Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMONTAVA - PHASE G & IRRIGATION POND - BDR210013 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - 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 June 03, 2022 August 24, 2022 Angela Milewski BHA Design Inc. 111 S. Meldrum #110 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Montava - Phase G and Irrigation Pond, BDR210013, Round Number 2 Response to Comments 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 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 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 Comments in Grey were shared for information only, or were answered in the previous round, so no response is provided 2 correspondence with other reviewers and keep me informed of any phone conversations. Thank you! Comment Number: 2 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 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 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 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 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 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 3 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 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 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 (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. Previous response: Understood. Comment Number: 9 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. Previous response: Understood. Comment Number: 10 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. Previous response: Understood. Comment Number: 11 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. Previous response: Understood. 4 Department: Planning Services Contact: Jenny Axmacher, jaxmacher@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 05/25/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Please include a note on the site plan that states ADU's are permitted in this phase subject to Section 5.9 of Montava Uses, Densities, and Development Standards (MUDDS) and require a Type 1 review. ADUs also require additional parking calculations. Response: Note has been added to the Site Plan. 01/11/2022 : 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. Previous response: (BHA) 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. The note above has been added to the Site Plan. Comment Number: 4 05/25/2022 FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UNRESOLVED: Staff is envisioning this information to be included all together in a table summary on one of the initial sheets in the site plan set and provide information on all transects included in the phase. Staff is happy to have further discussions to help address this item. Response: (BHA) A summary table has been added to the Site Plans. 01/11/2022 : 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. Previous 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 05/25/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Please include more details on this calculation on the cover sheet, including the number of dwelling units. Do not include the future multifamily phase in the calculation. If you wish, you can include a separate calculation for future density at build out. The minimum density must be met in each application. Response: (BHA) Additional details have been provided with the Site Plans. 01/11/2022 : 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. Previous response: Net density for Phase G has been indicated on Site Plan Cover Sheet. Comment Number: 8 5 05/25/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Based on Staff's review, while much of Article 3 was replaced by MUDDS, section 3.5.D, appears to still be applicable. Let's discuss further to clarify what is and is not applicable. Please provide dimensions on the site plan, or another exhibit, that illustrates compliance with this standard, if applicable. Response: We have included a diagram indicating maximum distances to nearest street sidewalks and locations of address signs on the Site Plans. 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. Previous response: 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. Comment Number: 9 05/25/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Please update the setback label in the legend to state MINIMUM SETBACK. Response: The legend has been updated with this notation. 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? Previous 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 05/25/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Please note somehow on the plan set that the minimum setbacks are shown inclusive of easements to eliminate confusion. Response: This note has been added. 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. Previous response: (DPZ) The PUD standards state a minimum rear setback which is 0ft or 15ft from the alley centerline, whichever is greater. Because we have a number of properties serviced by alley utilities, the rear setback varies. In some places there is just the 15ft from alley centerline setback. In some places there are 2 story buildings which have alley utility service but a smaller fire lane. In others there are three story buildings which require alley aerial fire access and therefore different rear setbacks. So there is variation, however, all are consistent with the minimum setback requirements in the MUDDS. Comment Number: 12 05/26/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UNRESOLVED: Response: We do not interpret the access between a garage and alley as a driveway if it is 6 less than 20ft in length. A note has been added to the Site Plan indicating 12’ maximum except in these conditions where wider drive areas are needed to accommodate vehicle turning. 01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Add note that the maximum driveway width is 12’ unless the driveway is providing access to more than 4 units. Comment Number: 18 01/11/2022: INFORMATION ONLY: Consider opportunities for public art in roundabouts and other landscape areas. Previous 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: 20 01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Provide a design detail, including materials, for the “soft trail connections” and other items such as seating areas, playgrounds, etc. Response: (BHA) More detail has now been provided with the final level plans. Comment Number: 21 01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please include species diversification calculations and include minimum tree size specifications on the next submittal. Response: (BHA) This information has been added to the plant list now with the final level plans. Comment Number: 22 05/31/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Discussions regarding model approval are on-going. Additional details, including building materials and color schemes will be needed for final approval of the single family attached product. Response: The PUD MUDDS outlines very detailed architectural requirements and replaces this requirement from the Land Use Code. However, to help illustrate the planned architectural character we have included concept elevations for all housing types in the submittal plans. 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 review can be completed. Previous 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. 7 Comment Number: 23 05/31/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Include dimensions to show how the typical designs comply with frontage yard requirements in MUDDS 5.8.3 and 5.8.4 or provide a note stating the requirement and that the requirement will be met at the time of building permit. Response: Summary table for MUDDS has been added to aid with building permit review. 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. Previous 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 05/31/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Discussions regarding model approval are on-going. Response: See previous response below. In addition, we will provide an approval letter from the Montava Design Review entity with each building permit application. 01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: How will housing model variation be achieved as described in MUDDS 5.13.7? Previous 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: 27 05/26/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UNRESOLVED: 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 exchanged with PSD. Both AB and PSD are well aware of the platting work going on now and letters of intent indicting such can be provided to the City is required. To clarify, the irrigation will not be located on current PSD land, it is going on land currently owned by AB, but that will be purchased by applicant before any construction. We are aware of the need to have the current landowners executing the final approved plan set. 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 8 letter of intent from the school district. The property owner will need to sign the final, approved plan set. Comment Number: 29 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. Previous 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. Comment Number: 30 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. Response: We don’t want to fence the pond, we instead have low walls designed along the pond edge for safety. Comment Number: 36 05/25/2022: OVERALL OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT - FOR INFORMATION: A Neighborhood meeting is not required for this submittal, but community engagement is recommended as part of the review process. Outreach should seek to understand potential impacts to existing residents of the area, inform the broader community, and engage with potential future residents. City staff coordinates closely with applicants on public engagement efforts, and will provide support to notify community members, facilitate inclusive participation, and promote transparency. The Neighborhood Development Liaison is available for consultation on engagement in the development review Process. Response: We agree and are willing to provide materials for website updates or host/assist in an open house if preferred. We’ll work with you to support the City’s public engagement plan for the project. Comment Number: 37 05/25/2022: OVERALL OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT - FOR INFORMATION: For the proposed phase, staff recommends hosting (1) a virtual project update with general Q&A and (2) at least one targeted event with the immediately adjacent neighborhoods (Maple Hill and Storybook in particular). At this time, Neighborhood Services continues to recommend virtual events to prevent transmission of COVID 19. These events would not be required prior to submittal, but should occur prior to the next round of submittal. Mailed notice 9 would be required two weeks in advance of any neighborhood meeting or event. Response: We’ve continued our design and submittal, but now that key design issues are better clarified (direction from ditch company on extent of piping No. 8 canal, more specific design and studies supporting the bicycle-priority design of Timberline Road) we agree that a virtual project update and a neighborhood event would be beneficial. We will work with Planning and Neighborhood Services to organize these updates. Comment Number: 38 05/25/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Once this submittal is at final plan level, or 100% drawings it must comply with the City's Development Review Submittal Requirements found here https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/dev-review-submittal-requirements_v3-3-31 -2021.pdf?1641507328 and the City's Electronic Submittal Requirements found here: https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/electronic-submittal-requirements-and-file- naming-standards_v1_8-1-19.pdf?1641507328. The plans currently do not comply. Response: We have provided additional detail now with the final level and believe we comply with these requirements. Comment Number: 39 05/25/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The will serve letter from ELCO for this project is expired. A new letter will be required prior to building permit approval. Response: This has been requested and ELCO has responded that they will provide a new letter. We will forward this to the City as soon as received. Comment Number: 40 05/25/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - IRRIGATION POND: Include architectural details of the pump house and water treatment facility. Include a narrative describing any noise or waste that will be generated by the treatment system and how these, and any other externalities, will be addressed. Additional screening of these items from adjacent development could be required. Response: We are no longer proposing a centralized AQUA 4D unit, so a separate narrative regarding this system is not included. The architectural design will need to comply with the MUDDS standards with approval by the Montava Design Review entity prior to application for building permit. Comment Number: 41 05/25/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The lot typicals get grainy when you zoom in, making it difficult to read the dimensions. Please provide a higher resolution drawing. Please provide a legend for the lot typicals describing what each of the colors on the typical represent. Is grey building? yes Is light grey, uncovered parking? Yes, driveways/parking What does the cream color represent? Likely walkways and patio spaces Is fencing shown? Yes, shown and labelled now Response: We have added labels to the lot typical site plans to better clarify. Comment Number: 42 05/25/2022: FOR INFORMATION: Maintain 5’ side setback to avoid additional fire rating or sprinkler requirements for single family detached product. 10 Response: The lot typical plans now indicate these minimum setbacks. Comment Number: 43 05/31/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - IRRIGATION POND: Could the pond be constructed in phases to correspond to water availability and water need as development comes online? Response: No, this is not feasible and the plan is to construct the entire pond initially. Provide written confirmation from WSSC that WSSC shares can be used as proposed. Response: We have included a copy of the agreement with WSSC. Provide a copy of an agreement with the Baker Lateral for use of the lateral as described in the design memo. Response: After further analysis, it has been determined that the Baker Lateral is not adequate to serve the Montava needs nor those of the future FC Community Park. We are pursuing other alternatives and will share these with the City when complete. Provide written confirmation from NPIC that the NPIC shares can be uses as proposed. Response: We are not proposing to use NPIC shares for this pond. Provide documentation on the ownership of the various wells and whether the applicant has agreements in place to acquire ownership of any of the wells. Response: All well rights are transferring with the property. Here is a link to the well documentation information: HFM Well Research.zip Describe how the ponds would work if use of the Baker Lateral is not acquired or if there is not enough physical capacity in the lateral for a period of time. Confirm the ponds would be empty until the Water Court Case is complete due to the current lack of storage rights. Response: We will be bringing water to the pond from other sources and will share details once complete Provide additional information on the actual volume and flow rates of water demand and supply. Response: This information has already been provided. In the Non-Potable Irrigation System Report, Appendix B, the well names on the map should correspond to decreed names for reference to limits on amount and place of use. Tie the names to those on Table 1 of Appendix G. Response: Report and tables have been updated. Comment Number: 44 05/31/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Staff has evaluated the need for amendments to the PUD as part of this submittal. The following areas have been identified for further discussion: Piping of the #8 Ditch The ditch company has now confirmed with us they will require the No. 8 canal to be piped through the Phase G and Phase E areas (Mountain Vista to Country Club), and we have included plans for this design. Since the PUD language anticipated that the ditch may be piped in some locations but the extents were not known at that time, we understand that a PUD amendment is not necessary and that the details and extent of the ditch design should be determined with each development phase. 11 Current Conditions of Approval including configuration of the irrigation pond and at-grade trail crossings Grade-separated crossings were conditioned in the PUD to apply where the ditch is not piped, so no amendment should be needed. Regarding the configuration of the irrigation pond, 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. As such the pond is planned now to be located 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. We do not believe a PUD amendment is required but could include this in a Minor Amendment to clarify if needed. Roadway master plan updates We understand that with the more detailed design of Phases G and E that: 1. the two roundabout intersections (Mountain Vista/Timberline and at Country Club/Timberline) and 2. The change of classification of Timberline north of Mtn Vista from an arterial to collector; may require an update to the roadway master plan to be led by City staff. We have provided traffic study information to support these and will continue to support staff as needed, but since these are both results of the more detailed PDP design levels we don’t anticipate that a PUD Master Plan amendment is required. Water systems At this time we believe our water system is consistent with the PUD Master Plan, but if additional clarification within the PUD is required let’s discuss. Review procedures including building elevation review. Building design standards and requirements are detailed in the MUDDS document. In addition, we have provided concept elevations for each of the building types to share the overall design character and intent. To support city staff at time of building permit reviews, we will provide an approval letter from the Montava Design Review entity with each building permit application. Based on these and our discussions we do not believe a PUD amendment is required. Response: Thank you for the continued discussions on these items. At this time, we understand that based on above responses that there may be no PUD amendments required for the above items, and the road master plan updates will be led by COF. In responding to comments with final plans for Phase G, there are two minor items that we may wish to be clarified with a Minor Amendment to the PUD Master Plan. They include: 1. Driveway maximum 12’ width and/or what is defined as a driveway (see our Phase G response to this comment), and 2. Sec 3.5.1. (D)(1) distance to public way. While we have demonstrated compliance with this LUC code section for Phase G (houses that face onto greens) with our resubmittal. However, we know that with the higher density T5 areas such as in Phase E we will have alternate ways to comply with this LUC section for these more urban and mixed use building types. Let’s discuss if this would be best to address with a Minor Amendment to the PUD Master Plan. Department: Historic Preservation Contact: Jim Bertolini, 970-416-4250, jbertolini@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 05/17/2022: NO HISTORIC REVIEW REQUIRED: This proposal does not 12 require historic review because there are no designated historic resources, or resources that are at least 50 years old and would require evaluation, on the development site or within 200 feet of the development site. Response: Understood. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Tim Dinger, tdinger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 05/25/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UPDATED: The termination of Longwood Drive at the dead-end at the west end of the road will require a temporary turnaround, per LCUASS 7-26. The temporary turnaround is not shown on the current plans and needs to be shown on the next submittal. Response: A turnaround has been designed and included for the termination of Longwood Drive. 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. Comment Number: 11 05/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UPDATED: An encroachment permit will be required for any place where the irrigation line crosses the right-of-way. Response: Understood. Encroachment permit(s) will be prepared for any remaining areas following Final Design reviews. 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. Previous 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. In addition, per coordination with Public Works encroachment permits will not be required for the non-potable irrigation system as it was determined that irrigation pipes less than 8” diameter would not require permits for encroachment into ROW. Non- potable irrigation lines within Phase G are primarily 4” with some 6” diameter. Comment Number: 12 05/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UPDATED: Utility easement requirement discussions behind the right-of-way (ROW) are ongoing, with reference to franchise agreements between the City and Comcast, as well as with other external utility providers. Per the needs of City of Fort Collins Light and Power Department, the standard 15-foot width utility easements for arterial roads will be required adjacent to the Timberline Road ROW. Response: The plat has been updated with applicable utility easements as coordinated with 13 on-going discussions and meetings with Light and Power as well as the city. Discussions have also occurred with Comcast and Xcel Energy and at the time of this submittal neither of these utility providers will provide service to Phase G. 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. Previous Response: These utility coordination calls have taken place through the PUD Master Plan 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 05/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UPDATED: Sight distance triangles should be provided with the 100% submittal where walls, fences and landscaping installation is planned close to the intersection. Response: Sight distance triangles have been designed and included with this submittal. 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 sight distance requirements. 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. 14 Comment Number: 16 05/27/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UPDATED: We will look for the Timberline right-of-way to be dedicated by the final plat. We will look for dedication of the Mountain Vista right-of-way by separate document. Both of these items must be included in the Round 3 submittal. Response: The plat has been updated to include dedication of Timberline to the northern boundary of Phase G. A portion of Mountain Vista has also been dedicated by the plat that resides within the property boundary. 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. Previous 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 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 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UPDATED: Per offline conversations with the applicant team, the irrigation pond will be platted as a tract or outlot along with the Phase G plat. This comment will be resolved once the plat has been resubmitted to include the irrigation pond. Response:The plat has been updated to include dedication of tracts which include the location of the irrigation pond. 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 abuttng 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 15 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. Previous 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 05/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UPDATED: This comment may or may not still apply pending the Timberline Road design that will come with the 100% complete plans. Response: The sidewalk along the west side of Timberline has been revised to a detached sidewalk with a planter/amenity zone separating the roadway and sidewalk. 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 Timberline 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. Comment Number: 19 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UPDATED: This comment will be resolved after a full review of the Timberline/Mountain Vista plans. Response:The roundabout at Moutain Vista/Timberline material type is now shown as concrete within the circulating roadway. 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. Comment Number: 21 05/27/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UPDATED: The roadway plans for Mountain Vista and Timberline were not submitted with this round. Just noting that there has been offline conversation regarding alternative pavement design. If Montava pursues the alternative pavement design, further coordination will be needed, which is different from the typical process of approving a pavement design report at the time of roadway construction. Response: Noted, and if materials discussions are needed small group meetings will be setup to continue previous conversations. On the typical section sheet preliminary pavement sections are detailed primarily for contractor bidding purposes and a note is included to clarify that the final pavement designs are determined in construction during roadway subgrade preparation. 01/11/2022: I'm noting that the roadway plans specify pavement type and 16 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. Comment Number: 23 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UPDATED: The TIS and 100% roadway plans will be fully reviewed with the next submittal, and we will revisit this comment at that time. Response: Noted and updated TIS and plans are included for review. 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. Comment Number: 26 05/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UPDATED: Utility easement requirement discussions behind the right-of-way (ROW) are ongoing, with reference to franchise agreements between the City and Comcast, as well as with other external utility providers. Per the needs of City of Fort Collins Light and Power Department, the standard 15-foot width utility easements for arterial roads will be required adjacent to the Timberline Drive ROW. Response:The plat has been updated with applicable utility easements as coordinated with on-going discussions and meetings with Light and Power as well as the city. Discussions have also occurred with Comcast and Xcel Energy and at the time of this submittal neither of these utility providers will provide service to Phase G. 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. Comment Number: 27 05/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UPDATED: The next submittal is the first time we will be seeing a 100% design for Phase G and the Irrigation Pond, as well as Timberline and Mountain Vista Road designs. Additional comments will be made as discussions and reviews take place. Response: Comment noted and understood. 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. Comment Number: 28 05/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL: The following items must be included in the next submittal, which will be the first 100% complete plan set submittal: Platted tracts for Phase E (to allow overlot grading), platted tract(s) for the irrigation pond and non-potable irrigation distribution system, full roadway designs for both Timberline Road and Mountain Vista Drive, supporting materials for the proposed roundabout to take to City Council, and an analysis of how the ovalshaped roundabouts will work. This list is not -all inclusive-, and other 17 departments and their comments from this round may require additional items. Response:The plat has been updated to include tracts outside of the boundary of Phase G to accommodate the required overlot grading activities and construction of the irrigation pond. Roadway designs including the roundabouts have been included with this submittal. Comment Number: 29 05/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL: More details need to be provided for the boardwalks over the rain gardens and easements. How are they going to be constructed? What is their height over the rain garden surface? If utility or rain garden maintenance is needed, will the boardwalks have to be deconstructed? No permanent structures can be constructed over easements, are you leaving easement exclusions for the piers of the boardwalk? The plat will need to be updated if there are easement exclusions. It would be helpful if the pier locations of the boardwalks were shown on one of the plans or on their own detail sheet possibly. Response: The final plans now are indicating more detail for the planned boardwalks and rain garden plantings. The boardwalks are now more narrow to allow for rain garden maintenance access but still providing pedestrian access from house-to-house across the drainage areas. If easement exclusions are required for each pier we will provide this detail with the next plat submittal. Comment Number: 30 05/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Flowline profiles are required for both sides of the street for the final approval of all streets. Alleys that drain to center have equivalent centerline and flowline profiles, so no additional profiling needed for the alleys. Please see the Utility Plan checklist for a complete listing of requirements for the final plans. Response: All roadways have been designed with centerline profiles to meet Fort Collins Criteria for minimum slopes and K-Values for vertical curves. Flowline profiles shall be included with the next submittal for the portions of roadways where cross-slopes are not the typical 2% crown (transitions approaching intersections and around on-street parking bulb-outs). For Mountain Vista and Timberline flowline/edge of pavement profiles are included for the intersections with roundabouts or unique design features (informally refer to as “kidney beans.” Comment Number: 31 05/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Signage and striping information for all streets will be required for approval. Response: Noted. Signage and striping plans have been included. Comment Number: 32 05/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Per the Submittal Checklist and LCUASS, a subsurface hydrology study is required. Response: The geotechnical report for Phase G has been included with the submittal documents. Ground water elevations are discussed based on boring locations and analysis. Comment Number: 33 05/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL: All sidewalk must be within either the 18 right-of-way or a public access easement. The north side of Summerside Drive and the east side of Peachleaf Street have sidewalks that are partially out of the ROW and no public access easement is provided. The sidewalk along the east side of Tract E must be in a Public Access Easement. Please ensure all sidewalk is within either ROW or Public access easement. Response: All sidewalks have been adjusted to be within ROW. Comment Number: 34 05/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL: What does the "Trail" easement allow? Can it be used for sidewalk similar to a public access easement? Tract K on the plat does not call for public access easement, but has sidewalk within the tract. Response: This area has been revised to indicate a Drainage and Public Access Easement to allow for both drainage and the planned sidewalk. Comment Number: 35 05/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Sight distance easements will be required where the alleys connect to the ROW of another roadway. Please see LCUASS Figure 7-11F, detail 2. We will not require that the triangles be dedicated as ROW, but can be dedicated as easement instead. Please show these easements on the plat with the next submittal. Response:Sight distance triangles have been added to the signage and striping plans. Comment Number: 36 05/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL: The 28' width residential local street is the only street width that has been vested by the PUD. None of the connector local sections have been vested. Variance requests for all unvested street sections will need to be submitted with the 100% submittal. Response: The residential local street cross sections have been revised accordingly to the approved PUD. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 25 06/03/2022: INFORMATION ONLY These comments pertained to the old traffic study submitted for this project (prepared by Rollins Consult LLC, dated 12/23/2021). New comments for the updated study prepared by Kimley Horn, dated May 2022 have been added. Response: Additional information and analysis will be provided for bike and pedestrians and how these facilities within Montava tie into the surrounding street system. Graphics will also be provided identifying bike and pedestrian facility plans within Montava. Improvements were previously recommended in the Phase G & E traffic study for the intersections of Country Club Road/Lemay Avenue and Mountain Vista Drive/Timberline Road to be converted to roundabout control and these two intersections now meet operational standards with these improvements. The I-25 Northbound Ramp and Mountain Vista Drive intersection is expected to have all movements operating with LOS E or better during the peak hours in 2027. Additional coordination or a project meeting can be set up with the City to discuss potential improvement options if desired. The improvements 19 associated with Phase G & E will be clearly identified in a table of improvements in the revised Phase G & E traffic study. 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 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. Comment Number: 26 06/03/2022: INFORMATION ONLY These comments pertained to the old traffic study submitted for this project (prepared by Rollins Consult LLC, dated 12/23/2021). New comments for the updated study prepared by Kimley Horn, dated May 2022 have been added. Response: We will follow up to schedule a meeting to discuss the Mountain Vista at Timberline intersection with City staff if the continued conversations in June, July and August haven’t addressed the City’s remaining questions. 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. Contact: Spencer Smith, 970-221-6820, smsmith@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 06/03/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL Response: The design team was previously thinking a phased approach would be necessary. However, based on the TIS we see no benefits to not building the final roundabout configuration. The ultimate roundabout design is included in the revised plan set. 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 20 is tying into existing Timberline to the south, for example. We would also need to see an ultimate design for this area. Comment Number: 2 06/03/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL Response:The section has developed further from the previous section and now includes a detached sidewalk along the west side of Timberline. Please review and if needed a separate meeting can be setup to discuss other elements the City desires. 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. Comment Number: 3 06/03/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL Response: Several intersection and mid-block raised pedestrian crossings have been included in the plans along the Timberline alignment to allow for connectivity. Additional details and striping have been added for wayfinding, please review and if additional discussion is needed a separate meeting can be setup. 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. Comment Number: 4 06/03/2022: UNRESOLVED Response:To allow the design to move forward the design team has taken on the task of designing the roundabout. However, we welcome feedback and clarification from the City on design, construction and the cost sharing process. 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. Comment Number: 5 21 06/03/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL Response: Grading is inherently detailed on the roadway profiles and the contours speak to that design. We can remove this detail but when done this way it often adds a layer of confusion for the contractors as the contours then only live on the erosion control plans. It is our preference to show contours on the plan and profile sheets for clarity and to minimize errors and design busts that can easily identified when contours are visible. 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. Comment Number: 6 06/03/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL Response:Existing edge of pavement is typically only shown on the existing/demo plan sheet and not shown again in the plan set if being demolished. However, where tying to existing the lane widths for existing and proposed will be labeled. 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. Comment Number: 7 06/03/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL Response: Key maps are being utilized, where we think clarity is needed. If the City thinks additional sheets need a key map please comment on the specific sheets. 01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans Please utilize key maps on all sheets, where applicable. Comment Number: 8 06/03/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL Response: Roadway names have been added to the plans. 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". Comment Number: 9 06/03/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL Response: The splitter island currently extends a few feet west of the curb return. If additional length is desired, please give us a specific length to design to. 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. Comment Number: 10 22 06/03/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL Response: Descriptions have been corrected. 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". Comment Number: 11 06/03/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL Response: Depending on the location the widths do change for the cycle track versus the multi-use trail. 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. Comment Number: 12 06/03/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL Response:Intersection detail plan sheets are included for all intersections. However, if desired information is not included, please comment on specific elements missing. 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. Comment Number: 13 06/03/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL Response: Bike lanes striping added to plans and sign legend included. 01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans A more thorough signing and striping plan review will be performed once we 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. Comment Number: 14 06/03/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL Response: Callouts will be added to the plans for clarity. 01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans Please show the pedestrian underpass more clearly on all pertinent plan sheets. Comment Number: 16 05/31/2022: FINAL APPROVAL I did not see the AutoTurn exhibits submitted with this round of review. It sounds like you may have submitted them directly to PFA? They should probably be 23 included in your official submittals. Response: AutoTurn exhibits have been included with this submittal. 01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Roadway Autoturn Exhibits It looks like the movement is incorrectly labeled as "exiting" on Exhibit 6 of 7. Comment Number: 18 05/31/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL If your solution is to use striping/signage to prevent alley encroachment, you will need to show and detail this on signing and striping plans, which I don't believe have been submitted yet. Response: Signage and striping plans have been included in the submittal which provides design layout to prevent alley encroachment. 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? Comment Number: 27 06/03/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL Response: The taper rates have been revised and detailed on the plans. 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). Comment Number: 30 06/03/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Regarding the comment on page 4 related to a local road section with volumes of 1,500 veh/day- it is our experience that this volume is generally on the high end for a residential local roadway. Our typical planning level for local roadways is about 1000 veh/day based on livability. The cross section of 30' with no driveways on Chesapeake might not operate very well with these volumes. We recommend a cross section of at least 34' to the west, and 36' along multi family. Response: The May 2022 version of the Phase G & E traffic study did not incorporate the long-term 2045 analysis as the supplement to the Master Traffic Impact Study was still being finalized to include all development areas of Montava. The 1,200 vehicles per day along Chesapeake Drive is expected to be a temporary condition and estimated to reduce when the overall development is complete in which it is estimated that Chesapeake Drive will have approximate 800 vehicles per day. It is believed that the local residential street can support 800 vehicles per day. The decrease in daily volumes is due to multi-use urban trip generation rates being utilized for the overall development and additional capture once 24 other parcels are developed. Standard urban trip generation rates were used for the Phase G & E study as other parcels will not be developed at that time and mixed-use rates won’t be realized until future development takes place. A more recent version of the Phase G & E traffic study was completed in June 2022 including a 2045 horizon analysis and full development of Montava. Comment Number: 31 06/03/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL The eastbound left turn lane at Mountain Vista Drive/Giddings Road was identified in the traffic study as a needed improvement based on Mountain Vista Drive being an arterial roadway at the Mountain Vista Drive/Giddings Road (#10) intersection. We would like to discuss implementation of this improvement with you. Response: Discussion needed as this intersection is outside of the current limits of improvements proposed for Phase G. Comment Number: 32 06/03/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL At Timberline and Vine, NB and SB left turns will be added with the capital improvement project planned at this intersection. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 33 06/03/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL On page 4 there is a statement that The City of Fort Collins is planning to improve the intersection of CCR and Lemay with a roundabout. There is not a funded capital project programmed at this location, currently- please revise. Response: This intersection will not be identified as a City of Fort Collins planned improvement project in the revised traffic study. Comment Number: 34 06/03/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Regarding Country Club Road and Lemay Ave. this intersection does not meet our LOS standards and we would like to work with you to determine a project proportional contribution towards improvements at this intersection. Response:The project team will work with the City to determine a proportional contribution for the proposed improvements to the intersection of Country Club Road and Lemay Avenue. Comment Number: 35 06/03/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Please further develop the bicycle analysis in the traffic study. We would like to better understand how the project will connect into existing infrastructure. Please also include a diagram showing locations of bike lanes on site. Response:Additional information and analysis will be provided for bike facilities within Montava and how they tie into the surrounding street system. Graphics will also be provided identifying bike facility plans. 25 Comment Number: 36 06/03/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL On page 62 there is reference to placing two RRFB crossings on Timberline Rd. We would like to understand anticipated pedestrian volumes in these locations. Please include this analysis in your study. Response:Pedestrian volume estimates will be provided for the recommended RRFB crossings within Montava in the revised traffic study. Comment Number: 37 06/03/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL On page 62 you note the need for installing a raised pork chop median to limit access to a RI/RO and we agree. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 38 06/03/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL The Bloom development TIS was not included in this study. Please include, as this will impact the analysis of Timberline/Vine intersection. A copy of the Bloom study will be included with the redline files for this round of review. Response: We have incorporated traffic volumes from other more recent development projects as available. The city has offered to share addition updates for newer/current developments under review and we will include those once received. Department: PFA Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2869, marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 3 06/02/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR APPROVAL Response: Updated autoTurn exhibits and signage & striping plans have been provided with the submittal. Sight distance triangles have also been included to identify limits of No Obstructions. 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. Comment Number: 5 06/02/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR APPROVAL Response: We have indicated tree species now on the plans and have attempted to balance EAE requirements while still having canopy trees in other areas where also needed to meet city requirements. 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 26 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. Comment Number: 6 06/02/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR APPROVAL Response: Comment noted. We anticipate that individual building addresses for homes that face public streets will be reviewed at time of building permit. For the homes that do not face onto public streets, address signs are indicated at block ends on the Site Plans. 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, 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. Comment Number: 7 06/02/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR APPROVAL Response: Fire lane signage has been added to the signage and striping plans. 01/04/2022: FOR APPROVAL 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. Comment Number: 8 06/02/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR APPROVAL 27 Response:An overall fire hydrant plan has been provided as a separate document for review/comment 01/04/2022: FOR APPROVAL 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. Comment Number: 10 05/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL The street section for Connector Local Alt-3 (Chesapeake Dr) is showing only 16 feet of unobstructed travel lane. The required unobstructed width for fire access is 20 feet if this street is to be used as access. Response: The street cross section and total unobstructed travel lane has been revised per discussions with the city and PFA. Department: Erosion Control Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 05/26/2022: Fee Information: Based upon the updated materials and information provided since the last review comments, we have recalculated an Erosion Control Inspection fee of $17807.36 and a Stormwater LID/WQ Inspections fee of $2705. A copy of the calculation spreadsheet will be provided. The fee will need to be provided at the time of erosion control escrow. Response: Understood and final fees will be paid at that time. 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. 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 28 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. Comment Number: 2 05/26/2022: For Final Acceptance: The plan provided on this project was reviewed against the City Criteria (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.3). The erosion control plan is missing key components to meet City Criteria. Please review the provided comments and redlines and address them accordingly. The report provided on this project was reviewed against the City Criteria (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.4). The erosion control report was missing key components to meet City Criteria. Please review the provided comments and redlines and address them accordingly. The escrow calculation provided on this project was reviewed against the City Criteria (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.5). The erosion control escrow calculation was missing key components to meet City Criteria. Please review the provided comments and redlines and address them accordingly. Response:Erosion control plans have been updated per comments received. 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. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 05/31/2022: Reminder for next submittal. Response: Detailed area grading plans were provided with the previous submittal and are included in the subsequent submittal. 01/11/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL: Detailed grading plans are required, including for the single family lots. 29 Comment Number: 6 05/31/2022: Reminder for next submittal. Response: Storm sewer has been revised accordingly. 01/11/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL: The storm sewer at the northeast corner of the site needs to be located within the roadway section and may need to be adjusted. Comment Number: 11 05/31/2022: Reminder for next submittal. Response: Detailed rain garden plans were provided with the previous submittal and are included in the subsequent submittal. 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. Comment Number: 13 01/11/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL: 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. Response: M/M has coordinated with landscape to maintain 10 feet minimum center of tree to center of storm sewer, where possible. Where this criteria cannot be met, trees will be omitted. Comment Number: 14 06/01/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL: The storm sewer alignment needs some adjusting. There are locations where separations are not being met with other utilities. 10 feet is the standard for separation. Also, generally speaking, the alignments need to be parallel to the roadway which will result in a few manholes being added. A meeting is suggested to go over the alignment and identify all issues. Response: Storm sewer alignment has been updated to maintain 10ft horizontal clearance with adjacent utilities. Comment Number: 15 06/01/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL: The rain gardens need to be located outside of any road side utility easements. This appears to be the case, but want to confirm. Response: Correct, rain gardens are located outside of road side utility easements. Comment Number: 16 06/01/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL: Please label all storm sewers as "Private" or "Public" on the storm sewer plan and profile sheets. This is best done on the profiles for each pipe section between manholes/inlets. Response: Storm sewers have been labeled accordingly. 30 Department: Light And Power Contact: Austin Kreager, 970-224-6152, akreager@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 16 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. Response:Thank you, the on-going coordination and file sharing has been very helpful. Comment Number: 17 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. 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 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. Response: Comment noted. The site electrical design has been updated per the layout design by Light and Power. Comment Number: 2 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-investment -development-fees Response: Understood and we’ll continue to track fees required as the plans progress. Comment Number: 3 05/31/2022: UPDATED - FOR APPROVAL: Please locate our primary electric lines in the middle of the parkway for phase G and along both sides of Timberline as it extends north. The proposed irrigation line will need to move out of the parkway location on Timberline Rd. Response:Electrical layout and alignments have been discussed with Light and Power and have been updated. 01/11/2022: SITE SPECIFIC: Please show the primary electric routing on the utility plans. We will provide 31 redlines of the electric routing for the second submittal following a utility coordination meeting. Comment Number: 4 01/11/2022: INFORMATION: 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. Response: Electrical layout and alignments have been discussed with Light and Power and have been updated. Comment Number: 5 01/11/2022: INFORMATION: 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. Response: Electrical layout and alignments have been discussed with Light and Power and have been updated. Comment Number: 6 01/11/2022: INFORMATION: Any existing electric infrastructure that needs to be relocated as part of this project will be at the expense of the developer. Please coordinate relocations with Light and Power Engineering. Response: Comment noted. Relocations of existing infrastructure will be further coordinated with Light and Power. Comment Number: 7 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. Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 8 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. Response: Comment noted. Easements have been provided as applicable. Comment Number: 9 01/11/2022: INFORMATION: 32 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 Response: There are no commercial or multi-family buildings in Phase G. For the townhomes, the C-1 forms will be completed by the builders once they are designed, prior to application for building permit. Current electrical needs for these future homes are unknown at this time. As a reminder, all homes in Montava will be “all electric” and Zero Energy Ready. Transformers and electrical facilities should be located between attached unit buildings and not on internal property lines. The footprints of the buildings are shown in the Lot Typical plans (Architectural Elevations and Lot Typicals Plan Set). Comment Number: 10 01/11/2022: INFORMATION: 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 Response: Street light locations have been coordinated and are shown within the plans. Comment Number: 11 01/11/2022: INFORMATION: 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. Response: Comment noted. We will continue to coordinate with Light and Power regarding placement of electric meters. Comment Number: 12 01/11/2022: INFORMATION: 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 Response: Comment noted. We will continue to coordinate with Light and Power regarding placement of electric meters. Comment Number: 13 33 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 Response: Thank you. Comment noted. Comment Number: 14 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. Response: We have been working with Connexion and our intent is to strategically include this service in our neighborhoods. Comment Number: 18 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL: It appears that some of the electric design did not make it on the plans as designed. A meeting is requested with the consulting engineers to review and correct details of the electric design. Response:Electrical design has been further coordinated with Light and Power and plans have been updated accordingly. Comment Number: 19 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Some primary and secondary vaults are shown in sidewalk locations. All electric vaults will be placed in the parkway locations and outside of sidewalks in the green space locations. Response: Electrical vault locations have been updated and removed from all sidewalk locations. Comment Number: 20 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL: With the proposed irrigation main line and the ditch along Timberline, the right-of-way appears to be getting tight. Please keep in mind that Light and Power will need to be located in the parkway on both sides of Timberline with the possibility of setting above grade facilities in the easement behind Right-of-way. Response: Comment noted. Horizontal space has been preserved on both side of the proposed Timberline roadway section for potential of Light and Power electrical alignments and equipment. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Scott Benton, (970)416-4290, sbenton@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 14 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL: No. 8 DITCH AND WETLANDS: I appreciate 34 the background provided detailing the conflict of the No. 8 ditch as an amenity vs. as a liability that is driving the push to pipe the ditch. There are still some outstanding requirements, questions, and concerns regarding the issue: -Please provide a letter of intent or other sufficient documentation from the Eaton Ditch Company stating they are satisfied with the No. 8 ditch being piped; Response: We have been in regular communication with the ditch company on the design requirements for their canal. We’ve also requested that they reach out directly to Jenny Axmacher with the city with either a letter or email indicating these preferences. -If the No. 8 ditch is piped, by what City process will the PUD Master Plan be amended?; Response: The ditch company has now confirmed that they will require the No. 8 canal to be piped through the Phase G and Phase E areas (Mountain Vista to Country Club), and we have included plans for this design. The PUD Master Plan language anticipated that the ditch may be piped in some locations but the extents were not known at that time. We don’t believe a PUD amendment is necessary. -If the No. 8 ditch is piped, mitigation for the wildlife movement corridor and its buffer is still required. This approach is consistent with other developments in the City that have piped ditches. The greenways and pollinator paths depicted on the Landscape Plan offer a solid base on which to base the required mitigation, although they would have to dedicated as Natural Habitat Buffer Zones (NHBZs) to ensure their protection in perpetuity. NHBZs can serve multiple purposes as well (paths/walkway locations, stormwater features, etc.). A table will be needed indicating the required buffer area and provided buffer area; Response: Since the ditch company is requiring the canal to be placed in a pipe, we’ve instead developed plans for Phases G and E to bring natural spaces into the neighborhoods; intentionally incorporating rain gardens, pollinator paths, and green connectors with native plants creating a richer and vastly more diverse system than the current canal which is devoid of plants. We have indicated the locations and details for these spaces within our plans, and have demonstrated that that the areas in s.f. for the newly incorporated spaces offset the area that would be assigned to the 50’ buffer. -The jurisdictional status of wetlands can only be determined by the Corps of Engineers (COE). If the Eaton Ditch Company disagrees with a jurisdictional determination, then they need to appeal the determination with COE. Please provide documentation of the efforts and COE’s responses in order to satisfy LUC 3.4.1 (O), Proof of Compliance; Response: the COE has issued a revised jurisdictional determination indicating the wetlands are non-jurisdictional. We’ve included the COE documents with the submittal. -The City requires buffering and mitigation of all wetlands regardless of COE jurisdictional status. Therefore, should the No. 8 ditch be piped, mitigation and buffering of the 0.139 ac of wetlands is still required. Mitigation within Phase G is preferred but can be explored elsewhere in the development given satisfactory assurances within the Development Agreement; Response: We have indicated areas of wetland mitigation within the Phase G limits for the wetlands associated with the canal bottom that will be removed when the ditch is piped. We also have commitments to create a significant regional natural area and drainage conveyance system for the Montava and NE FC community along the east edge of Montava 35 in future phases. -If mitigation is pursued within Phase G or the Irrigation Pond (which is preferrable to the City – north of Longwood Dr seems a likely location), then a mitigation and restoration plan with all pertinent details will be required for approval of this BDR. Such details include showing 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. Abbreviated versions of restoration and weed management plans will also be required on the Landscape Plans. Response: We have indicated areas of wetland mitigation within the Phase G limits for the wetlands associated with the canal bottom that will be removed when the ditch is piped. In discussions with our drainage engineers this will be the most likely area for consistent hydrology and can also be a neighborhood natural feature. Comment Number: 15 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL: POLLINATOR MASTER PLAN: Thank you identifying the pollinator paths and greenways for Phase G. A master plan is still needed to demonstrate how the pollinator paths of Phase G fit into the overall pollinator pathway plan and resources, the spacing, the conceptual content (in terms of bloom variety and timeline) and detailing the maintenance across the entirety of the Montava development. Response: We have indicated these items within the current submittal. Comment Number: 16 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL: WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN: The Weed Control Plan Summary on page L12 of the Landscape Plan is a format that has been used on City projects in the past but is not useful. More clear guidance is needed that addresses weed management activities prior to, during, and post construction. I can provide you with examples. Response: We have revised and updated plans and notes with this more final level submittal for your review. Comment Number: 17 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL: NATIVE SEED MIXES: Seed mixes should be further tailored and/or diversified to meet the desired needs of the areas in terms of the anticipated use, visibility, level of maintenance, desired goals, etc. Response: We have provided additional seed mixes with these final level plans based on anticipated use and desired goals and look forward to your feedback. Department: Parks Contact: Aaron Wagner, aawagner@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 05/31/2022: 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 36 (aawagner@fcgov.com) 970-682-0344, 413 S. Bryan Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521 regarding the Parks’ Department’s interest. Comment Number: 6 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL Please provide adequate details for the other 2 options of shared irrigation pond scenarios that were included with the approved PUD to determine the feasibility of each option. Response: Discussions are on going and our preferred and most flexible option for potential users (City, PSD) is shown in the current plans. Comment Number: 7 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL Due to the offsite and private storm water management nature of the raingarden located in the SE corner of the park land, Parks will not maintain the Rain Garden. Please remove from city owned Park land and reallocate the land to ensure that the park is 80 AC as specified in the approved PUD. Response: The storm drainage, conveyance, rain gardens and detention pond shown north of Longwood Drive are not entirely private but instead serve shared stormwater and water quality needs for the Community Park as well. They provide detention and water quality for the north half of Longwood Drive and the west half of Timberline Road and include the construction of a larger detention pond at the low point of the park site that is sized to serve the anticipated needs of the future park. We are offering to construct and maintain these drainage and landscape features until the park is completed. Understanding that the Community Park will be developed at some point in the future, we would like to continue to partner with the city to design for the current and future infrastructure needs with a system- wide approach and to construct shared infrastructure anticipated the future park, not to reduce the park dedication area. The intent remains for 80 acres of park dedication as planned with the PUD Master Plan, and this area is indicated as Tract EE on the plat. Comment Number: 8 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL Regarding the dog park and New Maintenance facility, please provide information about parks' maintenance responsibility for the dog park and facility? Will the city own the land and thus be a part of the park? Does this factor into the 80 AC if so? Response: The irrigation pond will encompass the majority of Tract FF so a separate dog park is not planned for this location. The 80 acre park dedication area is indicated as Tract EE on the plat and includes the west park site and the site north of the pond where a maintenance facility is envisioned. Comment Number: 9 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL Who will own and maintain the area around West Pond, City or Montava? Does this factor into the 80 AC park if city owned? Response: Tract FF including the irrigation pond is intended to be owned and maintained by the Montava Metro District. 37 Comment Number: 10 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL Additional coordination will be required for the trails, underpasses, and areas to be turned over to Parks (West Pond?, Dog park, Maint Facility, streetscapes, etc) for long term maintenance. Each area will need to be reviewed and approved by the Parks Dept. to ensure they meet our standards. A complete list of areas to be turned over to Parks will need to be created. Parks will provide comments to each area under the comment heading FOR APPROVAL. Please coordinate with the Parks dept. in creating this list and providing detailed plans for each area for us to review and approve. Response: Now that final design plans are further developed for Timberline Road and other infrastructure area, we would like to coordinate with you on the appropriate split for long- term maintenance. Initially, we would anticipate that the City of Fort Collins maintain the plantings as is typical for arterial roads; which in this case includes the plantings within the Timberline/Mountain Vista roundabout. Since the extension of Timberline north of Mountain Vista has been reclassified as a collector street, we anticipate that the landscaping would be maintained by the Developer along with all other streets in Phase G. We also anticipate that the City of Fort Collins would be responsible for long-term maintenance of the areas within the Community Park dedication area (Tract EE) although the Developer is planning to construct and maintain the shared storm drainage, detention and associated landscape improvements until the park is completed. We look forward to continuing these discussions with you. Comment Number: 11 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL Please clarify the intent of why a neighborhood park being proposed adjacent to a community park and existing neighborhood park (Crescent Park)? Wouldn’t it make more sense to make the neighborhood park a portion of the Regional park, and include the Maintenance facility and dog park as components of the Regional park too? See Redlines. Response: We’re planning a community garden at the intersection of Longwood Drive and Timberline Road which we believe is a nice complement to the planned Community Park across the street. Other smaller parks, greens and green connectors are located within the neighborhood to complement the planned uses and block patterns and meeting the Civic Space requirements of the PUD Master Plan. Comment Number: 12 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL Regarding the parcel of the park that has been bisected by the road to the south of the park, Parks is questioning if it makes sense to keep this parcel a part of the community park? Response: This configuration is consistent with the PUD Master Plan and is still supported by the planned neighborhood development areas for Phase G. Comment Number: 13 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL Please specify that the cross-connection condition between the East & West Ponds is ‘Normally Closed’. Response: There is no planned cross-connection in the current design plans. 38 Comment Number: 14 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL Please double check the non-pot conveyance route connection to Crescent park, it looks inconsistent with existing conditions Response: This correction has been made in the non-potable system report Comment Number: 15 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL Parks has many questions about the Non-Potable Irrigation System that require additional input from the City Attorney’s Office in regards to water rights, mixing, storm water for irrigation, watering schedules, wells, ownership and maintenance of irrigation components, and others that still require an intensive coordinated effort. Response: We have made progress on each of these topics and appreciate the ongoing discussions. We will continue to work with you to achieve a workable solution. Department: Park Planning Contact: Aaron Wagner, aawagner@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 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 06/03/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR APPROVAL Response: Response: Now that final design plans are further developed for Timberline Road and other infrastructure area, we would like to coordinate with you on the appropriate split for long-term maintenance. Initially, we would anticipate that the City of Fort Collins maintain the plantings as is typical for arterial roads; which in this case includes the plantings within the Timberline/Mountain Vista roundabout. Since the extension of Timberline north of Mountain Vista has been reclassified as a collector street, we anticipate that the landscaping would be maintained by the Developer along with all other streets in Phase G. We also anticipate that the City of Fort Collins would be responsible for long-term maintenance of the areas within the Community Park dedication area (Tract EE) although the Developer is planning to construct and maintain the shared storm drainage, detention and associated landscape improvements until the park is completed. We look forward to continuing these discussions with you. 01/10/2022 : FOR APPROVAL 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. 39 Comment Number: 3 06/03/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR APPROVAL Response: Based on the continued discussions over the last year and requirements of the ditch company, the No. 8 canal will be piped from Mtn Vista to Country Club Rd, and Timberline Road is being designed as a unique pedestrian and bicycle-focused road through the Phase G, Phase E, Town Center and Community Park areas. The result is a trail underpass planned at Mountain Vista Drive, and the bike-priority at-grade crossings north of this to Country Club Rd. The plans now along with our preliminary submittal for Phase E show the design for these features as a bicycle- and pedestrian-focused system. 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. Comment Number: 4 06/03/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR APPROVAL Response: Understood and see response to Comment 2 above for our understanding of maintenance responsibilities. 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/streetscapedoc.pdf-? Comment Number: 5 06/02/2022 UPDATE: Parks has a tentative meeting with the manufacturers rep. for the product being proposed to remove the salinity. We will provide a response for the use of this product after we have had a chance to meet. Response: We appreciate the ongoing discussions and feel we have a good solution. See more detailed responses above to Comment 43 by Planning Services. Also, we are no longer proposing a centralized AQUA 4D unit. 01/10/2022 : UNRESOLVED - FOR APPROVAL Pond Issues: Please clarify how the water quality be addressed for the multiple entities that will have a stake in the irrigation pond? 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? Comment Number: 6 40 06/02/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR APPROVAL Thank you for providing information on a potential shared irrigation system. All of the information provided is based on Option #1 of the shared system. Please provide adequate details for the other 2 options of shared irrigation pond scenarios that were included with the approved PUD to determine the feasibility of each option. Response: In our subsequent meetings with staff we have settled on the most suitable and flexible option for the City which includes constructing a shared pump house structure(s) with the City having separate equipment or opting out altogether if needed. Discussions are ongoing. 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? Contact: Kyle Lambrecht, 970-221-6566, klambrecht@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 7 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 970-4164340, klambrecht@fcgov.com-. Comment Number: 14 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-. Response: We have appreciated the creative discussions and are excited about the forward- thinking approach for the pedestrian- and bicycle-focused roads and the trail corridor connecting the Town Center and future Community Park among the unique constraints for this development. Comment Number: 15 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UNRESOLVED: Thank you for providing additional irrigation system information and your commitment to providing the highest water quality possible. Please work with the City to develop criteria/parameters for acceptable water quality to be used for irrigation purposes. In addition, please provide information on how water quality will be ensured as well as if water quality does not meet agreed to parameters. Response: Water quality measures will be taken in the pond and pump station by ensuring adequate depth of intake pipe and filter screening within the pump house. 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 nonpotable- irrigation system? Comment Number: 16 41 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UNRESOLVED: Thank you for the additional information provided all the work to detail an irrigation option that describes a single irrigation pond and three independent pumps for the three entities (Montava, Poudre School District, and City of Fort Collins). The submittal has been reviewed with the understanding that this is one of three water delivery options being discussed. At this point in the review process, the City would not like to discount the options where Montava serves as a water provider and where the City provides its own water. The City would appreciate an in-person meeting to discuss the system. Response: Coordination is ongoing and we agree an in person meeting would be a helpful next step. 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. Comment Number: 18 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UPDATED: Thank you for all the irrigation pond information provided. Agree. Let’s plan to discuss if a feasibility study is still necessary as part of our follow up meeting. Response: Additional information has been provided and we look forward to continuing the discussions to resolve any concerns. 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 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. Comment Number: 19 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UPDATED: Thank you for the additional information provided in your response. Lets plan to include the below as part of our future discussion as the size and location of the pond will likely depend on the water delivery partnership. Response: Please refer to the Non-Potable Water Analysis Memo that has been submitted. 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. Comment Number: 20 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UPDATED: Thank you for the clarification provided in your response. Park Planning is interested in an overall exhibit which clarifies the interaction of the future park, the irrigation pond, the maintenance facility, the regional trail, and the 42 detention/LID system. Understanding that details for several components of the exhibit are still being finalized, the City looks forward to coordinating with you on the development of this exhibit. Response: We appreciate the ongoing discussions and have indicated the 80-acre park dedication area on the revised plat and more details of planned improvements for the pond, roads and trails in the Phase G plans. We hope to continue these discussions with reviews of these more detailed plans. 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. Comment Number: 21 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UPDATED: Thank you for your submittal and all the work to detail an irrigation option that describes a single irrigation pond and three independent pumps for the three entities (Montava, Poudre School District, and City of Fort Collins). The submittal has been reviewed with the understanding that this is one of three water delivery options being discussed. At this point in the review process, the City would not like to discount the options where Montava serves as a water provider and where the City provides its own water. The Park Planning would appreciate an in person meeting to discuss the following: Irrigation System - Additional details are needed on how water quality will be ensured and addressed if water quality cannot support landscaping. - Please clarify water window allotment, timing, and water decree usage. - What is the function of the infiltration pit? - Please clarify the Interaction of stormwater, WSSC water, and well water - Feasibility of connecting the west and east ponds for emergency use. What constitutes an emergency? Is this allowed under water laws? - Where is the water treatment system? - How does the water treatment measure, what are the metrics, and does the system self-adjust to changing water conditions? - Is the system noisy? What is the by product? Does it function at all times or only when needed? - Long term maintenance and who is responsible for this will need to be determined. - Would this system be tied into City’s drought management plans? - Will the water treatment system function at all times or just during the shoulder seasons when WSSC shares are being supplemented with well water? Pond Design 43 - In general, will the pond be accessible to pedestrians? If so, please consider the pond design with pedestrian safety in mind. Park Planning would be happy to meet with your project team to discuss ideas; including fencing, terracing, defined overlooks, etc. - Park Planning would like to better understand the integration of stormwater into the irrigation pond. Where does stormwater come into the pond? Is the typical water surface elevation of the pond lower so it can accommodate stormwater? What are the impacts to long term maintenance if stormwater is integrated into the pond? - Please include erosion control on the pond banks to protect it from northwest and southeast winds. Response: A meeting was held on 6/8/22 for coordination of several items. We have also provided additional information on water shares (see Planning Services Comment 43 responses). Let us know if additional meetings are needed. 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. Comment Number: 22 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UPDATED Thank you for your willingness to have additional discussions regarding the irrigation pond. Park Planning staff has appreciated the coordination and discussions to date. Response: Agreed. 01/11/2022: FOR HEARING: Please continue to coordinate with the City to determine the longterm- ownership of the pond and its infrastructure. Comment Number: 23 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UNRESOLVED: Thank you for all the work to date on the regional trail and additional multimodal connectivity both within the Montava development and for northeast Fort Collins. Park Planning staff is looking forward to additional discussions on these connections. Response: Agreed and additional plans and traffic reports have been shared based on the current pedestrian/bicycle prioritized design direction. 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. 44 Comment Number: 24 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. Response: Comment noted. Updated infrastructure plans have been included for review. Comment Number: 25 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UPDATED: As noted in comment #20, Park Planning is interested in an overall exhibit which clarifies the interaction of the future park, the irrigation pond, the maintenance facility, the regional trail, and the detention/LID system. Response: We appreciate the ongoing discussions and have included more details of planned improvements for the pond, roads and trails in the Phase G plans. We hope to continue these discussions with reviews of these more detailed plans. 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. Comment Number: 28 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UPDATED: Thank you for the additional information provided in your response. Please plan to coordinate with Park Planning staff on the cross-sectional design of the trail if it is to used for maintenance access. Response: We have been in regular communication with the ditch company on the design requirements for their canal. They have now confirmed with us they will require the No. 8 canal to be piped through the Phase G and Phase E areas (Mountain Vista to Country Club), and we have included plans for this design. They are also requesting a 60’ easement to accommodate the ability for future repairs or modifications, but not for regular frequent access so we don’t believe a special cross-section is needed. We have included more detailed plans for the ditch pipe, alignment, and planned improvements in this area including the trail. We would like to share the trail within the ditch easement and will continue to support the ability to do this based on your needs and the needs of the ditch company. 1/11/2022: 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. Comment Number: 30 45 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 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. Response: We have included more detail for the trail and other features in both the Phase G and Phase E plans and look forward to your comments. Comment Number: 32 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Thank you for your submittal and all the work to detail an irrigation option and its relationship to an adjacent dog park space and City of Fort Collins maintenance facility. Please see the following questions regarding these two items: Dog Park Space - Please provide clarification on the location and size of the dog park. Is what is shown for conceptual purposes only? The irrigation pond will encompass the majority of Tract FF so a separate dog park is not planned for this location. - How will this space be accessed? - PPD would like to better understand the gathering space between the pond and the City maintenance facility. Is this part of the future park or part of the neighborhood? The 80 acre park dedication area is indicated as Tract EE on the plat and includes the west park site and the site north of the pond where a maintenance facility is envisioned Maintenance Facility - Please coordinate with City Parks on the layout and working space for the regional maintenance facility. For comparison purposes, the East Community Park Maintenance Facility is roughly 6,500 square feet and the yard is 55,500 square feet. - Does the maintenance facility need to be adjacent to the irrigation pond? This is our suggested location but we are open to ideas based on the planned Community Park needs. If so, to access the park, maintenance crews will need to cross Country Club Road, currently identified as a collector level street. Please verify City Parks is ok with this scenario. The 80 acre park dedication area is indicated as Tract EE on the plat and includes the west park site and the site north of the pond where a maintenance facility is envisioned. Based on the above space requirements the area envisioned for the maintenance facility is significantly larger than these and could also accommodate other park uses. Park Planning staff is looking forward to additional discussions regarding the 46 above and how they relate to the irrigation pond and future community park. Agree. Comment Number: 33 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Please coordinate with Park Planning to include utility connections for water and sanitary to the future park site. If this phase does not make the most sense to include these connections, please plan to include these in a future phase. Thank you. Response: Please let us know if you have plans to indicate utility connections needed for the park and we can incorporate these into the plan phases affected. Comment Number: 34 05/31/2022: INFORMATION: Thank you for the note regarding additional information on the regional trail, detention, and LID treatment being submitted as part of round 3. PPD staff is looking forward to continued discussions on the above. Response: More final plans are now included for review. Comment Number: 36 05/31/2022: INFORMATION: Again, thank you for all the information submitted as part of this round. Please keep in mind, additional review and comments may be necessary depending on additional/new/revised information provided in future submittals. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 35 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Please continue to coordinate with the City regarding the detention pond and LID features located within the future park site. As you continue to design these improvements, please consider the following: - Can the LID feature be increased to accommodate additional paved areas associated with future parking lots? Response: Unfortunately this is not possible since the LID features are being designed and reviewed based on the known drainage amounts entering them from the planned road improvements for Phase G. However, future LID features could be designed and co-located near these features once the plans for the park and its additional impervious surface needs are known. - Is there an interim condition for the detention pond? Response: The detention pond indicated could be considered an interim condition. It has been designed to accommodate not only the current requirements (which includes the north half of Longwood Drive and the west half of Timberline Road), but has been sized to also accommodate the anticipated detention requirements for the development of the Community Park based on typical impervious surface estimates for a park. We’ve located the pond at the lowpoint of these areas west of Timberline Road so detention can be shared. As the final plans for the park progress the pond area and shape could be reconfigured to accommodate park uses and needs accordingly. - Long term maintenance considerations. Response: We are equally interested in the appearance and maintenance of these features, and have refined the designs with adequate forebays, access, and aesthetic plantings. 47 Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, mroche@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 5/31/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED 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 Response: We have now submitted more final level plans with these details included and look forward to your comments. We have one location on Gollings Drive where a 7’ separation is shown from the ELCO water line due to the tight spacing in this street but are hoping to still have street trees here. Comment Number: 2 05/31/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED 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% 48 The City of Fort Collins’ urban forest has reached the maximum percentage of the following species. Ash (Fraxinus), Honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthose: ‘Shademaster’, ‘Skyline’, etc), Bur Oak (Quercus macrocarpa), and Chanticleer Pear (Pyrus calleryana). Please note that additional species might join this list as we work through the review process. Response: We have now submitted more final level plans with these details included and look forward to your comments. Comment Number: 3 05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL UNRESOLVED Per Land Use Code 3.2.1.(D)(c), canopy shade trees shall constitute at least 50 percent of all tree plantings. Response: Understood. We have now submitted more final level plans and believe we are meeting this requirement. Comment Number: 4 05/31/2022: INFORMATION ONLY-UNRESOLVED Please adhere to the updated LUCASS standards and include proper parkway widths. Response: We believe we are meeting the requirements of the LUCASS or the Montava PUD Master Plan approved cross-sections where they differ. Department: Urban Renewal Authority Contact: Clay Frickey, 970-416-2517, cfrickey@fcgov.com, Topic: General Comment Number: 1 05/17/2022: Include a note on the last sheet of the lot layouts indicating that all single-family attached and detached homes have meet the Zero Energy Ready Home standard per Section I(F) of the Public Benefits Agreement. Response: This note has been added to the plans. Comment Number: 2 05/17/2022: Perhaps there could also be a note on the last sheet of the lot layouts that none of the units are contributing to the affordable housing requirements of Section I(H) of the Public Benefits Agreement? We will need to document somewhere how many market rate units Montava has built so we can keep track of the affordable housing requirement and when/if we need to withhold building permits. Are any of these units used to satisfy the workforce housing in the Public Benefits Agreement? Response: This note has been added to the plans. Comment Number: 3 05/17/2022: For the non-potable system, we should include Section I(G)(2)-(4) as notes so that way we are all aware of the nonpotable-water requirements. 49 Response: We have submitted non-potable plans and reports that are being reviewed for compliance with these and other requirements which we believe most directly illustrates compliance. However, if beneficial to add these notes from Section I, please let us know where they will provide the most value for future reviewer: Within these plans/reports? Or on the Site Plans? Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 9 05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED: PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: No plans were provided for review. We will need to review before plans are filed. Response: More detailed roadway and infrastructure plans for final design are now included for review. 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-’. Comment Number: 10 05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED: PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: No plans were provided for review. We will need to review before plans are filed. Response: More detailed roadway and infrastructure plans for final design are now included for review. 01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: There is missing data on sheet R1.2. 50 Comment Number: 11 05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED: PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: No plans were provided for review. We will need to review before plans are filed. Response: More detailed roadway and infrastructure plans for final design are now included for review. Text overlaps have been updated. 01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 12 05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED: PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: No plans were provided for review. We will need to review before plans are filed. Response: Text has been updated to be masked. 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. Comment Number: 13 05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED: PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: No plans were provided for review. We will need to review before plans are filed. Response: Text conflicts have been updated. 01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 14 05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED: 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 51 FORT COLLINS DATUM) = NAVD88 DATUM - X.XX’. Response: Benchmark information has been updated. 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-’. Comment Number: 15 05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED: PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There is missing data on some General Notes sheets. Response: Data has been updated. 01/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There is missing data on sheets C1.2 & C1.4. Comment Number: 17 05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL_UNRESOLVED: PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: Please mask all text in profiles. See redlines. Response: Text masks have been added to the labels. 01/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: Please mask all text in profiles. See redlines. Comment Number: 18 05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED: PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Response: Text masks have been added to the labels. 01/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 19 05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED: PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There are line over text issues. See redlines. 52 Response: Text conflicts have been updated. 01/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 22 05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: Some of the sheet titles & sheet numbers in the sheet index do not match the noted sheets. See redlines. Response: Comment has been updated. Comment Number: 23 05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There are cut off text issues. See redlines. Response: Redlines have been addressed accordingly. Topic: General Comment Number: 21 05/26/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: LOT TYPICALS: A lot of the text is small, fuzzy & grainy. Please increase text sizes if possible & clean up the quality. Response:Lot Typical detail has been adjusted for clarity. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 2 05/26/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter. If you have any specific questions about the redlines, please contact John Von Nieda at 970-221-6565 or jvonnieda@fcgov.com Response: Plat has been updated per comments received. 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 Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 4 05/27/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Text overlaps have been updated. 01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com 53 Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 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 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/resrequirements.php-. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 2 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 54 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 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 55 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. Response: Noted. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Heidi Jenson, Boxelder Sanitation, 970-498-0604, Topic: General Comment Number: 4 05/31/2022: Please see attached comments for Montava Phase G & Irrigation Pond. Response:Comments have been addressed for Montava Phase G sanitary sewer design. 2/16/2022: See updated utility plan comments. 01/25/2022: Please see attached comments from Boxelder Sanitation. Contact: Don Kapperman, Comcast, don_kapperman@comcast.com, Topic: General Comment Number: 5 05/31/2022: I do not see any front or rear lot utility easements. Comcast would need a 6’ rear lot utility easement or 9’ front lot easement to protect their infrastructure. If you have any questions please reach out to Jon Lehmann with Comcast (jon_lehmann@comcast.com) Response: At this time Comcast is not providing utility services for Phase G. Contact: Randy Siddens, ELCO, 970-493-2044, Topic: General Comment Number: 3 05/31/2022: See attached for ELCO comments. There is also a separate document regarding the utility layout – which includes concerns for where we have identified two general scenarios, one where the meter is behind the sidewalk, one where it is in front of the sidewalk. Response: ELCO comments have been addressed. 01/25/2022: See attached comments from ELCO. Contact: Ryan Donovan, Lawrence Custer Grasmick Jones & Donovan, LLP, Larimer and Weld Irrigation Co. 970-622-8181 Topic: General Comment Number: 2 05/31/2022: Please find attached a letter and attachments thereto on behalf of 56 Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company, Larimer and Weld Reservoir Company, and WRCC, Inc. in relation to Montava’s Phase G & Irrigation Pond BDR. We appreciate the opportunity to provide further comments on this proposed project. Response: Understood. 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. Contact: Sarah Brucker, Division of Water Resources, 303-866-3581, sarah.brucker@state.co.us, Topic: General Comment Number: 1 05/31/2022: The Division of Water Resources does not have any additional comments for Round 2 of this referral. Response: Understood. 01/11/2022: See attached comments from the Colorado Division of Water Resources.