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Comment noted and we will continue to coordinate with you regarding public access
and trail easements as locations are further defined.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: A trail easement may not be located within a ditch
easement unless the applicant provides written approval for the trail easement
within the ditch easement from the ditch company. The paved trail surface
cannot function as a ditch access road if heavy equipment will use or cross the
trail to maintain the ditch. BHA, MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Comment noted. The No. 8 Ditch plans are included in the roadway infrastructure set to
be submitted at a later date. Further coordination will be required with LWIC and Parks as to the
required dual function of the trail for maintenance access.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: Grading within the designated recreational trail
easement is required to occur during overall site grading. The City’s Park
Planning and Development and Parks teams are interested in participating in
discussions related to the timing of construction of the frontage and intersection
improvements for Mountain Vista and Timberline Roads. BHA, MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: We agree and would like to continue discussions on planning out the improvements
together.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: The City is responsible for the long-term
maintenance of the regional trail within the development. Maintenance consists
of snowplowing of the paved surface, occasional seasonal mowing 2-3’
adjacent to the trail surface, repairing/replacing surface damage of the trail, and
all other landscaping maintenance within the easement.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: Landscaping within the trail easement shall be
provided in accordance with all applicable City codes and will remain the
responsibility of the underlying landowner. Landscaping must provide
acceptable clearances from the trail surfaces as specified in the Trail Master
Plan. Spray irrigation, if required, shall be designed and maintained to avoid
over spraying onto the trail. BHA, MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Understood. As the Timberline Road designs are finalized, we will provide updates on
these details with the next submittal round.
Department: PFA
Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2869, marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/03/2022
47
01/03/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
The townhomes on Block 2, Lots 6-10 do not meet perimeter access
requirements. If alley 20 increases the minimum width to 20 feet, access would
be achieved. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Access has been modified.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/03/2022
01/03/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Alley 12 and 14 are longer than 150 feet and will require an approved
turnaround. The intermediate alley could be used if widened to the minimum 20
foot width. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: The intermediate alley has been widened.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/03/2022
01/03/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of
25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. Most all corners do not meet this
requirement and provided autoturn exhibit shows overhang outside of the
corners. In order to meet the requirement, the corners must meet the required
dimensions or provide an autoturn exhibit with no overhang into areas with
obstructions. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: As discussed in the detail coordination meeting Autoturn exhibits will be provided for all
fire emergency access roadways and alleys.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/03/2022
01/03/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
The plat only shows the EAE in the notes. Please indicate all EAE areas on all
sheets. MM
Tract use designation has been added to all labels. “Emergency” can be added to all tract labels
and will be shown with subsequent plat submittal.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/03/2022
01/03/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
The proposed Landscape Plan indicates the possibility of tree canopy
diameters that may encroach on the fire lane over time. PFA would like to
ensure the integrity of the EAE remains intact as trees mature and a canopy
develops. The EAE shall be maintained unobstructed to 14' in height. This
comment is aimed at preserving both trees and fire apparatus. Please be
mindful when selecting tree species. BHA, MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Understood and we’ve discussed with PFA especially for the Timberline frontage. Final
tree species selection will be submitted later with final plans.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/04/2022
01/04/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Where possible, the naming of private drives is usually recommended to aid in
wayfinding. Addresses shall be posted on each structure and where otherwise
needed to aid in wayfinding. Code language provided below.
- IFC 505.1: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers,
48
building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is
plainly legible, visible from the street or road fronting the property, and posted
with a minimum of eight-inch numerals on a contrasting background. Where
access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from
the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to
identify the structure and best route.
IFC 505.1.8: Address shall be clearly visible on approach from any street, drive
or fire lane that accesses the site. Buildings that are addressed on one street,
but are accessible from other streets, shall have address numbers on the side
of the building fronting the roadway from which it is addressed. Buildings that
are addressed on one street, but are accessible from other drives or roads,
shall have the address numbers AND STREET NAME on each side that is
accessible from another drive or road. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/04/2022
01/04/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN
Fire lane signage will be required in any private streets or alleys that are to be
used as fire access. Public roads shall have fire lane signage in any areas that
parking would obstruct a fire lane. Fire lane sign locations should be indicated
on future plan sets. Refer to LCUASS detail #1418 & #1419 for sign type,
placement, and spacing. Appropriate directional arrows required on all signs.
Posting of additional fire lane signage may be determined at time of fire
inspection. Code language provided below.
- IFC D103.6: Where required by the fire code official, fire apparatus access
roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING - FIRE LANE signs
complying with Figure D103.6. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12
inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective
background. Signs shall be posted on one or both sides of the fire apparatus
road as required by Section D103.6.1 or D103.6.2. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/04/2022
01/04/2022: FOR HEARING
Please provide an overall hydrant plan.
Hydrants are required to provide 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure,
spaced not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter
as measured along approved emergency access routes.
The hydrants located in the alleys used as access roads will require the alley to
be at least 26 feet wide as part of IFC D103.1
Hydrants will also need to be installed along Timberline Rd. and Mountain Vista
as part of this phase or future phases. MM
Response: All fire hydrant locations are shown in the water utiltiy plans. An overall hydrant plan
is in progress and can be submitted ahead of the 3rd submittal for additional coordination and
feedback.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/05/2022
49
01/05/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
All alleys and private drives used as fire access shall be capable of supporting
80,000 lbs. Please add a note to the civil plans indicating the loading. MM
Response: Note has been added to the notes section.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/05/2022
01/05/2022: For APPROVAL:
The limits of the fire lane shall be fully defined. Fire lane sign locations should be
indicated on future plan sets. Refer to LCUASS detail #1418 & #1419 for sign
type, placement, and spacing. Appropriate directional arrows required on all
signs. Posting of additional fire lane signage may be determined at time of fire
inspection. Code language provided below.
- IFC D103.6: Where required by the fire code official, fire apparatus access
roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING - FIRE LANE signs
complying with Figure D103.6. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12
inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective
background. Signs shall be posted on one or both sides of the fire apparatus
road as required by Section D103.6.1 or D103.6.2. MM, HF2M, DPZ
Response: Noted.
Department: Building Services
Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/28/2021
12/28/2021: A permit is required for this project and construction shall comply
with adopted codes as amended. Current adopted codes are:
2018 International Residential Code (IRC) with local amendments
2018 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado
2020 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado
Copies of current City of Fort Collins code amendments can be found at
fcgov.com/building.
Important: Fort Collins will be adopting the new 2021 Building Codes in mid
march of 2022.
Please read the residential permit application submittal checklist for complete
requirements.
Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF.
Frost Depth: 30 inches.
Wind Loads: Risk Category II (most structures):
· 140mph (Ultimate) exposure B or
· Front Range Gust Map published by The Structural Engineer's Association of
Seismic Design: Category B.
Climate Zone: Zone 5
Energy Code: 2018 IRC chapter 11.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
· 5ft setback required from property line or provide fire rated walls & openings
for non-fire sprinkled houses per chap 3 of the IRC. 3ft setback is required for
50
fire sprinkled houses.
· Bedroom egress windows (emergency escape openings) required in all
bedrooms.
· Prescriptive energy compliance with increased insulation values is required for
buildings using electric heat.
· A passing building air tightness (blower door) test is required for certificate of
occupancy.
Stock Plans:
When the same residential buildings will be built at least three times, a stock
plan design or master plan can be submitted for a single review and then built
multiple times with site specific permits. More information can be found in our
Stock Plan Guide at fcgov.com/building/res-requirements.php. HF2M, DPZ
Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/28/2021
12/28/2021: Construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended.
Current adopted codes are:
2018 International Building Code (IBC) with local amendments
2018 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) with local amendments
2018 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) with local amendments
2018 International Mechanical Code (IMC) with local amendments
2018 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) with local amendments
2018 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC) with local
amendments
2018 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado
2020 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado
Copies of current City of Fort Collins code amendments can be found at
fcgov.com/building.
Important: Fort Collins will be adopting the new 2021 Building Codes in March
2022.
Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2017.
Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF.
Frost Depth: 30 inches.
Wind Loads: Risk Category II (most structures):
· 140mph (Ultimate) exposure B or
· Front Range Gust Map published by The Structural Engineer's Association of
Seismic Design: Category B.
Climate Zone: Zone 5
Energy Code:
· Multi-family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2018 IECC residential chapter.
· Commercial and Multi-family 4 stories and taller: 2018 IECC commercial chapter.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
· 10% of all parking spaces must be EV ready (conduit in place)
· This building is located within 250ft of a 4 lane road or 1000 ft of an active
railway, must provide exterior composite sound transmission of 39 STC min.
· R-2 occupancies must provide 10ft setback from property line and 20 feet
51
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).
· Bedroom egress windows required below 4th floor regardless of fire-sprinkler.
All egress windows above the 1st floor require minimum sill height of 24”.
· Prescriptive energy compliance with increased insulation values is required for
buildings using electric heat.
· A City licensed commercial general contractor is required to construct any new
multi-family structure.
Stock Plans:
When residential buildings will be built at least three times with limited
variations, a stock plan design or master plan can be submitted for a single
review and then built multiple times with site specific permits. More information
can be found in our Stock Plan Guide at
fcgov.com/building/res-requirements.php.
Building Permit Pre-Submittal Meeting:
Please schedule a pre-submittal meeting with Building Services for this project.
Pre-Submittal meetings assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the
design, that the new projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted
City codes and Standards listed above. The proposed project should be in the
early to mid-design stage for this meeting to be effective. Applicants of new
projects should email rhovland@fcgov.com to schedule a pre-submittal
meeting. HF2M, DPZ
Response: Noted.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
NON-POT PUMP STATION: Please provide the following information for the
Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown below.
PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL
52
DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29
UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) FOR
THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS.
IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DATUM) IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION
SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF
FORT COLLINS DATUM) = NAVD88 DATUM - X.XX’. TST
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: Please provide the following
information for the Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown below.
PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL
DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29
UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) FOR
THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS.
IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DATUM) IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION
SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF
FORT COLLINS DATUM) = NAVD88 DATUM - X.XX’. MM
Response: Benchmark updated to exact format provided above.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: There is missing data on sheet
R1.2.
Response: Data updated.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: There are text over text issues.
See redlines.
Response: Text overlap fixed.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: There is text that needs to be
masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines.
Response: All text masked in profile.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
53
PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: There are line over text issues.
See redlines.
Response: Text overlap fixed.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/12/2022
01/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: Please provide the following information for the
Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown below.
PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL
DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29
UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) FOR
THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS.
IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DATUM) IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION
SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF
FORT COLLINS DATUM) = NAVD88 DATUM - X.XX’. MM
Response: Benchmark updated to exact format provided above.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/12/2022
01/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There is missing data on sheets C1.2 & C1.4.
Response: Data updated.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/12/2022
01/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: Please adjust text size, so that text will fit in
symbols. See redlines.
Response: Text size updated.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/12/2022
01/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: Please mask all text in profiles. See redlines.
masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines.
Response: All text masked in profiles.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/12/2022
01/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines.
Response: Text overlap fixed.
54
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/12/2022
01/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There are line over text issues. See redlines. MM
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/12/2022
Response: Text overlap fixed.
01/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There are blank Pond sheets. See redlines.
Response: Pond sheets have been updated and are no longer blank.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are line over text issues. See redlines. BHA
Response: Line over text issues have been corrected and we’ll continue to update with final plans
in subsequent submittals.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See
redlines. BHA
Response: Text areas have been masked and we’ll continue to update with final plans in subsequent
submittals.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are text over text issues. See redlines. BHA
Response: Text over text issues have been corrected and we’ll continue to update with final plans in
subsequent submittals.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree
with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not
made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response
letter. If you have any specific questions about the redlines, please contact John
Von Nieda at 970-221-6565 or jvonnieda@fcgov.com
masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines.
Response: Plat updated per City Comments. Additional updates will be provided within
subsequent submittal of the plat document per city comments as additional information is
obtained such as: Ownership signatures blocks, updated title work, reception numbers for
easements by separate document, tract table updates, existing easements annotations.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please correct the development names as marked. See redlines. BHA
Response: Names have been corrected.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
55
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are line over text issues. See redlines. BHA
Response: Line over text issues have been corrected and we’ll continue to update with final plans
in subsequent submittals.
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Ryan Donovan, Lawrence Custer Grasmick Jones & Donovan, LLP,
970-622-8181,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: Attached is a letter on behalf of our clients, the Larimer and Weld
Irrigation Company, the Larimer and Weld Reservoir Company, and WRCC,
Inc. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments, particularly related to
the No. 8 Ditch. Please reach out with any questions.
Response: We have been working with the Ditch Company (Company) to resolve challenges with
the #8 ditch for 4 years. It is very important to us that we are a good partner with the ditch
company, and everything we have planned and put forward during this time has been based on
communication and feedback from the Company management. While this management has
changed over time, their commitment to working with us has continued. In our last submittal we
did not do a great job communicating with them about the location of piped resolution of the ditch
and we have since remedied that concern which is before them for review.
We continue to communicate actively with the Company and we are 100% committed to continuing
that. We want to be their partner as we both work to resolve the challenge of fully maintaining and
actually improving the functionality of the #8 for many generations to come, while resolving its
passage through a populated area. We have good solutions identified and continue to work on
them with the Company.
Contact: Sarah Brucker, 303-866-3581, sarah.brucker@state.co.us,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: See attached comments from the Colorado Division of Water
Resources.
Response: Documentation of compliance with CRS 37-92-602(8) has been provided with the
Final Drainage report for each stormwater detention facility within Phase G of Montana as well as
the Park property north of Phase G.
The compliance documentation will be uploaded to the Colorado Stormwater Detention and
Infiltration Facility Notification Portal per City of Fort Collins protocols.