HomeMy WebLinkAboutMONTAVA - PHASE G & IRRIGATION POND - BDR210013 - MONTAVA SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 4 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
Page 1 of 54
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
Montava - Phase G and Irrigation Pond, BDR210013
Responses to Staff Comments for Round Number 3
November 16, 2022
September 23, 2022
Angela Milewski
BHA Design Inc.
1603 Oakridge Dr #100
Fort Collins, CO 80525
RE: Montava - Phase G and Irrigation Pond, BDR210013, Round Number 3
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 initial submittal; Staff has done their best to identify
All outstanding issues, however, due to the nature of this review, additional issues may come
To light through subsequent reviews.**
Comment Summary:
Department: Development Review Coordinator
Contact: Todd Sullivan, 970-221-6695, tsullivan@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/20/2022
09/20/2022: INFORMATION:
I will be filling in as the Development Review Coordinator on this project while
Tenae is on leave. Please reach out to me with anything you need. Thank you!
Response: Thank you.
Contact: Tenae Beane, 970-224-6119, tbeane@fcgov.com
Page 2 of 54
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
I will be your primary point of contact throughout the development review and
permitting process. If you have any questions, need additional meetings with the
project reviewers, or need assistance throughout the process, please let me
know and I can assist you and your team. Please include me in all email
correspondence with other reviewers and keep me informed of any phone
conversations. Thank you!
Response: Thank you.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
As part of your resubmittal, you will respond to the comments provided in this
letter. This letter is provided to you in Microsoft Word format. Please use this
document to insert responses to each comment for your submittal, using a
different font color. When replying to the comment letter please be detailed in
your responses, as all comments should be thoroughly addressed. Provide
reference to specific project plans or explanations of why comments have not
been addressed, when applicable, avoiding responses like noted or acknowledged.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
Please follow the Electronic Submittal Requirements and File Naming
Standards found at https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/electronic
submittal requirements and file naming standards_v1_8 1 19.pdf?1566857888.
File names should begin with the file type, followed by the project information, and round number.
Example: UTILITY PLANS_PROJECT NAME_PDP_Rd2.pdf
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.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
All plans should be saved as optimized/flattened PDFs to reduce file size and remove layers.
Per the Electronic Submittal Requirements AutoCAD SHX attributes need to be removed from
the PDF’s.
AutoCAD turns drawing text into comments that appear in the PDF plan set,
and these must be removed prior to submittal as they can cause issues with the
PDF file. The default setting is "1" ("on") in AutoCAD. To change the setting
and remove this feature, type "EPDFSHX" in the command line and enter "0".
Read this article at Autodesk.com for more tips on this topic:
https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad/troubleshooting/caas/sfdcarti
cles/sfdcarticles/Drawing-text-appears-as-Comments-in-a-PDF-created-by-Aut oCAD.html
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
Resubmittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being
Page 3 of 54
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.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
Please resubmit within 180 days, approximately 6 months, to avoid the
expiration of your project. (LUC 2.211 Lapse, Rounds of Review).
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The Director shall issue a written decision to approve, approve with conditions,
or deny the development application based on compliance with the standards
referenced in Step 8 of the Common Development Review Procedures (Section 2.2.8).
The written decision shall be mailed to the applicant, to any person who
provided comments during the comment period and to the abutting property
owners and shall also be posted on the City's website at www.fcgov.com.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
If the project is approved by the Director, there is a two-week appeal period
from the date of the decision. The project is not able to be recorded until it is
confirmed there are no appeals.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
All "For Final Approval / For Approval" comments need to be addressed and
resolved prior to moving forward with the final documents and recording of this
project. I will provide a recording checklist and process information when we are closer to this step.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: The City of Fort Collins Development Review and Bu ilding Permit
Fee schedule has been updated as of January 1, 2022. Please visit our web
page for more information: https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/fees.php.
Please note, any additional rounds of review outside of 3 rounds may be subject to a fee.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 07/06/2022
07/06/2022: FOR NEXT ROUND:
ANY project (combined or not combined) that requires four or more rounds of
review would be subject to an additional fee of $3,000.00.
Response: A check for the additional rounds of review accompanies this resubmittal.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Jenny Axmacher, , jaxmacher@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/10/2022
Page 4 of 54
09/20/2022:FOR FINAL APPR OVAL - UNRESOLVED: The code summary on
the architectural elevation is a great, thank you! Let's continue to discuss. RESOLVED.
Response: The Code Summary is included in this resubmittal.
05/25/2022 FOR FINAL APPRL - 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.
01/10/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Summarize the PUD standards as applicable
to this phase as notes on a site plan sheet. Identify information such as the
transect, allowed uses, densities, civic space types, and noteworthy, applicable
development standards.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/10/2022
09/20/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UNRESOLVED RESOLVED.
Response: We have added number of DUs to cover sheet table (not yet including the future multi-
family units) and the resulting net density. We have also indicated the density required and
provided as calculated following the MUDDS.
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.
01/10/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Include a net density calculation on the cover
sheet of site plan set. The minimum density is 10 du/acre. Additional density of
3 du/acre is applicable for ADUs.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/22/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Let's discuss a potential
PUD Amendment as referenced in the comment response letter. RESOLVED.
Response: We are not seeking an amendment to the PUD Master Plan for the purpose of creating
alternate ways to comply with LUC Sec. 3.5.2(D) because we have determined that LUC Sec. 3.5.2(D)
is not applicable to the PUD Master Plan. Note that per MUDDS Sec. 5.1.1, the standards of MUDDS
Chapter 5 modify all LUC standards in Chapter 3 that regulate, among other things, building
orientation; therefore, the Building Orientation Standards of LUC Sec. 3.5.2(D) have been
modified/replaced by the Building Orientation standards of MUDDS Sec. 5.7.
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.
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.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The a few of the labels are missing in the
landscape plans in this latest round. RESOLVED.
Response: We have reviewed and corrected missing labels.
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Identify the tracts on the landscape plan by use,
including any civic space type designations.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
Page 5 of 54
01/11/2022: INFORMATION ONLY: Consider opportunities for public art in
roundabouts and other landscape areas. RESOLVED.
Response: See previous response below, no additional responses.
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 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
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. RESOLVED.
Response: More detail has been provided with the final level plans.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
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. RESOLVED.
Response: Although we have supplied conceptual elevations for each of the building types in order
to share the overall design character and intent, the City Staff will not be responsible for the final
review and approval of building design. Instead, as stated in MUDDS, all buildings in Montava will
be reviewed by the Montava Design Review Committee for compliance with the building
architectural standards and requirements of MUDDS and a letter of approval will be submitted to
the City with each building permit application. The community’s master declaration that creates the
Design Review Committee and processes and incorporates the PUD Development Standards as the
criteria for review will be in place before building permit application.
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.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/23/2022:FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Discussions regarding
model approval are on-going. Information on proposed building materials and
color palettes are requested. RESOLVED.
Response: Please see our response to Comment Number 22 above.
05/31/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Discussions regarding
model approval are on-going. Information on proposed building materials and
color palettes are requested.
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: How will housing model variation be achieved
as described in MUDDS 5.13.7?
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
05/26/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UNRESOLVED: RESOLVED.
Response: Please see our previous response below.
Previous 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
Page 6 of 54
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. Copies of
the purchase contract and amendments are provided with this resubmittal.
01/11/2022: IRRIGATION POND - FOR APPROVAL: REVISED Please provide
proof of ownership of the land proposed to be developed as the irrigation pond
or documentation from Poudre School District stating the applicant can proceed
with the development on their property. Staff would recommend providing a
letter of intent from the school district. The property owner will need to sign the
final, approved plan set.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: IRRIGATION POND - FOR APPROVAL: Per Exhibit C of the PUD
Master Plan, Section 3, Condition 5 (on the top of the last page of the exhibit), if
a shared irrigation pond is agreed upon between the City and the Developer
and/or Poudre School District, the pond must be lo cated 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. RESOLVED.
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 currently the majority of the pond is not on parks land. A small portion
is planned to be on parks property at their request. We are supportive of this approach and open to
other options parks may suggest.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: IRRIGATION POND - FOR APPROVAL: Fencing around the pond
is strongly encouraged for safety. The fence should be aesthetically attractive in
nature while adequately restricting access to the pond area. RESOLVED.
Response: See previous response below, no additional responses.
Previous response: We don’t want to fence the pond, we instead have low walls
designed along the pond edge for safety.
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 05/25/2022
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. RESOLVED.
Response: A hybrid in-person/virtual neighborhood meeting was held recently in partnership with
the city staff discussing the overall master plan, planned road designs, No.8 canal piping, utility
provisions, and Phase G and Phase E schedules.
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 05/25/2022
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
Page 7 of 54
submittal, but should occur prior to the next round of submittal. Mailed notice
would be required two weeks in advance of any neighborhood meeting or event. RESOLVED.
Response: A hybrid in-person/virtual neighborhood meeting was held recently in partnership with
the city staff discussing the overall master plan, planned road designs, No.8 canal piping, utility
provisions, and Phase G and Phase E schedules. If we can assist with materials for the virtual
project update and general Q&A, please let us now.
Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 05/25/2022
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. RESOLVED.
Response: Please see the ELCO Will Serve letter and email that accompanies this resubmittal.
Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 05/25/2022
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - IRRIGATION POND: Include
architectural details of the pump house. RESOLVED.
Response: The architectural design will need to comply with the MUDDS standards with
approval by the Montava Design Review Committee prior to application for building permit.
However, we have added the preliminary architectural design plans for the pumphouse with
this resubmittal.
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.
Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 05/25/2022
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Thank you for the higher
quality file, Please provide a legend for the lot typicals describing what each of
the colors on the typical represent. Is grey building? Is light grey, uncovered
parking? What does the cream color represent? Is fencing shown? RESOLVED.
Response: A legend is now included on the lot typical sheets. Fencing is shown and
called out.
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? Is light grey, uncovered parking? What
does the cream color represent? Is fencing shown?
Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 05/25/2022
05/25/2022: FOR INFORMATION: Maintain 5’ side setback to avoid additional
fire rating or sprinkler requirements for single family detached product. RESOLVED.
Response: A 5’ side setback is being maintained on all lots. The only instances where a side
setback may be less than 5’ is where units are attached (townhomes) and have a zero side setback.
Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 05/31/2022
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED - IRRIGATION POND:
Please provide an update on the status of negotiations with Larimer and Weld
Irrigation Company, including when an agreement is planned to be reached,
and what the developer’s plan is if no agreement is reached. We understand
that the company is directing the developer to put the ditch in a pipe but that is
still subject to an agreement on pipeline design and easement issues.
Response: The Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company (LWIC) No. 8 ditch associated with the Phase
G plans will be piped per LWIC’s request. Both plans and agreements have been drafted and
Page 8 of 54
submitted to LWIC for their review. Our teams continue to communicate regularly with LWIC and
expect an agreement to be executed by Q1 2023.
The Nonpotable Irrigation System Report for Montava Subdivision, dated
August 22, 2022 (“Nonpot Report”) references shares in the Water Supply and
Storage Company (“WSSC”) that the developer intends to use. We are aware
of the developer owning 1.5 WSSC shares, which are also the subject of the
developer’s Water Court Case No. 2020CW3208. Does the developer own
additional WSSC shares that would be used in the proposed nonpotable irrigation system? RESOLVED.
Response: The Developer owns approximately 2.5 shares of WSSC that can be used in its irrigation
system. We are happy to share details on those transactions if requested.
From documents in the developer’s Water Court Case No. 2020CW3208, we
understand that the developer intends to use the 1.5 WSSC shares that are the
subject of that case to replace depletions from the pumping of tributary
groundwater wells. However, the developer also appears to plan to use those
same 1.5 WSSC shares as a source of water for irrigation in the proposed
nonpotable irrigation system. This appears to potentially be double -counting.
Please explain and provide an analysis of how these 1.5 WSSC shares will be
used for both purposes. RESOLVED.
Response: Your understanding of this is inaccurate. Our water court case is not double counting
water that will be supplying our irrigation system.
The Nonpot Report references shares in the North Poudre Irrigation Company
(“NPIC”) intends to use. Please identify the number of shares. Please confirm
that the developer owns these shares, as claimed in Section 2.1 of the Nonpot
Report. If the developer does not own the shares, please clarify and provide
evidence that the developer can and will acquire these shares. RESOLVED.
Response: There is no intention of using any NPIC shares in the non-potable systems serving west
of Giddings Rd.
The Nonpot Report indicates that the developer will use an NPIC pipe/lateral
from the Larimer County Canal to deliver both WSSC and NPIC water to the
development. We understand that the developer would need an agreement with
NPIC to use their pipe/lateral. Please explain what modifications will be
needed for the pipe/lateral, if any, as more water would seem to be planned to
be conveyed through that pipe/lateral than what occurred historically. Please
provide an update on the status of negotiations, including when an agreement is
planned to be reached, and what the developer’s plan is if no agreement is
reached. RESOLVED.
Response: Your understanding of this is incorrect. We are the sole user of the Montava Irrigation
Lateral. We will not be using more than what has historically come through the Montava Irrigation
Lateral. Easements have been obtained and recorded to allow the WSSC irrigation water to come
off the WSSC ditch with a new headgate and run through the Lateral. The head gate is being
designed currently with the WSSC engineer; copies of the recorded easements are appendices to
the Non-Potable Irrigation System Report.
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?
Provide written confirmation from WSSC that WSSC shares can be used as
proposed.
Provide a copy of an agreement with the Baker Lateral for use of the lateral as
described in the design memo.
Provide written confirmation from NPIC that the NPIC shares can be uses as
proposed.
Page 9 of 54
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.
Describe how the ponds would work if use of the Baker Lateral is not a cquired
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.
Provide additional information on the actual volume and flow rates of water
demand and supply.
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.
Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 05/31/2022
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Discussions on amendments are on-going.
RESOLVED. Please see individual responses below.
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 Response: LWIC has requested that the portion of the No. 8 Ditch associated
with Phase G be piped. The PUD allowed for the Ditch to be piped or open canal, therefore, a PUD
amendment is not required.
Current Conditions of Approval including configuration of the irrigation pond and
at-grade trail crossings Response: The Conditions of Approval of the PUD Master Plan do not specify
the configuration of the irrigation pond, nor do such conditions require grade-separated crossings
in the event that the Ditch is piped, therefore, a PUD amendment is not required.
Roadway master plan updates Response: The change in Timberline Road’s classification does not
trigger a stand-alone amendment to the MSP; Staff has stated that it will include this
change in its next periodic update to the MSP for City Council approval and that the Montava plans
will not be conditioned upon its approval. Furthermore, the addition of two roundabouts does not
require City Council approval because Resolution 2001-120 (requiring City Council approval) is
being rescinded.
Water systems Response: Our water system is consistent with the PUD Master Plan
and that no amendment is needed.
Review procedures including building elevation review. Response: As stated in MUDDS, all
buildings in Montava will be reviewed by the Montava Design Review Committee for
compliance with the building architectural standards and requirements of MUDDS and a
letter of approval will be submitted to the City with each building permit application. The
community’s master declaration that creates the Design Review Committee and its
processes and incorporates the PUD Development Standards as the criteria for review will
be in place before building permit application. Since building design and architecture will be
reviewed under this process and not by City staff, a PUD amendment to add a review
procedure is not required.
We previously suggested that a Minor Amendment to the PUD might be considered to
address (i) the driveway maximum driveway width of 12’ and/or what is defined as a
driveway; and (ii) Sec. 3.5.2(D) distance to a public way. A Minor Amendment will be
submitted to address the driveway issue, but no amendment is being sought regarding Sec.
3.5.2(D) as we have determined that this section has been modified/replaced by MUDDS
Sec. 5.7 and is therefore not applicable and no amendment is required.
Page 10 of 54
Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 09/20/2022
09/20/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please provide a note on plat and site
plan set cover sheet that this development is part of the Montava PUD Master
Plan, approved under Ordinance No.014, 2020 and recorded as reception
number: (INSERT RECEPTION NUMBER)
It is subject to the Montava Metro District Service Plan, approved under
Resolution 2018-083 and recorded as reception number: (INSERT
RECEPTION NUMBER IF RECORDED) as well as the Public Benefits
Agreement, approved under Resolution 2020 -007 and recorded as reception
number: (INSERT RECEPTION NUMBER IF RECORDED). RESOLVED.
Response: Please see the following three notes that have been added to the plat and site plan cover
sheets:
“Phase G is located within the Montava PUD Master Plan and Montava PUD Overlay, ODP 180002
approved pursuant to Ordinance No. 014, 2020, recorded June 4, 2020 at Reception #20200039330
in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado.”
“Phase G may become subject to the Consolidated Service Plan for Montava Metropolitan District
Nos. 1-7 approved by Resolution 2018-083.”
“Phase G is subject to the Development Agreement to Secure Public Benefits for Montava Planned
Unit Development Master Plan approved by Resolution 2020-007 and recorded December 14, 2020
at Reception No. 20200105298 and re-recorded April 7, 2022 at Reception No. 20220022462 in the
records of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado.”
Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 09/20/2022
09/20/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: On the Site Plan, Sheet 2 – label all the
columns in the legend, e.g. Housing Type, Number of Units, Lot size. RESOLVED.
Response: Columns in legend have been updated.
Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 09/20/2022
09/20/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: In order to better track and identify the
development phases , please title these development plan documents Phases
and not filings and use the phase name that corresponds to the PUD Master
Plan. This will apply to the plats as well. These submittal will be Phase G, not Filing 1. RESOLVED.
Response: References to filings have been revised.
Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 09/22/2022
09/22/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please add labels in the legend for the
trail connection surfaces on the landscape plans. There is a trail connection
material on sheet L3 near the intersection that is not crusher fines and it is
unclear what the material proposed is going to be. It's part of the boardwalk. RESOLVED.
Response: These concrete walks did not show the concrete hatching, but this has now been
updated.
09/22/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Provide design details for the non -plant
elements proposed in the landscape plan such as the hardscape elements
proposed in the roundabouts, buffer areas, parks, etc. RESOLVED.
Response: Additional details have been added.
Comment Number: 51 Comment Originated: 09/22/2022
09/22/2022: FOR INFORMATION: Consider opportunities for a comprehensive
wayfinding sign program for the overall project in addition to opportunities for
Page 11 of 54
interpretive signage. RESOLVED.
Response: We appreciate this comment and anticipate that as the town center develops a
wayfinding sign program may be beneficial. While we are not planning a wayfinding system
initially with Phases G or E, we will continue to consider this and may develop a sign plan
as the town center phase moves forward and the ‘destinations’ for a sign system are better
determined. We understand that any future signs will be subject to the MUDDS and the
applicable city codes.
Comment Number: 52 Comment Originated: 09/23/2022
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Provide dimensions and total areas on
the site plan set (S-19?) and/or the landscape plan set that show how the civic
spaces comply with table 10.2.2 in MUDDS. The greenway with rain garden
and pollinator path that runs across the southern portion of the development may
not meet the minimum 40 ft dimension. RESOLVED.
Response: Dimensions and clarifications have been added to the plans to align with the
civic spaces in the MUDDS.
Comment Number: 53 Comment Originated: 09/23/2022
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: A portion of Tract CC is called out as a
compact green civic space type. This portion of the site appears to be in T5
which does not all for a compact green. Please update the civic space type.
Tract A also appears to fall into T5 and where a green is not permitted. RESOLVED.
Response: The compact green in Tract CC has been changed to a Square to comply with
the MUDDS. The Green in Tract A has been designated as a Pocket Park which allows
community gardens as a use. In addition, the greenways in Tracts H, I, J, K and L have been
designated as Passages to better comply with the MUDDS.
Comment Number: 54 Comment Originated: 09/23/2022
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: A formal garden is listed as a permitted
program element in a Green, as proposed for Tract A. RESOLVED.
Response: The Green in Tract A has been designated as a Pocket Park which allows community
gardens as a use.
Comment Number: 55 Comment Originated: 09/23/2022
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The labelling of the civic spaces is not
consistent between S-19 and the other site plan sheets. Please correct. RESOLVED.
Response: Plans have been revised.
Comment Number: 56 Comment Originated: 09/23/2022
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please identify which required program
element is present in the Mountain Vista Greenway. RESOLVED.
Response: Paths are provided as a required program element through the boardwalk and crusher
fines connection, the perimeter sidewalk along Summerside Drive, and the north/south multi-use
path along the west edge of this area.
Comment Number: 57 Comment Originated: 09/23/2022
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: A pollinator path is not a listed civic
space type. Please clarify is this area is to be counted as a civic space type. RESOLVED.
Response: Revisions have been added to the plans to align with the civic spaces in the MUDDS.
The areas previously identified only as pollinator paths are now delineated as Passages with
pollinator paths as a use.
Comment Number: 58 Comment Originated: 09/23/2022
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: For the Ditch Buffer mitigation, please
distinguish between new proposed mitigation areas and previously proposed
Page 12 of 54
areas that are being enhanced and provide a measure of the enhancement.
This will impact whether or not the undergrounding of the ditch is a change in
character or not. RESOLVED.
Response: A table summary of the various pollinator paths and nature-based spaces is shown on
Sheet L19 of the Landscape Plans along with the seed mixes and plant lis ts. In addition, the ditch
company requires a 60’ easement for the piped ditch, and we are maximizing the use of this space
as a human/nature connection space with paths and pollinator plantings, some of which falls in
Phase E based on the required ditch pipe alignment.
Comment Number: 59 Comment Originated: 09/23/2022
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The non-potable irrigation system will
be subject to the Water Adequacy Review and staff will have additional
comments and input through that process.
Response: Montava has provided recommendations and detailed data related to this point; it is
critical to involve us as this policy moves forward. Additionally, Montava has submitted our detailed
plan for our non-potable system that should answer any and all questions.
Department: Historic Preservation
Contact: Jim Bertolini, 970-416-4250, jbertolini@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/17/2022
05/17/2022: NO HISTORIC REVIEW REQUIRED: This proposal does not
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. RESOLVED.
Response: Comment noted.
Department: Engineering Development Review.
Contact: Tim Dinger, , tdinger@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR INFORMATION:
I'm noting that all comments are in essence "for approval" as there is no public
hearing or preliminary/final for this project.
Response: Comment noted.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/13/2022:
There are still areas where angle points are being incorporated in the on -street
parking areas. Please remove all angle points, as they create issues for street
sweeping and snow plowing operations by the City. RESOLVED.
Response: Angle points have been removed from the bump-outs defining the
on-street parking limits.
01/11/2022: The layout of the street system appears to be introducing angle
points rather than curves where the inset parking is created. There's a general
concern that the interior angle points collect debris and are not able to be
reached with street sweepers, and the exterior angle points are likely to be hit
more often by vehicles. We would look to see that curves are provided to address these concerns.
Page 13 of 54
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/14/2022: UPDATED:
Providing an exhibit that highlights all areas where the non-potable system
requires an encroachment permit would be helpful when the time comes to
apply for the encroachment permit. Per ROW construction inspection manager
Ken Zetye, one encroachment permit can be applied for that covers all
crossings. The permit will need to cover any time a private utility crosses a public street. RESOLVED.
Response: The non-potable system is shown on the overall utility plan and is denoted as “NPW”
line type. Per previous coordination with Public Works, it was our understanding, encroachment
permits would not be required within internal Phase G SF development as it was determined that
irrigation lines less than 8 inch diameter would not require permits for encroachment into the ROW.
Non-potalbe irrigation lines within Phase G are primarily 4 inch with some 6 inch diameter.
05/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UPDATED: An encroachment permit will be
required for any place where the irrigation line crosses the right -of-way.
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.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/14/2022: UPDATED:
You need to submit an official variance request for any proposed utility
easements that do not meet LCUASS Standards. All variance requests need to
be approved prior to the final plans being recorded. RESOLVED.
Response: Noted, no variances are being requested for utility easements at this time.
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.
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.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/13/2022: UPDATED:
Will there be any right-of-way or easements to be submitted by separate
document? If so, submit the easement or ROW dedication documents with the
next submittal. Easement dedications must be approved prior to final plan recordation.
Page 14 of 54
Response: We are working with K&M Company, LLLP, owner of the property south of Mountain
Vista Drive to dedicate the right-of-way necessary for construction of the Phase G and Phase E
improvements to Mountain Vista Drive and the roundabout at Timberline/Mountain Vista. The
executed Deed of Dedication will be submitted for City acceptance and recording prior to final
approval of Phase G.
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.
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_v1.pdf?1640212430
If the conveyance can occur via plat instead of separate document, the fees
referenced above would not apply.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/13/2022: UPDATED:
The Phase E and Phase G plats need to be coordinated between the two
different surveyors working on them. There are several discrepancies, and there
needs to be continuity between them, and thought put into which one will be
approved first. RESOLVED.
Response: The Phase G plat has been updated and coordinated with the Phase E plat.
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.
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
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.
Page 15 of 54
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/13/2022: UPDATED:
The material types for the roadways and sidewalks are unclear in a lot of the
plans. Can you provide hatching for the concrete paving vs. asphalt paving,
specifically in the roundabouts and kidney-bean roundabouts? Hatching makes
the paving limits more clear than just leaders with stationing. RESOLVED.
Response: For clarity pavement hatching has been added to the roadway plans. Per pervious
coordination with the City of Fort Collins a variance for the roundabout to be construction out of
asphalt instead of concrete has been submitted.
05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UPDATED: This comment will be resolved
after a full review of the Timberline/Mountain Vista plans.
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 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/13/2022: UPDATED:
We have not heard from Progressive Solutions since June 2022 regarding the
additional data that we requested for the alternative pavement sections. The
City is still receptive to alternative pavement designs, but more information and
data needs to be provided before a decision can be officially made. RESOLVED.
Response: We are no longer pursuing this option.
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.
01/11/2022: I'm noting that the roadway plans specify pavement type and
depths in some of the drawings. These exact designs are not specified on the
plans and determined at the time of construction and roadway prep, with the
approval occurring with a pavement design report at that time.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/14/2022: UPDATED:
The Infrastructure Roadway and Utility plans have the incorrect signature block.
Please add the newest City signature block for utility plans, which can be found
here: https://www.fcgov.com/engineering/devrev. The signature block only
needs to be on the first sheet of the utility plan package. RESOLVED.
Response: Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans have been revised to include latest approval
block on the cover sheet.
01/11/2022: For the various utility plans, the City's adopted on its civil/utility
plan sets an updated approval block that would only be used on the cover sheet
and the depicted utility plan approval block can then be removed on all the
sheets. This detail to use on the cover sheet is linked below.
https://www.fcgov.com/engineering/files/utilitysigblock.pdf?1611856399
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/14/2022: UPDATED:
You need to submit an official variance request for any proposed utility
easements that do not meet LCUASS Standards. All variance requests need to
be approved prior to the final plans being recorded. RESOLVED.
Page 16 of 54
Response: Comment noted. At this time a variance to standard utility easements is not anticipated.
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.
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: 28 Comment Originated: 05/26/2022
09/14/2022: UPDATED:
I am leaving this comment active, as discussion regarding the design and
operation of the oval ("kidney bean") roundabouts is still ongoing. We are
looking forward to the setup and demonstration of the kidney bean intersections
in the near future.
Response: The kidney bean demonstration was conducted on October 30, 2022. City staff was
present. Based on feedback from participants and observers and a comparison of the “true” design
to aerial drone imagery of the demonstration layout, we have made some changes to the design for
the purpose of improving movement and safety. The community feedback gained from the online
survey after the intersection test was very positive. A copy is provided with this resubmittal.
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
oval-shaped roundabouts will work. This list is not all-inclusive, and other
departments and their comments from this round may require additional items.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 05/26/2022
09/14/2022: UPDATED:
What type of material is used for the boardwalk construction? On the
Landscape plan, the boardwalks are hatched and the pattern is described as
"Organic Mulch". Please have a unique hatch for boardwalks, and add it to the
legend. Please add the boardwalk specifications and details somewhere in the
utility plan package. We will write the maintenance responsibilities for the
boardwalks into the Development Agreement. RESOLVED.
Response: The boardwalks will be constructed with composite and pressure-treated lumber, see
details Sheet S20 of Site Plans. We have revised the boardwalk hatch so that it is no longer similar
to the Organic Mulch hatch pattern. Based on this comment, we have added a sheet to the Utility
Plans with these details, too.
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
Page 17 of 54
of the boardwalks were shown on one of the plans or on their own detail sheet possibly.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 05/26/2022
09/14/2022: UPDATED:
Flowline profiles were not submitted with this round. Flowline profiles for both
sides of all proposed streets will be required for approval. If proposed alleys
drain to center, only centerline profiles will be required. Timberline Road flowline
profiles will be required for both sides of the street, and Mountain Vista flowline
profiles will be required for the north side of the street where the proposed curb
and gutter is being constructed. RESOLVED.
Response: Flowline profiles have been included with this submittal. Format of the flowline profiles
has been previously coordinated with Public Works.
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.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 05/26/2022
09/15/2022: UPDATED:
There are some minor redlines on the Signing and Striping plans. Please
address for the next submittal. RESOLVED.
Response: Comments have been addressed and plans updated.
05/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Signage and striping information for all streets
will be required for approval.
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 05/26/2022
09/14/2022: UPDATED:
Sight distance easements were not provided as requested. Please see
LCUASS Figure 7-11F, detail 2, which describes the easements required. Add
the sight distance easements to the plat with the next submittal. Please note that
no fences may encroach the sight distance easements, and all landscaping
must be no higher than 12 inches.
Response: A variance has been submitted as part of the submittal to slightly reduce the sight
distance ‘cut corners’. A typical easement detail has been added to the plat.
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.
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 05/31/2022
09/13/2022: UPDATED:
A variance request must be submitted during the next round for each cross
section that has not been vested by the PUD. The connector local, connector
local alt 1, connector local alt 2, and residential local alt 2 do not meet LCUASS
standards, nor are they vested through the PUD. Please submit all required
variance requests with the next round. All required variances must be approved
before final plans can be recorded.
Response: Street variance request has been submitted for deviations to the LCUASS Connector
Local and Residential Local Street sections. The variance request letter was submitted ahead of the
Phase G submittal documents.
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
Page 18 of 54
sections have been vested. Variance requests for all unvested street sections
will need to be submitted with the 100% submittal.
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 09/14/2022
09/14/2022:
Turning radius exhibits will be required for all movements of all roundabouts that
are proposed with this phase. Per previous discussions with Poudre Fire
Authority, the "kidney bean" intersections would not allow for emergency vehicle
access with several of the possible intersection movements. The turning radius
exhibits will also be used when the roundabouts are taken to City Council for approval. RESOLVED.
Response: Truck turning template exhibits have been included with this submittal.
Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 09/14/2022
09/14/2022:
The Timberline Road and Mountain Vista cross-sections are not vested through
the PUD, and do not meet any LCUASS standard cross sections. A variance
request for each must be submitted with the next round. All variance requests
must be approved prior to final plan approval and recordation. RESOLVED.
Response: Street variance request has been submitted for deviations to the LCUASS Minor
Collector section. The variance request letter was submitted ahead of the Phase G submittal
documents.
Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 09/15/2022
09/15/2022:
More information is needed regarding the ultimate condition construction of
Mountain Vista Drive. Per the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan, Mountain
Vista Drive is classified as a 4-lane arterial street to the east of the intersection
with Timberline Road. It seems like you are only proposing 2 -lanes on Mountain
Vista to the east of Timberline Road. When will the full build -out occur? If you are
not constructing this portion of Mountain Vista to the ultimate condition with this
phase, you will need to provide designs for the interim condition as well as the
ultimate condition, as well as timing of when the ultimate condition will be constructed. RESOLVED.
Response: Mountain Vista Drive will not be widened to a four-lane roadway east between
Timberline Road and Giddings Road until all parcels (Phase E, H and I) adjacent to Mountain Vista
Drive in this segment are developed. The proposed roundabout at the intersection of Mountain
Vista Drive and Timberline Road will be constructed initially to the ultimate two lane roundabout (4-
lane roadway) but can be striped with one circulating lane in the short-term. Phase H and I are
anticipated to follow shortly after Phase G and E which will initiate the widening of Mountain Vista
Drive and ultimate configuration of the roundabout.
Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 09/15/2022
09/15/2022:
Please fill out the Development Agreement Information form and return to us
with the next submittal, or as soon as possible. This form contains vital
information for us to start drafting the development agreement. The DA info form
can be found online (https://www.fcgov.com/engineering/devrev), and should
also be included with the redlines you receive with this round of review. RESOLVED.
Response: The Information for Development Agreement form accompanies this resubmittal.
Please provide your first draft of the Development Agreement as soon as possible.
Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 09/16/2022
09/16/2022:
Per the City surveyors who are reviewing the plat, the item labeled Rec.
#98086673 is not an actual easement, just an agreement between Storybook
Page 19 of 54
Farm, LLC and Poudre School District (Rec. #98086673). It is highly
recommended that you dedicate an actual easement over top of this
agreement. A copy of the current agreement can be found online at the Larimer
County Public Records search (https://records.larimer.org/landmarkweb) at
searchable reception number 19980086673. The searchable reception number
is different than what is listed on the plat due to a numbering format change.
Response: We are creating an agreement for Storybook for a permanent easement and will
endeavor to have it executed with them in the near future.
Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 09/16/2022
09/16/2022:
Per the utility plan checklist, cross sections for proposed arterial streets and for
proposed collector streets must be provided at 50-foot intervals. Providing only
typical sections for final design is not acceptable. Please provide the required
cross sections with the next submittal. RESOLVED.
Response: Sections at 50 foot intervals have been included for Timberline and Mountain Vista.
Contact: Jin Wang, , jwang@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/22/2022
09/22/2022: PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS STRUCTURAL REVIEW:
Need waterproofing over precast arch section joints, top and sides RESOLVED.
Response: Waterproofing has been added over the precast units.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/22/2022
09/22/2022: PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS STRUCTURAL REVIEW:
Need weld plate connection details between precast sections RESOLVED.
Response: These details will be delivered with the deferred precast design and shop drawings.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/22/2022
09/22/2022: PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS STRUCTURAL REVIEW:
Need non-shrink Epoxy Grout at connection between arch and floor precast
Section. RESOLVED.
Response: These details will be delivered with the deferred precast design and shop drawings.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/22/2022
09/22/2022: PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS STRUCTURAL REVIEW:
Call out Arch and floor precast joint need to be stagger RESOLVED.
Response: Note has been added to our plans.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/22/2022
09/22/2022: PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS STRUCTURAL REVIEW:
Headwall and wingwall railing is not typical for us. Opening should not be
greater then 4” RESOLVED.
Response: Pedestrian Railing Detail is updated to match this requirement.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/22/2022
09/22/2022: PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS STRUCTURAL REVIEW:
Need headwall design and connection details RESOLVED.
Response: The precast design will require the WWF to be extended into the CIP headwall and
wingwall.
Page 20 of 54
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/22/2022
09/22/2022: PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS STRUCTURAL REVIEW:
Need wingwall connection to precast details RESOLVED.
Response: The precast design will require the WWF to be extended into the CIP headwall and
wingwall.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/22/2022
09/22/2022: PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS STRUCTURAL REVIEW:
Need toewall connection to precast details RESOLVED.
Response: The precast design will require the WWF to be extended into the CIP headwall and
Toewall.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/22/2022
09/22/2022: PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS STRUCTURAL REVIEW:
Need concrete topping on the path to smooth out/cover the joint of precast RESOLVED.
Response: Concrete wearing surface has been added to the plans.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/22/2022
09/22/2022: PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS STRUCTURAL REVIEW:
Recommends crown and cross slope with drainage channel. RESOLVED.
Response: The added wearing surface has been crowned on the plans.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/22/2022
09/22/2022: PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS STRUCTURAL REVIEW:
Drainage pipe penetration detail RESOLVED.
Response: Pipe penetration detail has been added to the plans.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans
Depending on what is proposed for the roundabout, Timberline and Mountain
Vista improvements, we may need interim and ultimate designs submitted that
clearly show what is proposed in the interim condition and what is an ultimate
condition. It looks like the roundabout shown at Timberline and Mountain Vista
is tying into existing Timberline to the south, for example. We would also need
to see an ultimate design for this area. RESOLVED.
Response: The roundabout is proposed to be built in the ultimate condition and immediately tie to
the existing conditions surrounding roadways where improvements are not proposed. To the south
this developer does not own the right of way or adjacent property. This development has no plans
for the southern leg of Timberline and is understood the City is studying this area for future
development and trail improvements.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
We would like to continue working with you on the design of Timberline Rd.
north of Mountain Vista. We need a better understanding of the intersection designs.
Response: See revised plans. A mockup of the “kidney bean” intersections was done with the City,
Poudre Fire, and the bike community on 10/30/2022 and the input and feedback from that exercise
Page 21 of 54
has been incorporated into this design. The community feedback gained from the survey after the
intersection test was very positive.
01/11/2022:
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 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
9/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
We would like to work with you to better understand the bike and pedestrian network. RESOLVED.
Response: A Trail and Stormwater Network exhibit that depicts the bike and pedestrian network
accompanies this resubmittal.
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 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
9/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Please work the engineering department and our TCEF administrator to
determine responsibilities regarding the infrastructure buildout.
Response: Montava has started those conversations with TCEF staff and are working towards
that final evaluation.
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: 12 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Per previous discussions, we need to better understand the operation of the
kidney bean intersections. We have requested autoturn exhibits and would like
to work with you and PFA on the details of how these might work. RESOLVED.
Response: Truck turning templates have been included in the revised submittal package for Phase
G Roadway Infrastructure package. See revised plans. A mockup of the “kidney bean” intersections
was done with the City, Poudre Fire, and the bike community on 10/30/2022 and the input and
feedback from that exercise has been incorporated into this design.
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.
Page 22 of 54
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
We will do a complete signing and striping review once we finalize intersection design.
Response: Noted.
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: 25 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
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: Comment noted.
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 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
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. RESOLVED.
Response: Additional information and analysis for bike and pedestrians and how these facilities
within Montava tie into the surrounding street system has been provided. Graphics have also been
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. The improvements associated with
Phase G & E are clearly identified in a table of improvements in the revised Phase G & E traffic
study.
Page 23 of 54
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 disc uss this intersection in
more detail with your team.
Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 06/03/2022
09/23/2022: FOR NEXT SUBMITTAL:
The traffic impact study needs to be revised to include the Bloom traffic at
Timberline and Vine. RESOLVED.
Response: Site generated traffic volumes from the Bloom development are incorporated within the
revised Phase G & E traffic study.
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.
Contact: Spencer Smith, 970-221-6820, smsmith@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
We would like to better understand the bike and pedestrian network through the site. RESOLVED.
Response: Additional information has been included in the report regarding the bicycle facilities.
Bicycle facilities proposed with the full buildout of Montava will be provided along the project’s
frontages to the external street system and roadways internal to the project. The proposed
development does not plan to provide bicycle facilities external to the project site, and it is believed
these facilities will be provided as adjacent properties are developed. Graphics will also be
provided identifying bike facility plans.
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: 16 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
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
included in your official submittals. RESOLVED.
Response: Updated AutoTurn exhibits have been included as part of the submittal documents.
Exhibits were sent directly to PFA for review as part of the May 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 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
05/31/2022: 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. RESOLVED.
Response: Signing and striping plans were submitted with the second document submittal in May.
The signing and striping plans have been updated to incorporate comments received from the May
submission.
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Page 24 of 54
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 Comment Originated: 01/14/2022
01/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans
The transitions from 2 lanes to 1 on the outgoing legs of the roundabout should
be extended. Please take a look at a couple of other roundabouts in
neighboring jurisdictions for examples: Boyd Lake/Lost Creek in Loveland (just
north of Hwy 34 and west of I-25) and CR5/CR32 in Windsor (north of Hwy 392 on CR5). RESOLVED.
Response: This comment was previously incorporated.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 06/03/2022
09/23/2022: FOR NEXT SUBMITTAL
Please address. RESOLVED.
Response: Please see previous response below.
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.
Previous 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 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 20 22
including a 2045 horizon analysis and full development of Montava.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 06/03/2022
09/23/2022: FOR NEXT SUBMITTAL
Please address comment RESOLVED.
Response: This improvement is outside the current limits of Phase G. The need for the
eastbound left turn lane at the Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road intersection is based on
existing traffic conditions. This has been identified as an improvement by others in the Phase G
and E traffic study due to being needed with existing traffic volumes. It does not seem reasonable
to provide this left turn lane in the interim to only be reconstructed when Mountain Vista Drive will
be improved to a four-lane roadway. Mountain Vista Drive will be improved to a four-lane section in
the near future in association with development of the adjacent parcels of Phase H and I. This
intersection is reported to operate acceptably without the left turn lane in the short-term. Otherwise,
the City could consider a temporary improvement prior to the future widening of Mountain Vista
Page 25 of 54
Drive.
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.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 06/03/2022
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. RESOLVED.
Response: We concur that the Timberline Road and Vine intersection are being improved under the
current capital improvement plans of the City.
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 06/03/2022
09/23/2022: FOR NEXT SUBMITTAL
Please address comment RESOLVED.
Response: This intersection is not identified as a City of Fort Collins planned improvement project
in the revised traffic study.
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.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 06/03/2022
09/23/2022: FOR NEXT SUBMITTAL
Please address comment RESOLVED.
Response: The intersection of Country Club Road and Lemay Avenue is entirely in Larimer County
and the County has funding available for this improvement. We will work with City staff and Larimer
County to determine our impact. Nicole Hahn has been facilitating a meeting with the County to
discuss details related to Country Club Road and other details.
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.
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 06/03/2022
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Comment not yet addressed. RESOLVED.
Response: Additional information and analysis for bike facilities within Montava and how they tie
into the surrounding street system has been provided. Graphics have also been provided
identifying bike facility plans.
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
Department: Stormwater Engineering – Erosion Control
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/05/2022
Page 26 of 54
09/19/2022: Fees will be reevaluated at next submittal based upon those site changes.
Response: Comment noted.
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.
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 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 Comment Originated: 01/05/2022
09/19/2022: There are some comments that will need to be addressed in the
returned redlines. Redlines in the Erosion Control Plan Sheets, Report and Escrow Calculation.
RESOLVED.
Response: The erosion control plans and report have been updated per latest comments received.
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 pro vided
comments and redlines and address them accordingly.
01/05/2022: For Final:
Page 27 of 54
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 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/20/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL:
For single family-detached, please show building envelopes and grading around them. RESOLVED.
Response: Per our discussions final grading of the lots will be required of the home builder as
building envelopes, specific models, and elevations are not known at this time. Martin/Martin’s Area
Grading Plans provide general grading and drainage design intent that the home builder shall
utilize and rely on in preparation of the “Final Plot Plans”. Note #20, on sheet C1.5, has been
expanded noting that final plot plans are required to be submitted to public works for review and
approval and design will need to include entirety of subdivision blocks to ensure drainage and
grading patterns are coordinated between lots.
05/31/2022: Reminder for next submittal.
01/11/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
Detailed grading plans are required, including for the single-family lots.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/23/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL - UPDATED:
Will review this thoroughly next round.
Response: Comment noted.
01/11/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
There are many locations where the City's minimum separation distances are
not being met between storm water infrastructure and trees. The minimum
separation requirement is 10 feet from trees. Please revise. RESOLVED.
Response: Tree clearances have been coordinated with landscape and where 9-10' separation
cannot be achieved, alternative landscape approaches have been included.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 06/01/2022
09/23/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL - UPDATED:
Will review this thoroughly next round.
Response: Comment noted.
06/01/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
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. RESOLVED.
Response: Storm sewer alignments have been optimized to achieve required utility clearances
and to be parallel to the roadway.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 06/01/2022
09/20/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
A meeting may be best to go over the public vs. private storm sewers. The
storm sewer plan/profile sheets state "All storm sewer is public" but there will be
many private storm sewers as well. Also, please remove any notes stating
storm sewer is public. The City wants public vs. private storm sewers identified
Page 28 of 54
on the storm profile sheets. RESOLVED.
Response: Based on our coordination meeting, storm sewers have been appropriately labeled
public and private, as needed.
06/01/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
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. RESOLVED.
Response: Based on our coordination meeting, storm sewers have been appropriately labeled
public and private, as needed.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/20/2022
09/20/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
The City prefers the use of TRM vs. riprap in residential areas for several
reasons. Please consider changing to TRM. RESOLVED.
Response: Riprap will be buried with topsoil to allow vegetation establishment.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/20/2022
09/20/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
The riprap used for the spillway locations seems excessive and not needed on
the upstream side of the spillway. Also, 6-inches of topsoil should be in these
locations as well to promote vegetation. RESOLVED.
Response: Spillway riprap has been scaled back out spillway locations and is specified to be buried
with minimum 6in topsoil to promote vegetation establishment.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/20/2022
09/20/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
The WQ outlet structure for detention pond A2 is not per the City's standard.
Typically, 4 inches is separated vertically between the water quality orifices.
This will add additional rows. Also, if the holes are not too small, the City does
not see a need to reduce the rows and make the holes larger. More holes has
shown to reduce the chance for clogging. RESOLVED.
Response: The water quality outlet plate has been updated with orifices at 4in on center.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/20/2022
09/20/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
Detention Pond E needs varying slopes and more natural curvature to meet the
City's Detention Pond Landscape Standards. Also, City Parks Department
needs to approve the shape as well. RESOLVED.
Response: Detention Pond E has been designed to allow future multi-purpose recreational fields to
be located within the 100-year water surface extents and outside the 10-year water surface extents.
The grading may be updated by Parks upon implementation of the future park improvements.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 09/20/2022
09/20/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
The City recommends Rain Garden D have it's own storm sewer outfall. This
would reduce the spill into the other RG and reduce erosion and maintenance
for the future HOA. RESOLVED.
Response: Underground water quality treatment is now designed to treat Basin 2 in lieu of the rain
gardens. A StormTech water quality chamber is designed to treat this portion of the West Montava
Outfall System.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/20/2022
09/20/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
The City has a revised rain garden detail that includes some updated notes. I
will email the updated version to include in the plans. RESOLVED.
Page 29 of 54
Response: Plans have been updated with revised rain garden detail.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/20/2022
09/20/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
Storm sewer manhole J2 is right on top of a sanitary sewer. Please relocate 10
feet from the sanitary line. RESOLVED.
Response: Storm sewer manhole J2 has been updated accordingly.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 09/20/2022
09/20/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
Please revise the radius to 1 foot for the "pipe inlet/outlet into curb and gutter"
detail on Sheet D16. RESOLVED.
Response: Radius has been revised accordingly.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Austin Kreager, 970-224-6152, akreager@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/12/2022
01/12/2022: INFORMATION:
Please research Colorado's laws as they relate to a private utility owner and
ensure that there is a plan in place to locate your irrigation lines in the event that
a utility locate request is made. RESOLVED.
Response: Montava is coordinating with the Montava Metropolitan District to engage with a private
utility locating company who will provide this service.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 09/20/2022
09/20/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Please show a detailed utility layout for what is being proposed on Timberline
Rd. From what is submitted, it appears that the sanitary sewer will make it
difficult for our facilities on the west side of Timberline. We should be in the
parkway on both sides of Timberline. RESOLVED.
Response: 15’ utility easement with electrical shown center have been added.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/20/2022
09/20/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
It is unclear how Light and Power will be able to service Block 11, lot 13 with
electricity. Please show a proposed route for service on your next submittal. RESOLVED.
Response: Per additional coordination an easement has been provided between lots to provide
service.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/20/2022
09/20/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Is the ditch easement exclusive to just the ditch company or will utility providers
be allowed to be located within that easement?
Response: Coordination with the ditch company is on-going including the understanding of
limitations within the easement. Additional information will be shared with the City and Light and
Power as it is determined.
Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-416-2772, tsiegmund@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Page 30 of 54
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
Light and Power has electric facilities existing along Mountain Vista Dr that will
need to be extended to feed the site. RESOLVED.
Response: The site electrical design has been updated per on-going discussions and coordination
with Light and Power.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges and any system
modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this development.
Please contact me to discuss development fees or visit the following website for
an estimate of charges and fees related to this project:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investment-development-fees
Response: Comment noted. The development team/ownership will contact Light and Power to
further discuss development fees.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
05/31/2022: 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. RESOLVED.
Response: The primary electric lines have been revised/updated per additional coordination
meetings and discussions with Light and Power.
01/11/2022: SITE SPECIFIC:
Please show the primary electric routing on the utility plans. We will provide
redlines of the electric routing for the second submittal following a utility
coordination meeting.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
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. RESOLVED.
Response: Comment noted. Infrastructure alignments have been laid out to achieve 10’ of
separation. In most cases the 10’ of separation was achieved but in some isolated locations and
small segments less than 10’ was achieved.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
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. RESOLVED.
Response: Electrical layout and alignments have been coordinated with Light and Power.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
Page 31 of 54
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. RESOLVED.
Response: Comment noted. Electrical layout and alignments have been coordinated with LIght and
Power including call outs to existing infrastructure along Mtn Vista. Please inform the design team
if additional existing infrastructure needs to be relocated.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
All utility easements and required permits (crossing agreements, flood plain,
etc.) needed for the development will need to be obtained and paid for by the developer. RESOLVED.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
Any existing and/or proposed Light and Power electric facilities that are within
the limits of the project must be located within a utility easement. RESOLVED.
Response: Easements and utility tracts have been provided and are included in the plat for
dedication to cover electrical distribution.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
A commercial service information form (C-1 form) and a one line diagram for all
commercial meters, multifamily buildings, and duplexes will need to be
completed and submitted to Light & Power Engineering for review. A link to the C-1 form is below:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-
forms-guidelines-regulations RESOLVED.
Response: Service information forms will be submitted and further coordinated with Light and
Power at time of building development process.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
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 RESOLVED.
Response: Street lights have been shown based on coordination with Light and Power.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
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. RESOLVED.
Response: Per coordination with Light and Power electric alignments and meter locations have
been determined through several meetings and exchange of design files.
Page 32 of 54
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
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 RESOLVED.
Response: Per coordination with Light and Power electric alignments and meter locations have
been determined through several meetings and exchange of design files.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
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: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
The City of Fort Collins now offers gig-speed fiber internet, video and phone
service. Contact Brad Ward with Fort Collins Connexion at 970 -224-6003 or
bward@fcgov.com for commercial grade account support, RFPs and bulk agreements.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 05/31/2022
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 Ligh t 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. RESOLVED.
Response: Comment noted. Horizontal space has been preserved on both sides of Timberline.
The proposed cross section of Timberline, including utility designations and locations, were shared
with Light and Power.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Scott Benton, (970)416-4290, sbenton@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/31/2022
09/19/2022: (UPDATED) FOR APPROVAL: POLLINATOR MASTER PLAN:
Thank you for proposing a more thorough Pollinator Master Plan. Please reach
out for an offline meeting to discuss some adjustments, namely:
-How the Phase G plan integrates into a Montava-wide plan;
-Some specifics of the various mixes;
-Clarifying maintenance practices and potentially monitoring.
RESOLVED.
Response: We’ve made revisions to the plans based on our further discussions.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/31/2022
09/19/2022: (UPDATED) FOR APPROVAL: WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN:
The Weed Control Plan Summary on page L12 of the Landscape Plan is a
Page 33 of 54
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.
Please clarify where the new weed management plan is located. RESOLVED.
Response: We’ve made revisions to the plans based on our further discussions.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/31/2022
09/19/2022: (UPDATED) FOR APPROVAL: NATIVE SEED MIXES: Thank
you for diversifying your seed mixes, that will be beneficial in terms of water
conservation, performance, etc. Please reach out for an offline meeting to go
over some adjustments. Note that ‘Native Seed – Type 3’ cannot be allowed
due to crested wheatgrass and Russian wildrye. RESOLVED.
Response: We’ve made revisions to the plans based on our further discussions.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/19/2022
09/19/2022: -FOR APPROVAL: Thank you for identifying the various areas and
features that will be dedicated to mitigating the loss of the No. 8 wildlife
movement corridor. Language will need to be provided on the various plan sets
(site, landscape, and utility) and in the Development Agreement to indicate that
those features will be maintained in perpetuity. RESOLVED.
Response: We’ve made revisions to the plans based on our further discussions.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/19/2022
09/19/2022: FOR APPROVAL: I appreciate the desire to exceed the required
wetland mitigation amount, however, intentionally creating wetlands where none
existed before is a violation of Colorado water law. Mitigation wetlands should
be limited to the 0.139 acres of wetlands identified along the No. 8 in the ECS. RESOLVED.
Response: We’ve made revisions to the plans based on our further discussions.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/19/2022
09/19/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
If the applicant is seeking a 150-foot alternative
buffer compliance from oil and gas facilities, the applicant must provide
letterhead documentation from Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission (COGCC) regarding the Plugged and Abandoned status of all Oil
and Gas facilities. LUC sec 3.8.26 (C)(4)(c).
Response: This well is not on our property. We have been working with Kirk Longstein in
Environmental and the private property owner who has informed us the well is plugged and
abandoned and approved. We are waiting for documentation from the private property owner.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 09/19/2022
09/19/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
If the applicant is seeking a 150-foot alternative
buffer, the applicant must submit an alternative compliance buffer reduction
plan. The plan must include 1) location of all oil and gas facilities adjacent the
development, and 2) the findings of a type II Environmental Site Assessment.
The plan must also include the details of ongoing soil, gas, and groundwater
monitoring at the well location up to 5 years after development is complete. LUC
sec 3.8.26 (C)(4)(c)(1)(b).
Response: If this process is necessary pending the final report from the private property owner, we
will follow the approved process as noted.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/19/2022
09/19/2022: FOR APPROVAL, DA and DCP:
Language requiring the
implementation of the 5 years of oil and gas facility monitoring (and annual
Page 34 of 54
report) will be included in the Development Agreement (DA) for this project. A
security estimate will be required FOR APPROVAL, and the actual security will
need to be provided prior to the issuance of a Development Construction
Permit (DCP) 5-year oil and gas monitoring plan.
Response: The 5-year testing may already be in process via the private property owner. Once
confirmed we will work with Kirk in Environmental to determine next steps.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Aaron Wagner, , aawagner@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/31/2022
09/20/2022: UPDATED
Please see comments from PP&D regarding detention/retention areas on Tract EE. RESOLVED.
Response: Thank you for the subsequent meetings and discussions. To maximize flexibility for the
future park property, we have revised the shared water quality areas required north of Longwood to
be treated with an underground structure. This will provide the most flexibility for this space for
future park uses as it minimizes the area required and allows the ability to have park improvements
(walks, paths, parking, turf, grasses, shrubs) to be placed over the underground structure.
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.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/31/2022
09/20/2022 UPDATED: UNRESOLVED - FOR APPROVAL:
Please label and prepare separate plans for all areas that will be turned over to Parks for long
term maintenance. Please include break downs of square footages for
hardscape and softscapes, linear feet of trails, native seed areas, and separate
plant lists for medians and roundabout(s). Additional review or coordination will
be required for areas that Parks will be taking over for maintenance.
https://www.fcgov.com/planning/pdf/streetscape-doc.pdf? RESOLVED.
Response: All areas indicated in the Phase G plans will be maintained by the
Developer/Metro District. The only areas that are planned to be turned over to Parks for
maintenance are:
1) the roundabout and associated medians within Mountain Vista Drive (arterial road)
section as we understand is typical for arterial roadways. The landscape and irrigation
plans for this area are included as separate plan documents for your review.
2) The pedestrian trail underpass at Mountain Vista Drive. We have included details for this
underpass, drainage, lighting and pump systems in the infrastructure plans for your
continued review.
The planned rain garden improvements within the Community Park Dedication Area (Tract EE) have
been removed and replaced with an underground water quality structure that will be maintained by
the Developer/Metro District. The shared regional detention pond remains oversized to
accommodate the shared detention needs, and has been redesigned to better accommodate
potential park uses (i.e. 2% cross-slopes with more contained drainage swale areas). The grading
for this area will be treated for erosion control and dryland seed, maintained by the Developer/Metro
District until future development as a park.
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,
Page 35 of 54
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.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/31/2022
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. RESOLVED.
Response: Parks has made substantial progress on all of these issues and we believe their
concerns are alleviated. As we have pointed out Parks will have many years to observe our system
before they have to make final decisions.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 07/14/2022
07/14/2022: FOR APPROVAL
Parks has not approved any plans or documents/rep orts concerning water
rights, pond sharing, irrigation, or water sharing. RESOLVED.
Response: Parks has made substantial progress on all of these issues and we believe their
concerns are alleviated. As we have pointed out Parks will have many years to observe our
system before they have to make final decisions.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 07/14/2022
07/14/2022: FOR APPROVAL
In reference to the irrigation pump system, Parks prefers our own wet well and
intake, and pump for pulling water from the ‘shared pond’ system to maintain as
much flexibility as possible when sharing an irrigation system. RESOLVED.
Response: The objectives have been discussed in detail with Matt Day and our pump station design
incorporates City Parks current understanding of their needs.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 07/14/2022
07/14/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Parks needs a clear understanding of the streetscapes and medians that will be
turned over to our department for long term maintenance. RESOLVED.
Response: All areas indicated in the Phase G plans will be maintained by the
Developer/Metro District. The only areas that are planned to be turned over to Parks for
maintenance are:
3) the roundabout and associated medians within Mountain Vista Drive (arterial road)
section as we understand is typical for arterial roadways. The landscape and irrigation
plans for this area are included as separate plan documents for your review.
4) The pedestrian trail underpass at Mountain Vista Drive. We have included details for this
underpass, drainage, lighting and pump systems in the infrastructure plans for your
continued review.
The planned rain garden improvements within the Community Park Dedication Area (Tract EE) have
been removed and replaced with an underground water quality structure that will be maintained by
the Developer/Metro District. The shared regional detention pond remains oversized to
accommodate the shared detention needs, and has been redesigned to better accommodate
potential park uses (i.e. 2% cross-slopes with more contained drainage swale areas). The grading
for this area will be treated for erosion control and dryland seed, maintained by the Developer/Metro
District until the City purchases the future park property and assumes maintenance.
Page 36 of 54
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 07/14/2022
07/14/2022: FOR INFORMATION:
Crescent Park shall not be a part of the shared pond system for accounting purposes. RESOLVED.
Response: Crescent Park cannot participate in the Montava irrigation system at all. It will need to be
served by the Baker Lateral.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/20/2022
09/20/2022: UPDATED: In light of new information coming from the applicant
regarding water source, please see original comment. RESOLVED.
Response: Please read to the Non-Potable Irrigation System Report for Montava Subdivision which
accompanies this resubmittal.
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.
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: 21 Comment Originated: 09/20/2022
09/20/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Mtn. Vista and Timberline roundabout and medians will require their own
irrigation system, please prepare a separate irrigation plan package along with
site, landscape plans etc. for these areas to be turned over to Parks. Please
refer to the Parks irrigation standards for irrigation design and details:
https://www.fcgov.com/parks/files/fc-ipt-final-report-with-standards.pdf?1621463830 RESOLVED.
Response: The roundabout and associated medians within Mountain Vista Drive (arterial road)
section as we understand is typical for arterial roadways. The landscape and irrigation plans for
this area are included as separate plan documents for your review.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/20/2022
UPDATED 09/20/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR APPROVAL: Per new
information on the plans please continue to work with us on the location and
placement of the below named items. RESOLVED.
Response: Please see the attached Trail and Stormwater Network exhibit that
depicts the proposed bike and ped network and connections.
01/10/2022: UNRESOLVED - 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: 23 Comment Originated: 09/20/2022
09/20/2022 UPDATED: UNRESOLVED - FOR APPROVAL
In light of new information from the applicant regarding water sourcing please
see original comment RESOLVED.
Response: Recent meetings with Matt Day have addressed these questions.
06/02/2022: UPDATE: 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
Page 37 of 54
pond scenarios that were included with the approved PUD to determine the
feasibility of each option.
01/10/2022:
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?
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, mroche@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/20/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Please provide separation of trees from signs on plan sets. If these are stop
signs, please provide 50 feet of separation from the sign. See redlines for
examples. These redlines may not catch all instances of this. Please review all
plan sheets to find all possible instances. If these are other types of signs 50
feet of separation is not needed but a minimum of 5 feet of separation is
needed for offset from the base of the tree. There are a few electric vault
conflicts, a water line conflict, and a couple of storm drain inlet conflicts on the
plan set also. These have been marked on the redlines for your review. RESOLVED.
Response: Plans have been revised to reflect comments and redlines.
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
Department: Park Planning
Contact: Kyle Lambrecht, 970-416-4340, klambrecht@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
Page 38 of 54
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: The Park Planning & Development Department is
available to discuss the following comments in more detail. Please contact Kyle
Lambrecht, PE at 970-416-4340, klambrecht@fcgov.com.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: Park Planning and Development must approve the
trail alignment and design. Recreational trails do not function as widened
sidewalks adjacent or within street rights-of-way. RESOLVED.
Response: We have added a Trail and Stormwater Network exhibit showing the planned trail,
bikeway and walk system for the Phase G, Phase E and planned town center areas.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
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. RESOLVED.
Response: Please read the Non-Potable Irrigation Report which addresses these questions in
detail.
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: The City is interested in continuing discussions
on a shared non-potable irrigation system. If available, can you share current
water quality data for the proposed non-potable irrigation system?
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
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. RESOLVED.
Response: Please read the Non-Potable Irrigation Report which addresses these questions in
detail.
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 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UPDATED:
Thank you for all the irrigation pond information provided. Agree. Lets plan to
discuss if a feasibility study is still necessary as part of our follow up meeting. RESOLVED.
Response: Please read the Non-Potable Irrigation Report which addresses these questions in
detail.
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: RESOLVED. 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
Page 39 of 54
water provider, and 3.) Two separate systems. Response: This is no longer applicable.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
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. RESOLVED.
Response: This is no longer applicable.
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 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
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
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. RESOLVED.
Response: We have added a Trail and Stormwater Network exhibit showing the planned trail,
bikeway and walk system for the Phase G, Phase E and planned town center areas.
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. RESOLVED.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
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. RESOLVED.
Response: This is no longer applicable.
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 us age.
Page 40 of 54
- 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?
Response: The Non-Potable Irrigation Report answers all of these questions except for the question
regarding the infiltration pit. This pit is for maintenance purposes only and it is only connected to
the floor drains in the pump house.
Pond Design
- 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: The Non-Potable Irrigation Report answers all of these questions.
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 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
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: You are welcome.
01/11/2022: FOR HEARING: Please continue to coordinate with the City to
determine the long-term ownership of the pond and its infrastructure.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
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. RESOLVED.
Response: We have added a Trail and Stormwater Network exhibit showing the planned
trail, bikeway and walk system for the Phase G, Phase E and planned town center areas.
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
Page 41 of 54
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.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: Thank you for providing the geotechnical report for
the Phase G area as part of this submittal. Groundwater levels appear to be
roughly 24’ to 29’ below existing grade in the general vicinity of the trail
underpass. As final engineering plans for the underpass are developed, please
plan to coordinate with the City on means to mitigate groundwater infiltration (if
applicable) and stormwater runoff into the underpass. RESOLVED.
Response: Comment noted. Groundwater infiltration will be accounted for in the design of the
underpass, as needed. Note that the underpass is being designed with a wet well pumping system
to discharge stormwater and groundwater.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
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 irrigatio n pond, the
maintenance facility, the regional trail, and the detention/LID system. RESOLVED.
Response: We have added a Trail and Stormwater Network exhibit showing the planned
trail, bikeway and walk system for the Phase G, Phase E and planned town center areas.
To maximize flexibility for the future park property, we have revised the shared water quality
areas required north of Longwood to be treated with an underground structure. This change
removes the 4 water quality ponds, rain gardens, trickle channels, trails and boardwalks
mentioned. This solution will provide the most flexibility for this space for future park uses
as it minimizes the area required and allows the ability to have park improvements (walks,
paths, parking, turf, grasses, shrubs) to be placed over the underground structure.
The shared regional detention pond remains oversized to accommodate the shared
detention needs, and has been redesigned to better accommodate potential park uses (i.e.
2% cross-slopes with more contained drainage swale areas).
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 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
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. RESOLVED.
Page 42 of 54
Response: See below, no additional response.
Previous 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.
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: A trail easement may not be located within a ditch
easement unless the applicant provides written approval for the trail easement
within the ditch easement from the ditch company. The paved trail surface
cannot function as a ditch access road if heavy equipment will use or cross the
trail to maintain the ditch. Response: This is a reasonable and likely outcome. Developer has
discussed this with the Ditch Co. and will negotiate these terms in our agreement with the Ditch Co.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: The City is responsible for the long-term
maintenance of the regional trail within the development. Maintenance consists
of snowplowing of the paved surface, occasional seasonal mowing 2-3’
adjacent to the trail surface, repairing/replacing surface damage of the trail, and
all other landscaping maintenance within the easement. RESOLVED.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: Landscaping within the trail easement sha ll 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. RESOLVED.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 05/31/2022
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?
- 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?
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.
Page 43 of 54
- Does the maintenance facility need to be adjacent to the irrigation pond?
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.
Response: The future crossing at Country Club is planned to prioritize pedestrian movements
and can include enhancements to support the park’s needs.
Park Planning staff is looking forward to additional discussions regarding the
above and how they relate to the irrigation pond and future community park.
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 05/31/2022
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. RESOLVED.
Response: This has been discussed with the City and is being incorporated into our engineered
plans.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 05/31/2022
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 Previous response: . PPD staff is
looking forward to continued discussions on the above.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 05/31/2022
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: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 05/31/2022
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?
- Is there an interim condition for the detention pond?
- Long term maintenance considerations.RESOLVED.
Response: Per the submitted plans, the West Montava Outfall System will be treated in an
underground water quality detention array northwest of the intersection of Longwood and
Timberline and can be owned and maintained by the Montava Metro District if Parks desires. Pond
E has been designed to provide detention for both the West Montava Outfall System including the
future park and has been graded in its design to allow incorporation of future multi-purpose
recreational fields. A maintenance agreement will be required between the Montava Metro District
and Parks upon implementation of the future park improvements.
C Contact: Kurt Friesen, ,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 09/23/2022
09/23/2022: Property boundaries & park encumbrances
Page 44 of 54
The plat identifies property boundaries for the future park site, as well as the
future irrigation pond. Much of the 80 acres dedicated to the park (Tract EE) is
not usable, developable park land, with encumbrances that include the number
8 ditch, a sizable area dedicated to a detention pond with concrete trickle
channels, 4 water quality ponds, park trails, boardwalks, Country Club Road
ROW, and other items. As per the PUD, the City is interested in 80 acres of
developable park land, and the encumbrances significantly reduce the quantity
of usable park property for future development, and significantly complicate
maintenance and operations relative to developer constructed items on future park property. RESOLVED.
Response: The fundamental boundaries of the future community park have not been reduced since
the PUD Master Plan was approved, in fact they have grown. The boundaries and size of the park
land have only increased through the BDR reviews at Park’s request to include usable land that can
incorporate the dog park and Parks maintenance facility; both of which are connected from an
“experience” perspective to the irrigation pond that Parks does not have to build or maintain and
has no impact on their potentially owned property.
Regarding the No. 8 Ditch, from the beginning of our discussions during the PUD Master Plan the
Ditch would have been an open channel making 4 acres of land un-usable by Parks. By piping the
ditch, we are now creating approximately 4 additional usable acres that were previously unavailable
for active park uses.
As you may be aware we have proposed a solution which removes the 4 water quality ponds, rain
gardens, trickle channels, trails, and board walks as mentioned. The Country Club ROW has
consistently been in this plan since the PUD Master Plan discussions. The connection between
the western park and the dog park and maintenance facility will be an extremely pedestrian
prioritized crossing over a very low velocity road, not unlike walking through the parking lot at
Spring Canyon Park to get to that Dog Park.
Montava has worked extensively with Park Planning and Parks Maintenance to enable their
participation in a shared irrigation system and pond. This is an additional benefit from the original
plans when our discussions began.
Montava is building the ROW around the majority of the park which is a substantial additional
benefit that did not exist from the beginning of our discussions when Parks assumed $3.5MM
budget item for ROW development.
Montava is also building a community garden at the park entrance on Longwood that will be built
and maintained by the Montava Metropolitan District, softening the need for Parks to build and
maintain this valuable community asset.
The detention plan is part of an overall 650 CFS regional storm water system. What was proposed
by our team as a shared system is similar to storm water systems in every Community Park in the
City and is by far the best alternative for City parks and the community. Parks has been in
agreement with this point for at least a year, as this is a very typical use for ball field areas of parks.
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 09/23/2022
09/23/2022: Paved trails
More investigation and discussion needed with regards to the grade separated
trail crossing at Mountain Vista Drive. Lighting, safety, pumps and maintenance
responsibilities for the grade separation and trail segments need further
discussion. The steep slopes currently shown near the underpass will likely be
Page 45 of 54
problematic relative to native seed establishment and maintenance of these
steep slopes. PPD would appreciate a broader discussion with the design
team relative to the design and long term maintenance of the trail, underpass, etc. RESOLVED.
Response: The design of the trail underpass has been progressed and many of the design
concerns mentioned above have been addressed. The underpass is being designed with a pumped
wet well to drain storm water and headwall/wingwalls have been designed to achieve maximum 4:1
embankment slopes.
Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 09/23/2022
09/23/2022: Irrigation pond
The city remains interested in working with the developer to identify a path
forward for a shared irrigation pond and system. As the development team has
recently begun exploring new opportunities and options, including Long Pond as
potential storage for raw water, more work is needed to determine the
appropriate path forward. The City is developing a set of raw water quality
metrics that would need to be met in order for the shared pond arrangement to
be a viable alternative for the park. A meeting with the development team is
scheduled for Monday, Aug. 26 to discuss this further.
Response: After multiple meetings with City Parks on the non-potable system, we believe ample
information has been shared for the City to make its decisions.
Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 09/23/2022
09/23/2022: Utilities
PPD has interest in future utility stubs for the park, including electric, sanitary,
ELCO domestic tap, etc. Coordination is needed to determine where these
connections can be provided.
Response: This has been discussed with the City and is being incorporated into our engineered
plans.
Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 09/23/2022
09/23/2022:
We appreciate your recommendation about how best to relay these comments
to the design team, followed by meeting times identified to work through these
issues. Thank you.
Response: Understood.
Department: PFA
Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2869, marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/03/2022
09/16/2022:UNRESOLVED FOR APPROVAL:
The submitted turning exhibit shows body and wheel overhang in alley corners.
Some of the overhang appears to be crossing property lines and parking areas.
If the corners do not meet requirements and a turning exhibit is submitted, it
shall not have any body or wheel overhang beyond the curbs. RESOLVED.
Response: AutoTurn exhibits have been updated per further coordination with PFA. Tower
Truck exhibits have been provided for turn movements within ROW. Additional exhibits
have been provided per the smaller fire engine specs for alley turn movements. 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: UNRESOLVED FOR APPROVAL:
Page 46 of 54
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 Comment Originated: 01/03/2022
01/03/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
The proposed Landscape Plan indicates the possibility of tree canopy
diameters that may encroach on the fire lane over time. PFA would like to
ensure the integrity of the EAE remains intact as trees mature and a canopy
develops. The EAE shall be maintained unobstructed to 14' in height. This
comment is aimed at preserving both trees and fire apparatus. Please be
mindful when selecting tree species. RESOLVED.
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.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/04/2022
01/04/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Where possible, the naming of private drives is usually recommended to aid in
wayfinding. Addresses shall be posted on each structure and where otherwise
needed to aid in wayfinding. Code language provided below.
- IFC 505.1: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers,
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. RESOLVED.
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. Final sign approval for these
signs will be made with a sign permit application as per the City’s typical process.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/04/2022
09/16/2022: UPDATED FOR APPROVAL
Fire lane signage must also be included in alleys that are to be used as a fire lane or dedicated EAE.
RESOLVED.
Response: Fire lane signage has been included within the alleys that have fire access.
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.
Page 47 of 54
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 Comment Originated: 01/04/2022
09/16/2022: UPDATED FOR APPROVAL
Thank you for providing the overall hydrant plan. All hydrants look like they are
within the required distance to properties and on center spacing.
Still need hydrant infill along Timberline Road and Mountain Vista. RESOLVED.
Response: Fire hydrants as requested have been added along Timberline and Mountain Vista.
01/04/2022: UNRESOLVED 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: 11 Comment Originated: 09/16/2022
09/16/2022: FOR APPROVAL
The proposed oval roundabouts appear to be an obstruction for Fire Apparatus.
The roundabouts can either be designed to meet minimum turning radius or a
turning exhibit can be provided for these. The turning exhibit shall show no body
or wheel overhang beyond the curbs. RESOLVED.
Response: Truck turning templates have been included in this resubmittal package. The oval
roundabouts are designed with rollover curbs and truck blisters to allow trucks to navigate these
intersections.
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Clay Frickey, Urban Renewal Authority, 970-416-2517,
cfrickey@fcgov.com, ,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/17/2022
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. RESOLVED.
Response: Please see the following note that has been added to Site Plan set:
“Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each single-family detached and attached
dwelling unit within Phase G, the City shall be provided written certification that each such dwelling
unit complies with the Federal Department of Energy’s “Zero Energy Ready Home” standard in
effect on December 11, 2020 pursuant to Section I(F) of the Development Agreement to Secure
Page 48 of 54
Public Benefits for Montava Planned Unit Development Master Plan.”
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/17/2022
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. RESOLVED.
Are any of these units used to satisfy the workforce housing in the Public Benefits Agreement?
Response: Although we do not currently plan to include any affordable or work force housing units
in Phase G, it is still a possibility, therefore we have added the following note to the Site Plan set:
“Every dwelling unit within Phase G that qualifies as Affordable Housing or Workforce Housing
shall be counted as a Required Affordable Unit pursuant to Section I(H) of the Development
Agreement to Secure Public Benefits for Montava Planned Unit Development Master Plan.”
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/17/2022
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 non-potable water requirements. RESOLVED.
Response: Please see the following note that has been added to the Site Plan set:
“In accordance with Section I(G)(4) of the Development Agreement to Secure Public Benefits for
Montava Planned Unit Development Master Plan:
(i) the City shall approve that portion of the Non-Potable Water System plans needed to serve Phase
G prior to the issuance of a building permit for any structure within Phase G; and
(ii) the City shall approve the installation of that portion of the Non-Potable Water System needed to
serve Phase G prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any structure within Phase G.”
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/21/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
Please look at our Round 1 redlines. We are finding many issues that are unresolved RESOLVED.
Response: Comments have been reviewed and incorporated into the Roadway Utility Infrastructure
package.
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.
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
Page 49 of 54
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 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/21/2022: Please look at our Round 1 redlines. We are finding many issues
that are unresolved. RESOLVED.
Response: Comments have been reviewed and incorporated into the Roadway Utility Infrastructure
package.
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.
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: There is missing data on sheet R1.2.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/21/2022: Please look at our Round 1 redlines. We are finding many issues
that are unresolved. RESOLVED.
Response: Comments have been reviewed and incorporated into the Roadway Utility Infrastructure
package.
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.
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: There are text over text issues.
See redlines.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/21/2022: Please look at our Round 1 redlines. We are finding many issues
that are unresolved. RESOLVED.
Response: Comments have been reviewed and incorporated into the Roadway Utility Infrastructure
package.
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.
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 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/21/2022: Please look at our Round 1 redlines. We are finding many issues that are unresolved.
RESOLVED.
Response: Comments have been reviewed and incorporated into the Roadway Utility Infrastructure
Page 50 of 54
package.
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.
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: There are line over text issues.
See redlines.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/12/2022
09/20/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED: RESOLVED.
Response: Comments have been reviewed and incorporated into the Roadway Utility Infrastructure
package. The benchmark has been formatted as noted.
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’.
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
Page 51 of 54
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’.
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 Comment Originated: 01/12/2022
09/20/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There is missing data on some General Notes sheets. RESOLVED.
Response: Missing data has been inserted into the notes.
05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There is missing data on some General Notes sheets.
01/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There is missing data on sheets C1.2 & C1.4.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/12/2022
09/21/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
Please look at our Round 2 redlines. We are finding many issues that are unresolved. RESOLVED.
Response: Comments have been reviewed and incorporated into the Roadway Utility Infrastructure
package.
05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
01/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/12/2022
Page 52 of 54
09/21/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
Please look at our Round 2 redlines. We are finding many issues that are unresolved. RESOLVED.
Response: Comments have been reviewed and incorporated into the Roadway Utility Infrastructure
package.
05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
01/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 05/30/2022
09/21/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
Please look at our Round 2 redlines. We are finding many issues that are unresolved. RESOLVED.
Response: Comments have been reviewed and incorporated into the Roadway Utility Infrastructure
package.
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.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 05/30/2022
09/21/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
Please look at our Round 2 redlines. We are finding many issues that are unresolved. RESOLVED.
Response: Comments have been reviewed and incorporated into the Roadway Utility Infrastructure
package.
05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There are cut off text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 09/21/2022
09/21/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
NON-POT PUMP STATION: Please revise the sub-title as marked. See redlines.
Response: Comments did not provide a suggested revision and the redlines were not received.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 05/26/2022
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. RESOLVED.
Response: The text size has been increased.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
09/20/2022: 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 RESOLVED.
Response: Comments have been addressed and plat has been updated.
05/26/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
Page 53 of 54
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
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
Department: Street Oversizing
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/20/2022
09/20/2022: This is a repeat from the Phase E submittal but provided as it's
applicable with Phase G having frontage to TImberline.
FOR APPROVAL:
Elements of the design for Timberline Road north of Mountain Vista may have
limited TCEF reimbursement with the planned downgrading of Timberline Road
to a collector. Elements of the Timberline design with medians including the
"kidney bean" intersection control would be part of the development
requirements and not reimbursable.
Response: Thank you. As the plans are finalized we will work with you to identify all eligible items
for TCEF. It is our strong belief that transportation infrastructure which complies with and in fact
brings to life the City Council’s approved Active Modes Plan, should be reasonably reimbursed
through TCEF. Clearly, the kidney bean intersection design leads the way in this regard.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/20/2022
09/20/2022: This is a repeat from the Phase E submittal but provided as it's
applicable with Phase G as well.
FOR APPROVAL:
Overall, understanding the anticipated phasing of construction with E & G and
required improvements associated with each in coordination with the traffic
study would be helpful to understand the level of improvements being built in
conjunction with building permits from a TCEF reimbursement perspective.
Response: Phase E is following behind Phase G by roughly 4-6 months. We anticipate residential
construction to start as soon as lots are available.
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Brady Craddock, Lumen, 970-342-3431 and Gary Crispe, TerraTech, 303-995-1456
Topic:
05/31/2022: I know we have copper and fiber specifically at the intersection of timberline and Mountain Vista Drive.
We will have to do a prior some prior rights research in the beginning of this relocation work to determine who will be payin g for the
move copper and fiber in the area that looks to be in conflict with this huge project the city plans to build out. This is going to be a
major relocation job, so I’m going to include our Road Move contractor on this email. I’m hopeful he can get access to these plans,
as well. Can you please include Mr. Gary Crispe access to the link below that was provided to me so him and his team at Terra
Tech have access to the plans. I know they like to receive he 30% plans as well.
Page 54 of 54
Response: We have met with Gary Crispe onsite and identified the Century Link facilities and are awaiting for possible
solutions form Century Link designers.