HomeMy WebLinkAboutMONTAVA - PHASE E - TOWN CENTER RESIDENTIAL - BDR220003 - MONTAVA SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
Page 1 of 37
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 E-Town Center Residential, BDR220003, Round Number 1 Responses to Staff Comments for Round 1
November 30, 2022
September 23, 2022
Forrest Hancock
Montava Development, LLC
430 N College Ave #400
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: Montava - Phase E-Town Center Residential, BDR220003, Round Number 1
Response to Comments
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing
agencies for your submittal of Montava - Phase E-Town Center Residential. 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
INFORMATION:
While Tenae Beane is on leave, 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. Include me
Page 2 of 37
in all email correspondence with other reviewers and keep me informed of any
phone conversations. Thank you!
Response: Thank you.
Comment Number: 2
SUBMITTAL:
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. Comments requiring action
should NOT have a response such as noted or acknowledged. You will need to
provide references to specific project plans, pages, reports, or explanations of
why comments have not been addressed [when applicable].
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 3
SUBMITTAL:
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.
Reach out to me if you would like a list of suggested names.
*Please disregard any references to paper copies, flash drives, or CDs.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 4
SUBMITTAL:
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" (version 2016.1) or “PDFSHX (version 2017 and
newer) in the command line and enter "0".
Read this article at Autodesk.com for more 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
SUBMITTAL:
Resubmittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being
the cut-off for routing the same week. When you are ready to resubmit your
plans, please notify me with as much advanced notice as possible.
Page 3 of 37
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 6
INFORMATION:
Please resubmit within 180 days, approximately 6 months, to avoid the
expiration of your project.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 7
INFORMATION:
ANY project that requires four or more rounds of review would be subject to an
additional fee of $3,000.00.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 8
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
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
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.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Jenny Axmacher, , jaxmacher@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: 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
Page 4 of 37
Liaison is available for consultation on engagement in the development review process.
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: 2 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: OVERALL OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT - FOR
INFORMATION: For the proposed phase, staff recommends hosting (1) a virtual
project update with general Q&A and (2) at least one targeted event with the
immediately adjacent neighborhoods (Maple Hill and Storybook in particular).
At this time, Neighborhood Services continues to recommend virtual events to
prevent transmission of COVID 19. These events would not be required prior to
submittal, but should occur prior to the next round of submittal. Mailed notice
would be required two weeks in advance of any neighborhood meeting or event.
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: 3 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The Will Serve letter from ELCO for this
project is expired. A new letter will be required prior to building permit approval.
Response: Please see the ELCO Will Serve letter and email that accompanies this resubmittal.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please provide information on the future
adjacent town center development including where the epicenter of the town
center is planned to be. MUDDs notes “Phases E, H and I do not define a
minimum density as these areas include a significant non-residential
component, supported by adjacent housing in other phases.” I will have
additional comments on this phase based on the response to this comment.
Response: The epicenter of the town center will be Phase H, and Montava Drive,
which is split between Phase E and Phase H. The housing density of Phase H is not yet known. Our
team is working with potential tenants that will be valuable for the surrounding area, such as a
grocer, and determining the desired amount of housing, which will be a function of cost associated
with surface versus structured parking. Similarly, the multi-family and mixed-use tracts defined in
Phase E may support a variety of residential densities, which are subject to financial and market
decisions concerning the cost of parking, subject to the MUDDS parking requirements.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: How will housing model variation be
achieved as described in MUDDS 5.13.7?
Response: Phase E includes many different arrangements and configurations of lot sizes, lot
orientation, building types, streets, pedestrian ways, paved and landscaped small open spaces, and
parks which together provide significant variation in the context for each home. Specifically, there
are 3 different builders and 7 different building types, excluding future multi-family within the
phase. Within those types, there are different arrangements of 2, 3, 4, and 5-unit groupings for
townhomes, and single family detached homes on a variety of lot sizes. These all face onto different
spaces - streets, pedestrian paths, and greenways. The variety in setting for each building itself
provides significant variety. However, in addition, variation in building design will be coordinated
by the Montava Design Review Committee for compliance with MUDDS with each building permit
application. Our goal is to have Montava feel special, and each block be distinctive. We feel this has
been achieved at the level of the plan, and we will continue to pursue this through building design.
Page 5 of 37
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL Approval: Add a note with calculations confirming that
the frontage requirements are being met (60% for T4 and 80% for T5).
Response: Frontage requirements are determined on a per-lot basis. We have preliminary footprints for townhomes. The multi-family and mixed-use buildings are not yet determined. Compliance with
the frontage buildout should be determined along with the permits for those individual properties.
We have added a note that specifies we will be in compliance if that is desired. From the
preliminary unit footprints we have presently, we can certify compliance and have added the totals
to the drawings.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Will this phase include any accessory
dwelling units (ADUs)? ADUs are subject to Section 5.9 of Montava Uses,
Densities, and Development Standards (MUDDS) and require a Type 1
review. ADUs require additional parking calculations, as well. Please also
include a note on the site plan that states ADU's are permitted in this phase
subject to Section 5.9 of Montava Uses, Densities, and Development
Standards (MUDDS) and require a Type 1 review. ADUs also require additional parking calculations.
Response: No ADUs are included in Phase E at this time. However, we have added the
applicable note to the Site Plan understanding that if any ADUs are proposed in the future
they would require a separate review and additional parking calculations under MUDDS and any amendments that incorporate the City-wide process for ADUs pursuant to the Land
Development Code.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: MUDDS includes frontage façade
glazing standards for Transect 4 in table 5.8 4. A calculation for the amount of
glazing on the front facade should be included with all elevation submittals.
Response: Glazing calculations have been added to the conceptual elevations however compliance
with this requirement will be evaluated and approved by the Montava Design Review Committee
prior to building permit.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL 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. 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.
Alternatively, a master PUD summary sheet could be created that would be
applicable to all phases and included in every submittal. Staff is happy to have
further discussions to help address this item.
Response: We have provided a Code Summary table in the Site Plans for Phase E. In addition, we
have included a Transect diagram in the Site Plan sheets indicating the applicable Transects for
Phase E. The uses requested in Phase E include Single Family Detached, Single Family Attached
(Townhomes), Multi-Family and Mixed Use Dwellings. All of these land uses are permitted in
Transects T4 and T5 under Basic Development Review. These uses have been indicated in the Site
Plans – Housing Diagram. Civic space types have been indicated in the Site Plans – Civic Spaces.
We hope this helps to delineate how the Phase E plans meet the key PUD requirements.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please include more details on the
calculations on the cover sheet, including the number of dwelling units. Do not
Page 6 of 37
include the future multifamily and mixed-use phases in the density calculation.
Response: Information has been added.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please update the setback label in the
legend to state MINIMUM SETBACK. Please note somehow on the plan set that
the minimum setbacks are shown inclusive of easements to eliminate confusion.
Response: Clarification note has been added to Site Plan sheets.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Add note that the maximum driveway
width is 12’ unless the driveway is providing access to more than 4 units.
Response: Driveway does not include direct garage access from an alley. All properties in this
phase have parking access from alleys. As a result this standard is not applicable. We have
proposed a minor amendment to MUDDS to clarify the definition of a driveway.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION ONLY: Consider opportunities for public art in
roundabouts and other landscape areas.
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: 14 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please include species diversification
calculations and include minimum tree size specifications on the next submittal
or with 100% plans.
Response: We’ve indicated more detail on individual plant size with this set of plans for
review. Plant labels for each plant based on plant list will be provided with final level plans
at the next submittal with % diversification indicated.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Include dimensions to show how the lot
typical designs comply with frontage yard requirements in MUDDS 5.8.3 and
5.8.4 or provide a note stating the requirement and that the requirement will be
met at the time of building permit.
Response: A note has been added confirming that all MUDDS requirements will be met at the
time of building permit. Frontage buildout information has been added.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Identify the tracts on the site plan by use,
including any civic space type designations as done on the landscape plans.
Response: Designations have been added to the Site Plans.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: As of today, the single family detached
home architectural elevations are planned to be reviewed as part of the building
permit process. All other building elevations will be reviewed and approved as
part of this BDR. Discussions regarding model approval are on going. Right
now, additional details, including building materials and color schemes will be
needed for final approval of the single family attached product.
Response: Although we have supplied conceptual elevations for each of the building types in order
Page 7 of 37
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.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please provide proof of ownership of
the land proposed to be developed or documentation from the current owner
stating the applicant can proceed with the development on their property. The
property owner will need to sign the final, approved plan set
Response: The applicant is under contract to purchase the AB land. There will be no
development on the property until and after closing of the purchase. AB is well aware of the
platting work going on now and a letter of intent indicting such can be provided to the City if
required. We are aware of the need to have the current landowners executing the final
approved plan set.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Once this submittal is at final plan level,
or 100% drawings it must comply with the City's Development Review Submittal
Requirements found here: https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/dev
review submittal requirements_v3 3 31 2021.pdf?1641507328 and the City's
Electronic Submittal Requirements found here:
https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/electronic submittal
requirements and file naming standards_v1_8 1 19.pdf?1641507328. The
plans currently do not comply.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: 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 or otherwise increase the readability of the sheets.
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? If not, please include.
Response: A legend is now included on the lot typical sheets. Fencing is shown and called
out. Text size has been increased.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR INFORMATION: Maintain 5’ side setback to avoid additional
fire rating or sprinkler requirements for single family detached product.
Response: A 5’ side setback is being maintained on all lots. The only instances that a side
setback may be less than 5’ is where units are attached (townhomes) which have a zero side
setback.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Include a note on the last sheet of the lot
layouts indicating that all single family attached and detached homes have meet
the Zero Energy Ready Home standard per Section I(F) of the Public Benefits Agreement.
Response: 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
Page 8 of 37
dwelling unit within Phase E, 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
Public Benefits for Montava Planned Unit Development Master Plan.”
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Perhaps there could also be a note on
the last sheet of the lot layouts that none of the units are contributing to the
affordable housing requirements of Section I(H) of the Public Benefits
Agreement? We will need to document somewhere how many market-rate units
Montava has built so we can keep track of the affordable housing requirement
and when/if we need to withhold building permits. Are any of these units used to
satisfy the workforce housing in the Public Benefits Agreement?
Response: Although we do not currently plan to include any affordable or work force housing units
in Phase E, it is still a possibility, therefore we have added the following note to the Site Plan set:
“Every dwelling unit within Phase E 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: 24 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: 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.
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
E prior to the issuance of a building permit for any structure within Phase E; and
(ii) the City shall approve the installation of that portion of the Non-Potable Water System needed to
serve Phase E prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any structure within Phase E.”
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Add paving types to the legend on the landscape plan.
Response: Added.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Show coverage for the parkways on the
landscape plan. Will they be irrigated sod or pavers or some combination depending on the location?
Response: Parkways in these higher density areas are planned as a combination of pavers,
planting beds and turf. More detail has been added to the plans with this submittal for review.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: 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).
Page 9 of 37
Response: Please see the following three notes that have been added to the plat and site plan cover
sheets:
“Phase E 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 E may become subject to the Consolidated Service Plan for Montava Metropolitan District Nos. 1-7 approved by Resolution 2018-083.”
“Phase E 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: 28 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: 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.
Response: Added.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Prior to the approval of this BDR, an
irrigation system must be approved in compliance with the Public Benefits agreement.
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
E prior to the issuance of a building permit for any structure within Phase E; and
(ii) the City shall approve the installation of that portion of the Non-Potable Water System needed to
serve Phase E prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any structure within Phase E.”
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Provide additional insight on how
parking will function in this phase including the intent of the parking areas in
Area 4 and 2 and if on-street parking in Areas 3 and 5 are intended to
supplement the parking in the denser areas? In 100% plans please detail the
parking requirements based on what is to be constructed now.
Response: Some of the mid block surface parking is for future multi-family or mixed-use
buildings, but needs to be constructed with the single family and townhome portions of this phase
due to location, utilities, etc. The sheet has been updated to include only what is proposed for this
portion of Phase E.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 09/16/2022
09/16/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please provide additional background
on the decision to include townhomes and not mixed-use buildings fronting the
roundabout between Timberline and Country Club.
Response: This is not a good location for non-residential uses. The change was from multi-family
to townhomes. The properties were not sufficiently large for multi-family along with the necessary parking. Any non-residential along Country Club will be located closer to Mountain Vista where it is
more viable.
Page 10 of 37
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 09/16/2022
09/16/2022: 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. This submittal will be Phase E, not Filing 2.
Response: Correction made.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Tim Dinger, , tdinger@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022:
I'm noting that all comments are in essence "for approval" as there is no public
hearing or preliminary/final for this project.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022:
Please make a list of possible variance requests that you will need and submit
them to the City with the next round. This includes anything that has previously
been discussed in Phase G, as variance requests do not carry over from
phase-to-phase. Variance requests should be submitted to the City along with
the plans for anything that does not fit City standards (and, by extension, LCUASS Standards).
Response: Variance requests accompany this resubmittal.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022:
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.
Response: Timing was still being worked out at the time of the initial Phase E submittal. Current
understanding is that Phase G will be recorded first, therefore Phase G will be identified as a replat
of a portion of Phase G.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022:
All non-standard street sections that are not vested from the approved PUD will
require an approved variance. On the cover sheet, the Commercial Local
section is the only vested street section from the PUD. All three collector street
sections on the cover sheet, as well as the connector street section, will require
an approved variance prior to plan approval.
Response: Variance requests accompany this resubmittal.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022:
You are currently showing Timberline Road as a Major Collector Street. Per the
City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan, Timberline Road to the southwest of the
roundabout at Country Club Road is a 2-Lane Arterial Street. If you would like to
reclassify Timberline Road, the master street plan will need to be revised
through City Council action. Ideally, you could present City Council with the
Page 11 of 37
Timberline/County Club roundabout at the same time as the presentation of the
reclassification of Timberline Road. The Master Street Plan revision would need
to be approved prior to final plan approval.
Response: We have been advised that the change in Timberline Road’s classification
does not trigger a stand-alone amendment to the MSP, and that Staff will include this
change in its next periodic update to the MSP for City Council approval and that the Montava plan
will not be conditioned upon its approval. The addition of the roundabout does not require any
City Council approval because Resolution 2001-120 (requiring City Council approval) is being
rescinded.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022:
The diagonal parking along Godwink Drive will require a variance request. The
standard cross sections permit only parallel on-street parking. Reverse
Diagonal Parking stalls have a wider width than standard head-in diagonal
parking. Please label the parking stall dimensions.
Response: We will add dimensions to the reverse parking stalls and a variance request will be submitted after final dimensions are determined.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022:
Provide curve radii labels for all streets with horizontal curves. Refer to Table
7-3 in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards for minimum centerline
radius for various street classifications.
Response: Centerline radius has been added to the street plan and profile sheets.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022:
Longwood Drive and Flint Hill Drive appear to intersect with Flint Hill Drive
being in a horizontal curve. Per Table 7-3F, minimum tangent between curves or
at intersections for connector local streets is 100 feet. That means there should
be a minimum 100-foot straight/non-curved roadway provided for Flint Hill Dr.
prior to the intersection.
Response: The intent at this intersection is to follow the variance request for “Three leg “Y”
intersections”. This variance request was approved January 22, 2019.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022:
There are several streets that do not meet the minimum separation between
intersections. You will be required to revise the street layouts or submit
variances for each intersection that does not meet the spacing requirements.
Please see Table 7-3F in LCUASS for intersection spacing requirements.
Response: Layout has been modified along County Club to meet LCUASS.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022:
Flowline plan and profile design will be required for both sides of all proposed
streets. Any alleys that drain to center only require centerline profiles. The
flowline profiles are not required until final design, which is equivalent to the first
“100% submittal” for this phase.
Response: These will be submitted at “final” level plans.
Page 12 of 37
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022:
Centerline profiles are required for all proposed streets, including alleys. Please
provide plan and profile sheets for all alley centerlines in the next submittal. Alley
naming or numbering may be useful for clarity.
Response: Alleys have been named; centerline profiles will be included with the next resubmittal.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022:
Provide turning radius exhibits for all proposed public road intersections and
proposed roundabouts to show that emergency vehicles (PFA fire trucks) can
access and maneuver through the site. No body or wheel overhang while turning is permitted.
Response: Exhibits have been included with this submittal.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022:
The roundabout at Country Club Road and N. Timberline Road only has 18 feet
of clear space from flowline to flowline. Per Poudre Fire Authority (PFA)
requirements, 20 feet of clear space is the minimum unobstructed width for any
emergency access routes.
Response: Roundabout has been modified to provide a 20’ travel lane.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022:
No utility easements are shown adjacent to the right of way on any of the public
streets. You will be required to submit a variance request to the City if you are
not providing the utility easements, or if the utility easements provided are
different than the standard widths shown in LCUASS.
Response: A variance request accompanies this resubmittal.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022:
On the preliminary plat, all the utility easements are called out simply as “UE”.
Please label the width of the utility easements on the plat. They look to be 5-foot
width utility easements, which is smaller than the minimum 8’ width along alleys.
A variance request is required for easement widths that are smaller than the standard.
Response: A variance request accompanies this resubmittal.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022:
Why does Chesapeake Drive become Montava Drive to the east of the ‘kidney
bean’ intersection? Coordinate with the GIS department on street names.
Generally, the street name would be carried through the intersection and wouldn’t change.
Response: The town center needs to be linked to the street name for branding and wayfinding
purposes, and we are working with GIS and PFA to determine the best location for the change.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022:
There are several areas where the site grading goes outside of the limit of
disturbance. Grading counts as disturbance, therefore no grading can extend
outside of the LOD. Revise the grading to be within the LOD or revise the LOD
to encompass all grading.
Page 13 of 37
Response: Grading and LOD revised.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022:
For a project of this size, it would be helpful to include existing conditions
sheets. There are several existing utilities and other existing items showing on
the various grading, utility, and road plans, and it would help with clarity if they
were isolated on several sheets at a 1”=50’ scale (or other similar scale).
Response: Additional information has been added to the Demo sheet to make it an Existing
Conditions and Demo sheet.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022:
On the utility plan sheets, many of the proposed telecom pedestals are not
within easements. These pedestals are required to be within a utility easement.
Additionally, not all the proposed lots have telecom pedestals to provide
service. Is this intentional or was this an oversight?
Response: Both wet and dry utilities have been reworked for this submittal.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022:
Coordinate with the Utilities Department and outside utilities agencies on the
spacing between various utilities. The current shown separations look like they
are less than the minimum.
Response: Both wet and dry utilities have been reworked for this submittal.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022:
The 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 set.
Response: Updated signature block has been added to the plans.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022:
All symbols, hatching patterns, linetypes, etc. must be included in the legend or
explicitly and clearly called out on the sheet in which they appear. This will help
to improve plan clarity. Please see redlines for some examples of missing
legend items. Any items in the legend that are not being used should be
removed from the legend.
Response: Legend has been updated.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022:
If any cross sections on sheet 1 are revised, please make sure to carry the
revisions through to all other sheets where the cross sections are shown.
Response: Cross sections have been modified on cover and street plan and profile sheets.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022:
I do not see any existing contour labels on the plan. Please add contour labels
for existing contours, per the utility plan checklist. Additionally, there are several
Page 14 of 37
places where the proposed contours do not tie off with existing contours. Please
check all your grading plans, and make sure the proposed contours either tie off
with existing contours or close upon themselves. See the markups on the
grading plans for more information.
Response: Labels added.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022:
Coordinate with Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) on emergency access easement
requirements. Add any required EAE’s to the plat.
Response: EAE’s have been added to the plat.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 09/12/2022
09/12/2022:
Signage and Striping Plans will be required with the final design submittal.
Response: These will be added at “final” level.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 09/12/2022
09/12/2022:
Per previous discussions that occurred for Montava Phase G, Timberline Road
will need to have 15-foot width utility easements adjacent to the right-of-way.
Response: Timberline is proposed as a Collector so the standard utility easement will be 9’. We
are not running gas in this easement so have modified this width in certain areas.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 09/12/2022
09/12/2022:
More information about the Country Club Road and Timberline Road
roundabout is needed. Please submit a detailed breakdown of the roundabout
design, including turning exhibits, Decision Sight Distance, design speed on
entering and within the roundabout, and posted speed within the roundabout.
Please submit this information with the next submittal.
Response: Additional design information by Kimley-Horn has been added with this submittal.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022:
Brick pavers are being proposed for Montava Drive and Big Timber Drive.
What is the planned maintenance for the pavers? Any utility maintenance that
needs to be done in the ROW with pavers will result in the pavers being
removed. Who will pay for replacing the pavers? Typically, it is significantly
easier and less expensive to perform maintenance and patching with asphalt
roadways. This applies to the parkway as well, since City electric utilities are
placed in the parkway. If you want to continue with the paver roadway surface
design, it will require an approved variance.
Response: Montava Metro District is prepared to provide repair and replacement of the
brick pavers in Montava Drive and the adjoining parkways. It is our intent to mirror the already
existing agreement the Downtown Development Authority has already established on the Linden
Street Project. As the City Council has adopted a new strategic direction for Active Modes, this
type of street treatment must become normal.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022:
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
Page 15 of 37
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. Curves should be provided to address these concerns.
Response: Onstreet parking with curb and gutter has been revised to remove angle points. Angle
points remain where there is no curb on Montava Dr.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022:
LCUASS trench detail needs to be added to the detail sheets (Drawing 2201).
Response: Details have been added.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022:
In the street cross-sections with parking and no bike lanes, do we need
additional width for parking buffer?
Response: The design speeds of these streets do not warrant a buffer and the introduction of a
buffer would widen the street and likely increase vehicle speed undesirably
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022:
Should electric and gas lines be in easement behind sidewalk instead of under sidewalk?
Response: Gas and electric have both been redesigned for this submittal. Electric will generally run
in the parkway, gas will run in an easement outside of the road cross section.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022:
Why is there a gas line along Montava Dr? I thought no gas service was proposed.
Response: Gas will be required for commercial and some multi-family buildings only; the design
has been modified and proposed routing is included.
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022:
Who is constructing Mountain Vista improvements east of Big Timber Dr?
Response: Mountain Vista improvements are in the Phase G Timberline plans by Martin/Martin.
The full widening is from the roundabout to the intersection with Big Timber and then it tapers back
to the existing cross section to the east.
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022:
There are several places where the parkways do not match the parkways from
the proposed cross sections. Please check ALL parkways compared to their
cross sections and make sure they match.
Response: These have been updated.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: 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
Page 16 of 37
Bloom study will be included with the redline files for this round of review.
Response: Site generated traffic volumes from the Bloom development are incorporated within the
revised Phase G & E traffic study.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
The roundabout at Country Club Road and N. Timberline Road shows a raised
pedestrian crossing and a bike crossing as separate yield points. We would
like to see these combined (delineated separate through striping) either as both
raised or both at grade. We also would like to continue working with you on this
design and plan for implementation.
Response: The bike and pedestrian crossings have been combined and are both raised.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Several of the intersections proposed with this development are not traditional
intersections and may be the first of their kind in the US. As such, the
Development Agreement shall include a section that establishes criteria for
modifying the intersections if they don’t work as intended. The developer will be responsible for providing
cost estimates to retrofit the unconventional intersections and the developer will be expected to escrow or
provide bonds to fund the retrofits if necessary.
We would like to continue to work with you on the innovative intersection
designs along Timberline. We had discussed laying some of these concepts
out in a field study.
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. We look forward to finalizing the design and
submitted final plans for Phase G on November 16, 2022.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
9/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
The eastbound left turn lane at Mountain Vista Drive/Giddings Road was
identified in the traffic study as a needed improvement based on Mountain Vista
Drive being an arterial roadway at the Mountain Vista Drive/Giddings Road
(#10) intersection. We would like to discuss implementation of this improvement with you.
Response: This improvement is outside the current limits of Phase E. 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 Drive.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Regarding the comment on page 4 related to a local road section with volumes
Page 17 of 37
of 1,500 veh/day- it is our experience that this volume is generally on the high
end for a residential local roadway. Our typical planning level for local
roadways is about 1000 veh/day based on livability. The cross section of 30'
with no driveways on Chesapeake might not operate very well with these
volumes. We recommend a cross section of at least 34' to the west, and 36'
along multi family.
Response: The May 2022 version of the Phase G & E traffic study did not incorporate the long-term
2045 analysis. A supplement to the Master Traffic Impact Study for the long-term 2045 horizon
includes all development areas of Montava. The 1,200 vehicles per day along Chesapeake Drive is expected to be a temporary condition and will reduce when the overall development is complete in
which it is estimated that Chesapeake Drive will have approximately 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 2022 and again in October 2022
including a 2045 horizon analysis and full development of Montava.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR NEXT SUBMITTAL
It does not appear any comments from the 6/3/22 review of the traffic study
made it into the traffic study for this round of review. We will need a revised
traffic study for the next round of review. As of right now the traffic study and it's
conclusions have not been accepted.
Response: A revised study for the first development Phases of G & E and the entire development
plan for Montava has incorporated the June comments and the comments provided in September
2022.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
At Timberline and Vine, NB and SB left turns will be added with the capital
improvement project planned at this intersection. Please work with Engineering
Capital Projects to ensure the improvements are being modeled appropriately
in the traffic study.
Response: We concur that the Timberline Road and Vine intersection are being improved under the
current capital improvement plans of the City. Our updated traffic study has been modeled
appropriately.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Regarding Country Club Road and Lemay Ave. intersection: 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. Please remove comment on page 4 stating the City has planned
improvements at this intersection. This intersection is in the county and we will
work with the applicant and the county to determine appropriate mitigation
measures. Please revise the build out modeling on page 48 that shows the
improvement at this intersection. This improvement is not currently funded and
that should be reflected in the traffic study.
Response: This intersection is not identified as a City of Fort Collins planned improvement project
in the revised traffic study. 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 minimal impact. Nicole Hahn has been facilitating a
Page 18 of 37
meeting with the County to discuss details related to Country Club Road and other details.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: 09/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Please further develop the bicycle analysis in the traffic study. We would like to
better understand how the project will connect into existing infrastructure.
Please also include a diagram showing locations of bike lanes on site.
Response: Additional information 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.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Please provide a memo explaining the differences in the Overall TIS that has
been submitted vs the PUD approved traffic study. A meeting to better
understand what changed between the two documents would work as well.
The approved PUD identified several infrastructure improvements that Montava
is responsible to construct. The PUD needs to be amended if it is no longer the
intent of Montava to construct the identified improvements.
Response: Kimley-Horn previously provided a supplemental letter to the 2018 Montava Master
Traffic Study that included a table that identified changes from the original master traffic study.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPORVAL
A trip reduction was taken to account for internal site capture. However, the
land use proposed has changed significantly from what was proposed in the
PUD and now is mostly residential in nature. We would like to discuss an
appropriate internal capture reduction with the land use in this submittal
Response: Kimley-Horn discussed internal capture and trip generation methodologies with City
staff during a meeting held in September. As discussed, multi-use urban trip generation rates were
utilized with full buildout of Montava based on the development providing walkability/connectivity
to the uses planned in the development. The trip generation for the short-term horizon was
evaluated with general urban/suburban rates due to Phase G & E being the only development areas initially.
Department: Stormwater Engineering – Erosion Control
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/12/2022
09/12/2022: Erosion Control Plans and Report have returned redlines please
ensure all comments are addressed and sequence and phasing materials are
provided. Erosion Control Escrow will need to be provided for each phase.
Recommend breaking it down by areas that will be established immediately
and those requiring long terms seeding. Fees will be recalculated at later
submittal when LIDs and Building Permit numbers are more finalized.
Response: Plans and report have been revised.
Page 19 of 37
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
The LID calculations need more documentation to determine if enough area is
being treated to meet the City's Criteria. Please call me to discuss. Also, for
single family, the requirement is 50% of the Site needs LID treatment. If part of
the Site is multi-family, than just that part needs to meet the 75% treatment benchmark.
Response: LID calculations have been updated.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Additional coordination is needed on the design and timing of construction for
the storm water infrastructure. There is reference to the detention ponds
needed for this phase being designed by others. The construction of these
ponds need to be tied to a particular phase and the design included in the
phase that is constructing them.
Response: The “Stormwater Infrastructure Plans for Montava Phase E” were submitted
concurrently, but under separate cover because they are being done by Martin/Martin. We will plan to combine these under the TST in the future, but for this second submittal we are keeping them
separate.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
All bio-retention basins (rain gardens) need to be within a drainage easement.
Response: Drainage easements have been added with this submittal.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Please label all bioretention and detention ponds on the Grading Plan.
Response: These have been labeled.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
At 50% plans, the bioretention pond sizing calculations are required to show the
needed volume and surface area of soil media. The Grading Plan needs to
show that there is enough space for the volume and surface area of these ponds.
Response: These have been added.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
The Stormwater channel in Tract A at the northeast corner of the site has slopes
steeper than 4:1 in some locations and is also considerably deep next to the
lots that front this channel. This may be in conflict with City Planning goals of
having open space in front of these residences. Piping the stormwater flows in
this location may be a better solution for conveying drainage in this location.
Response: This swale is now piped.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Please ensure all detention & LID basins have no slopes steeper than 4:1.
Page 20 of 37
Also, Pond G2 needs to have more varying slopes to meet the City's Detention
Pond Landscape Standards.
Response: This has been revised.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-416-2772, tsiegmund@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL:
The proposed electric system does not work as designed on the utility plans. A
meeting to discuss the electric layout, transformer locations, vault locations, etc.
is requested so plans can be updated prior to the next submittal
Response: Discussions and redesign is ongoing.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL:
Once the electric system is revised, a utility coordination meeting with all utility
providers is requested to discuss the overall utility layout.
Response: We are continuing to coordinate with all providers on the design.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL:
All electric infrastructure must be within City ROW or a dedicated utility
easement. There are numerous locations where transformers and electric lines
are within private property.
Response: All electric infrastructure will be in an easement or ROW with the final approved plan.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL:
Where primary electric infrastructure is located in a green space, a 10ft wide
paved path will be needed for access and future maintenance purposes.
Response: Understood – design has been modified.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL:
Light and Power will have electric infrastructure in the parkway (between curb
and sidewalk) on both sides of Timberline. Please move the proposed gas
main outside of the parkway location.
Response: This has been redesigned.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL:
There are recurring utility conflicts where minimum separation requirements are
not being met.
See mark ups
A minimum of 10 ft separation is required between electric, water, sewer,
stormwater, and irrigation facilities. A minimum of 3 ft separation is required
between electric and natural gas. Please show all electrical routing on the Utility Plans.
Page 21 of 37
Response: Design has been revised.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL:
Please locate proposed gas lines on the back side of the electrical running lines.
See mark ups
Response: Gas has been removed in these areas.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
Brick pavers are not ideal in the parkway locations. Light and Power will not
assume maintenance responsibilities of settlement of pavers above or adjacent
to Light and Power facilities in the parkway.
Response: The Metro District will assume maintenance.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges and any system
modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this development.
Please contact me to discuss development fees or visit the following website for
an estimate of charges and fees related to this project:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen
t-development-fees
Response: Discussions have begun on fees.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
Any existing electric infrastructure that needs to be relocated as part of this
project will be at the expense of the developer. Please coordinate relocations
with Light and Power Engineering.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
All utility easements and required permits (crossing agreements, flood plain,
etc.) needed for the development will need to be obtained and paid for by the developer.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: 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 or public right-of-way.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
Meter location(s) will need to be coordinated with Light and Power. Please
show proposed meter location on the utility plan. 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
Page 22 of 37
rds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf
Response: These locations are still being identified.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
During utility infrastructure design, please provide adequate space of all service
and main lines internal to the site to ensure proper utility installation and to meet
minimum utility spacing requirements. A minimum of 10 ft separation is
required between water, sewer and storm water facilities, and a minimum of 3 ft
separation is required between Natural Gas. Please show all electrical routing
on the Utility Plans.
Response: Utility layout has been revised.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
Transformer locations will need to be coordinated with Light & Power.
Transformers must be placed within 10 ft of a drivable surface for installation
and maintenance purposes. The transformer must also have a front clearance of
10 ft and side/rear clearance of 3 ft minimum. When located close to a building,
please provide required separation from building openings as defined in
Figures ESS4 - ESS7 within the Electric Service Standards. Please show all
proposed transformer locations on the Utility Plans.
Response: This is ongoing.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: 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.
Please coordinate the light placement with Light & Power. Please reach out to
me before the first round of the Final Development Plan so I can provide a
streetlight layout. The City of Fort Collins street lighting requirements can be
found at:
http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/Ch15_04_01_2007.pdf
Response: Street lights will be shown with final.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
Multifamily buildings and duplexes are treated as customer owned services;
therefore, a C-1 form and one line diagram must be filled out and submitted to
Light & Power Engineering for each building. All secondary electric service
work is the responsibility of the developer and their electrical consultant or
contractor. A C-1 form can be found here:
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-f
orms-guidelines-regulations
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: 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.
Residential units will need to be individually metered. For all attached units,
Page 23 of 37
please gang the electric meters on one side of the building, opposite of the gas
meters. Reference Section 8 of our Electric Service Standards for electric
metering standards. A link has been provided here:
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStanda
rds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf
Response: Meter locations still being finalized.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
All units other than single family detached at 200 amps or less are considered
customer owned service: therefore, the applicant is responsible for installing the
secondary service from the transformer to the meter(s) and will be owned and
maintained by the individual unit owner or building owner.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
If the private drives/alleys are proposed to be illuminated, the streetlights are
considered private and will need to be privately installed, maintained, and
metered. Please show all private streetlights and private meters on the plans.
Response: Private alley lighting is still being determined.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
The City of Fort Collins now offers gig-speed fiber internet, video and phone
service. Contact John Stark with Fort Collins Connexion at 970-207-7890 or
jstark@fcgov.com for commercial grade account support, RFPs and bulk agreements.
Response: We have been working with Connexion and our intent is to strategically include this
service in our neighborhoods.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
For additional information on our renewal energy programs please visit the
website below or contact John Phelan (jphelan@fcgov.com).
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/go renewable
Response: Thank you. Comment noted.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
Please contact Tyler Siegmund or Austin Kreager with electric project
engineering if you have any questions at (970) 416-2772. You may reference
Light & Power’s Electric Service Standards at:
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/electricservicestandar
ds.pdf?1645038437
Reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee
estimator at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers.
Response: Understood.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Scott Benton, (970)416-4290, sbenton@fcgov.com
Page 24 of 37
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/12/2022
09/12/2022: FOR APPROVAL: I look forward to working with the applicant
team to improve the landscape plan. Specifically, the pollinator plant list needs
some work, more seed mixes tailored to expected uses and conditions would
be helpful (e.g., rain gardens, detention ponds, likely more than one mix for
upland areas, etc.). Please work with the DRC to set up a meeting as needed.
Response: We’ve updated the plans based on our discussions.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/12/2022
09/12/2022: FOR APPROVAL: I was unclear from the plans – which two
elements are satisfying the PUD requirement for two Nature In the City elements
in each phase?
Response: Phase E includes a pollinator path and a bird/butterfly garden. We’ve indicated these on
the revised plans.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/12/2022
09/12/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Phase E, as well as all the other phases, will
need to conform to an overarching Pollinator Master Plan. I look forward to
working with the applicant team on this effort.
Response: We’ve updated the plans based on our discussions.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Carrie Tomlinson, , ctomlinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Please include and label locations of utilities on the landscape plan including
but not limited to water service/mains, sewer service/mains, gas, electric,
streetlights, and stop signs. Please also adjust tree locations to provide for
proper tree/utility separation, see recent redlines from Forestry for additional
information. Not all possible conflicts are assumed to be redlined, please use
the redlines as examples for the full plan set.
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
Page 25 of 37
4’ between trees and gas lines
10’ between trees and electric vaults
Response: Plans have been updated and revised to reflect comments.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
It is understood that this plan set is still in its early stages, when appropriate to
your process, please label tree species with their species abbreviation and
update the plant list accordingly. Please include species diversity percentages
for review.
Standard LUC standard for Tree Species Diversity states that in order to
prevent insect or disease susceptibility and eventual uniform senescence on a
development site or in the adjacent area or the district, species diversity is
required and extensive monocultures are prohibited. The following minimum
requirements shall apply to any development plan:
Number of trees on site Maximum percentage of any one species
10-19 50%
20-39 33%
40-59 25%
60 or more 15%
The City of Fort Collins’ urban forest has reached the maximum percentage of
the following species. Ash (Fraxinus), Honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthose:
‘Shademaster’, ‘Skyline’, etc), Bur Oak (Quercus macrocarpa), and Chanticleer
Pear (Pyrus calleryana).
Please note that additional species might join this list as we work through the
review process.
Response: Plans and plant list have been updated, and final plant labels with resulting species
diversification will be provided in the final level plans with our next submittal.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION ONLY
Per Land Use Code 3.2.1.(D)(c), canopy shade trees shall constitute at least 50
percent of all tree plantings.
Response: Understood, plans have been updated and revised to reflect comments.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION ONLY
Please adhere to the updated LUCASS standards and include proper parkway
widths. Some parkways are fairly narrow on this plan set. Please double check
to make sure that you are making the parkways wide enough to ensure long
term viability for rooting area of the canopy trees.
Response: Variances are being submitted where the designs differ from LCUASS.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION ONLY
Due to the lack of room for canopy trees on parcel areas, please take
advantage of your open areas to provide as many canopy trees as possible on
your plan set to help provide as much canopy cover and tree benefits as
possible including cooling, water retention and infiltration, character, wind
Page 26 of 37
mitigation, and all the benefits of an urban tree canopy to your residential areas.
Response: Understood. This phase and Phase H (town center) are the highest density, urban areas
somewhat similar to downtown. We have a more urban, active approach but agree with the
importance of creating as many opportunities for trees as possible in this urban condition.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
9/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Please mark all mitigation trees on your plan set when appropriate to your design process.
Response: Understood. Mitigation trees have been identified in these more detailed plans.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Please provide a landscape plan that includes the following City of Fort Collins notes:
General Landscape Notes
Tree Protection Notes
Street Tree Permit Note, when applicable.
These notes are available from the City Planner or by following the link below
and clicking on Standard Plan Set Notes:
https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/applications.php
Required tree sizes and method of transplant:
Canopy Shade Tree: 2.0” caliper balled and burlapped
Evergreen tree: 6.0’ height balled and burlapped
Ornamental tree: 1.5” caliper balled and burlapped
Required mitigation tree sizes:
Canopy Shade Tree: 2.0” caliper balled and burlapped
Evergreen tree: 8.0’ height balled and burlapped
Ornamental tree: 2.0” caliper balled and burlapped
Response: Plans have been updated to add these notes.
Department: Park Planning
Contact: Kyle Lambrecht, 970-416-4340, klambrecht@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: The Park Planning & Development (PPD)
Department is available to discuss these comments in more detail. Please
contact PPD staff at 970.416.2192, parkplanning@fcgov.com.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Section
3.4.8 “Parks and Trails” addresses compliance with the 2021 Parks and
Recreation Master Plan (“Master Plan”). The Master Plan indicates the general
location of all parks and regional recreational trails. Parcels adjacent to or
including facilities indicated in the Master Plan may be required to provide area
for development of these facilities.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: The 2013 Paved Recreational Trail Master Plan
Page 27 of 37
(“Trail Master Plan”) was adopted by City Council and provides conceptual
locations and general trail design guidelines for future regional recreational trails.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: City of Fort Collins Ordinance Number 014, 2020
approved the Montava PUD Master Plan and Montava PUD Overlay. This
document shall provide guidance on the general improvements for both parks
and trails located within the planned Montava development unless otherwise.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards
(“LCUASS”), Chapter 16 Pedestrian Facilities and Chapter 17 Bicycle
Facilities provide additional design guidelines for multiuse recreational trails.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: Grade separated crossings of arterial roadways
and major collectors are required (LCUASS Chapter 17.3) and provide safe
trail connectivity. Additional easement area for underpass/overpass
approaches may be required in locations of potential grade separated
crossings for the trail. Location and responsibilities of the grade separations
have been preliminarily defined in the Montava PUD Master Plan.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: Park Planning and Development must approve
the trail alignment and design. Recreational trails do not function as widened
sidewalks adjacent or within street rights-of-way.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: The regional trail shall be a CDOT Class B
concrete mix. Color of the regional trail shall be Davis Color Yosemite Brown.
The trail thickness shall be 5” if fibermesh is included in the mix (fibermesh
additive as recommended by manufacturer) or 6” thick. Joints shall be sawcut.
The surface finish for the trail shall be a heavy broom finish. The subgrade shall
be reconditioned to 12 inches. Walks and other multi-use paths that are not
part of the regional trail shall not be colored. PPD staff shall approve the final
concrete mix design for the trail.
Response: Understood. We’ve indicated the materials for the various surfaces including the
regional trail in both the Phase G and Phase E plans since it is planned to be constructed with
Mountain Vista and Timberline roads.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: Thank you for your continued coordination to
accommodate the regional trail as it crosses local streets with the Phase G
submittal. Although it doesn’t appear that the regional trail intersects with local
streets as part of Phase E, please plan to include PPD staff in these
discussions if they occur.
Response: Understood.
Page 28 of 37
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: Understanding continuity challenges as sections
of the regional trail are being shown in both Phases G and E, please ensure the
horizontal and vertical trail alignments match.
Response: This has been updated.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: Thank you for all your work to design an irrigation
system that can serve the future Northeast Community Park. As many of these
discussions related to the irrigation system are related to Phase G, some utility
connections will be required to be installed as part of Phase E. Please continue
to engage the City’s PPD and Parks team in the proposed shared irrigation system.
Response: We concur.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR HEARING: Thank you for the coordination regarding the
proposed roundabout at Timberline and Country Club Road. Please plan to
have discussions with PPD, Parks, and Traffic staff to more clearly
designate/delineate the regional trail as it navigates the roundabout.
Response: We concur.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR HEARING: Thank you for showing the regional trail extending
to the Maple Hill development. Please plan to meet with PPD staff to refine the
regional trail alignment as it connects into the existing trail system within Maple Hills.
Response: We will meet with PPD.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR HEARING: Thank you for including a preliminary layout of the
trail underpass at the Mountain Vista/Timberline Road intersection in the
infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans. This is an important crossing for the
regional trail. Please plan to develop a trail plan and centerline profile design
for this section of the regional trail as segments of the trail will need to be
constructed with this intersection. This shall include engineering design for the
underpass. Plans must indicate that the final grade within the easement can
provide a trail alignment that meets the American Disabilities Act (ADA)
standards for cross slopes between 1 and 2% and a maximum centerline profile
grade of 5%. Trail cross sections shall also be developed and included with
the plan and profile design.
Response: Final construction plans for the underpass were submitted with Phase G on November 16, 2022.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: Thank you for providing the geotechnical report
for the Phase G area as part of this submittal. Groundwater levels appear to be
roughly 24’ to 29’ below existing grade in the general vicinity of the trail
underpass. As final engineering plans for the underpass are developed, please
plan to coordinate with the City on means to mitigate groundwater infiltration (if
applicable) and stormwater runoff into the underpass.
Response: Comment noted. 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.
Page 29 of 37
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: FOR HEARING: Thank you for your commitment to the regional
trail within the Montava Development. 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. I believe this exhibit
was developed for Phase G, and I would like to include it with Phase E as well.
PPD Staff is willing to develop this exhibit collaboratively with the Montava team.
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: 17 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: The Public Access and Trail easement width is
typically 50’ unless additional space is necessary to accommodate grade
separations or approved otherwise. The location of the easement must be
approved by Park Planning & Development and shown on the plat.
Response: We have identified trail easements on the plat.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: The trail easement may coexist within a Natural
Habitat Buffer Zone if approval is obtained from Environmental Planning. The
easement shall be identified on the plat, utility, and site plans as a “Public
Access and Trail Easement”. The easement cannot encroach on railroad right-of-way.
Response: We have identified trail easements on the plat.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: 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: Understood. We will continue to coordinate with the ditch company and the city on
specific needs for both the ditch and trail.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: Grading within the designated trail easement is
required to occur during overall site grading. The City’s Park Planning and
Development and Parks teams are interested in participating in discussions
related to the timing of construction of the regional trail.
Response: We are indicating the anticipated construction limits with each phase (G and E)
and are happy to coordinate further on the timing as related to overlot grading.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: 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.
Response: Understood.
Page 30 of 37
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: Please plan on discussions with the City’s
Engineering team related to the long-term maintenance of the underpass at Mountain Vista.
Response: This is the City’s responsibility.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: Landscaping within the trail easement shall be
provided in accordance with all applicable City codes and will remain the
responsibility of the underlying landowner. Landscaping must provide acceptable
clearances from the trail surfaces as specified in the Trail Master Plan. Spray irrigation,
if required, shall be designed and maintained to avoid over spraying onto the trail.
Response: Understood.
Department: PFA
Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2869, marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/29/2022
08/29/20222: FOR APPROVAL
FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS
It is unclear what areas are to be used as access. The plat designates tracts as
EA but these tracts also include green space and other landscape areas. I'm
assuming all alleys are to be used as fire lanes. Please provide clarification on
what is to be used as fire apparatus access.
Response: Plat and easements have been revised.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/29/2022
08/29/2022: FOR APPROVAL
FIRE LANE TURNING RADIUS
Most corners on the site do not meet the required inside and outside turning
radius. In order to approve this design, you will need to submit a turning exhibit
showing no body or wheel overhang. Overhang will include curbs, landscaping,
parking areas and anything that can be considered an obstruction. Turning
exhibit shall show all areas of site and include turns both ways if angle of
approach is different. Areas of concern include all roundabouts, median
divided streets at roundabout, alley entrance, all alley corners and parking near
any intersection/entrance.
- IFC 503.2.4 and Local Amendments: The required turning radius of a fire
apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside.
Response: Truck turning exhibits are being submitted with this information.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/29/2022
08/29/2022: FOR APPROVAL
AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS
If the 3 story buildings are over 30' in height, additional fire lane requirements
will apply in order to accommodate the logistical needs of aerial apparatus
(ladder trucks). The intent of the code is to provide for rescue operations and
roof access via ladder trucks when ground ladders cannot reach upper floors.
Aerial access should therefore be available on at least one entire long side of
the building, located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from
Page 31 of 37
the building. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum
unobstructed width of 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of
the building or portion thereof. Dead end access roads shall have a minimum
width of 30 ft. Parapet heights greater than 4' in height do not support ladder truck operations.
Response: All eave heights in the alleyways will be lower than 30’.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/31/2022
08/29/2022: FOR FINAL
FIRE LANE LOADING
Fire lanes shall be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable
of supporting 40 tons. Private drives incorporating pavers as surface for fire
lanes shall provide geotech information confirming the paver design can handle
fire truck loading. A note shall be added to the civil plans indicating compliance
in all areas.
Response: Note has been added. Geotech information will be provided for the use of pavers in
these areas.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022: FOR FINAL
ACCESS TO BUILDING OPENINGS
An approved access walkway leading from fire apparatus access roads to the
main egress door of the building shall be provided on this site. The walkway
shall be capable of providing access for emergency personnel and equipment.
Please provide details on site plan for the access walkway.
Response: Further discussion may be required after this submittal is reviewed to identify any areas this may be needed.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022: FOR FINAL
PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: ADDRESS POSTING & WAYFINDING
Where possible, the naming of private drives is usually recommended to aid in
wayfinding. New and existing buildings shall be provided with approved
address identification. The address identification shall be legible and placed in
a position that is visible from the street or road fronting the property. Address
identification characters shall contrast with their background. Address numbers
shall be arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall not be spelled
out. The address numerals for any commercial or industrial buildings shall be
placed at a height to be clearly visible from the street. They shall be a minimum
of 8 inches in height unless distance from the street or other factors dictate
larger numbers. Refer to Table 505.1.3 of the 2021 IFC as amended. The
address numbers for one- and two-family dwellings shall be a minimum of 4” in
height with a minimum ½” stroke and shall be posted on a contrasting
background. If bronze or brass numerals are used, they shall only be posted on
a black background for visibility. Monument signs may be used in lieu of
address numerals on the building as approved by the fire code official.
Buildings, either individually or part of a multi- building complex, that have
emergency access lanes on sides other than on the addressed street side, shall
have the address numbers and street name on each side that fronts the fire lane.
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 will be 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.
Page 32 of 37
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022: FOR FINAL
WATER SUPPLY
Please provide overall hydrant plan.
Hydrant spacing and flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of
occupancy. A fire hydrant capable of providing 1000 gpm at 20 psi residual
pressure is required within 400 feet of any single family residential building as
measured along an approved path of vehicle travel. For the purposes of this
code, hydrants on the opposite side of arterial roadways are not considered
accessible to the site.
Also, it appears many hydrants are proposed on the 20 ft alleys. Access roads
with a hydrant are required to be 26 feet in width.
Response: Hydrants have been relocated to alley access points or areas with wider than 20’ of width.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/09/2022
09/09/2022: FIRE LANE SIGNS
The limits of the fire lane shall be fully defined. Fire lane sign locations should be
indicated on future plan sets. Refer to LCUASS detail #1418 & #1419 for sign
type, placement, and spacing. Appropriate directional arrows required on all
signs. Posting of additional fire lane signage may be determined at time of fire
inspection. Code language provided below.
- IFC D103.6: Where required by the fire code official, fire apparatus access
roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING - FIRE LANE signs
complying with Figure D103.6. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12
inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective
background. Signs shall be posted on one or both sides of the fire apparatus
road as required by Section D103.6.1 or D103.6.2.
- IFC D103.6.1; ROADS 20 TO 26 FEET IN WIDTH: Fire lane signs as
specified in Section D103.6 shall be posted on both sides of fire apparatus
access roads that are 20 to 26 feet wide.
- IFC D103.6.1; ROADS MORE THAN 26 FEET IN WIDTH: Fire lane signs as
specified in Section D103.6 shall be posted on one side of fire apparatus
access roads more than 26 feet wide and less than 32 feet wide.
Response: Signs are to be shown on the signing and striping plan and alley plan and profile sheets.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/12/2022
09/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please change all plan titles from "Filing Two" to "Phase E".
Response: This has been changed.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/12/2022
09/12/2022: INFORMATION ONLY:
Page 33 of 37
A complete review of all plans will be done when the plans get closer to 100%.
Response: Understood.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/12/2022
09/12/2022: INFORMATION ONLY:
Based on City staff conversations - We will not be reviewing the Plat until it
reflects the boundary of the Phase G Plat submitted on August 26th.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/12/2022
09/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please provide current acceptable monument records for the aliquot corners shown.
Response: Submitted.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/12/2022
09/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please provide a closure report for the outer boundary of this Subdivision Plat.
Response: Submitted.
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/12/2022
09/12/2022: A permit is required for this project and construction shall comply
with adopted codes as amended. Current adopted codes are:
· 2021 International Residential Code (IRC) with local amendments
· Colorado Plumbing Code (currently 2018 IPC) with local amendments
· 2020 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado
· Copies of current City of Fort Collins code amendments can be found at fcgov.com/building.
· Please read the residential permit application submittal checklist for complete requirements.
· Snow Live Load: Ground Snow Load 35 PSF.
· Frost Depth: 30 inches.
· Wind Loads: Risk Category II (most structures):
· 140mph (Ultimate) exposure B or Front Range Gust Map published by The
Structural Engineer's Association of Colorado
· Seismic Design: Category B.
· Climate Zone: Zone 5
· Energy Code: 2021 IECC residential chapter
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
· 5ft setback required from property line or provide fire rated walls & openings
for non-fire sprinkled houses per chap 3 of the IRC. 3ft setback is required for
fire sprinkled houses.
· Fire separation of 10ft between dwellings is required.
· Bedroom egress windows (emergency escape openings) required in all bedrooms.
Page 34 of 37
· For buildings using electric heat, heat pump equipment is required.
· A passing building air tightness (blower door) test is required for certificate of occupancy.
· For projects located in Metro Districts, there are special additional code
requirements for new buildings. Please contact the plan review team to obtain
the requirements for each district.
Stock Plans:
When the same residential buildings will be built at least three times, a stock
plan design or master plan can be submitted for a single review and then built
multiple times with site specific permits. More information can be found in our
Stock Plan Guide at fcgov.com/building/res-requirements.php.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/12/2022
09/12/2022: Townhome and duplex construction shall comply with adopted
codes as amended. Current adopted codes are:
2021 International Residential Code (IRC) with local amendments
2018 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado
2020 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado
Copies of current City of Fort Collins code amendments can be found at fcgov.com/building.
Please read the residential permit application submittal checklist for complete requirements.
· Snow Live Load: Ground Snow Load 35 PSF.
· Frost Depth: 30 inches.
· Wind Loads: Risk Category II (most structures):
· 140mph (Ultimate) exposure B or Front Range Gust Map published by The
Structural Engineer's Association of Colorado
· Seismic Design: Category B.
· Climate Zone: Zone 5
· Energy Code: 2021 IECC residential chapter.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
· For a fire-sprinkled building, 3ft setback required from property line or provide
fire rated walls & openings per chap 3 of the IRC.
· Bedroom egress windows (emergency escape openings) required in all bedrooms.
· For buildings using electric heat, heat pump equipment is required.
· Attached single-family townhomes and duplexes are required to be fire
sprinkled per local amendment and must provide a P2904 system min and
provide fire rated wall per R302. This fire sprinkler system usually requires a ¾”
or 1” water line and meter to meet all P2904 requirements.
· New homes must provide electric vehicle ready wiring if garages are attached,
see local amendment.
· Provide site-wide accessibility plan in accordance with CRS 9-5. This requires
accessible units per that state standard.
· For projects located in Metro Districts, there are special additional code
requirements for new buildings. Please contact the plan review team to obtain
the requirements for each district.
Stock Plans:
When residential buildings will be built at least three times with limited
variations, a stock plan design or master plan can be submitted for a single
Page 35 of 37
review and then built multiple times with site specific permits. More information
can be found in our Stock Plan Guide at fcgov.com/building/res-requirements.php.
Response: Understood.
Department: Street Oversizing
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/16/2022
09/16/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
As Tim Dinger has commented, there appears to be street cross sections that
are not consistent with either the PUD or the LCUASS standards. To the extent
that there is infrastructure ultimately approved with components wider than the
standards (for instance a 7' sidewalk on a collector instead of the standard 5'),
there would not be TCEF reimbursement eligible for additional width of these
components wider than standards.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/16/2022
09/16/2022: 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: 3 Comment Originated: 09/16/2022
09/16/2022: 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.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/16/2022
09/16/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
The use of special pavers in collectors/arterials would be considered above and
beyond and not part of the TCEF reimbursable.
Response: We believe these elements support the City Council’s Active Modes Plan and would like
to discuss this further.
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: AJ Ramsey, Wilson & Company, Inc, andrew.ramsey@wilsonco.com, 816.701.3137
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/12/2022
Page 36 of 37
09/12/2022: I am with a consulting firm assisting BNSF with the review of the
Montava project. We have taken a cursory review of the drainage report
provided as part of the Phase E package and would like to request the following
data to better facilitate our review. Please let me know if you have any questions
or an estimated timeframe to when this data can be provided.
1 - It appears that the Phase E Drainage Report references detention ponds by
others and a master drainage study. Please provide the master drainage study
which and pre/post-development runoff/detention calculations.
2 - Any relevant information for that would provide detail on the phasing of this
project and how it may impact temporary stormwater runoff.
3 - The model (we assume EPA SWMM) might be helpful to aid our review.
Response: Master Drainage Report has been provided.
Contact: Don Kapperman, 970.567.0245, Don_Kapperman@comcast.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/26/2022
08/26/2022: Comcast has no issues at this time.
08/26/2022: Comcast would like to joint trench with Fort Collins Light & Power
Response: Understood.
Contact: Heidi Jenson, Boxelder Sanitation District, heidij@boxeldersanitation.com, 970.498.0604
Topic: General
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: Please see these comments in a separate document included
with the redlines (Boxelder - Design review No. 1 9-09-22.pdf).
Response: These comments have been addressed separately.
Contact: Larimer County Planning, 970.498.7679, poc@co.larimer.us
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/30/2022
08/30/2022: Larimer County Planning Department has no comments.
Response: Comment noted.
Contact: Megan Harrity, Larimer County Office of the Assessor, mharrity@larimer.org, 970.498.7065
Topic: General
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: Please correct the label for Lot 46 in Block 1. the lot is labeled as
90. It should be labeled 46. Thank you.
Response: Lot updated.
Contact: Rafel Nichols, BNSF Railways - Manager Public Projects, Rafer.Nichols@BNSF.com, 817.471.6614
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/30/2022
08/30/2022: BNSF needs to do an overall drainage plan review of the total
Page 37 of 37
Montava development to ensure our existing structures have the capacity to
handle this flow across our ROW. Please contact Rafer Nichols with BNSF
regarding the review and copy City Stormwater Staff (Wes Lamarque,
wlamarque@fcgov.com) as they will need to be consulted during the review as well.
Redlines included (BNSF Drainage Markups_AJR.pdf). I want to make sure we
are covered form a hydrologic perspective.
Response: BNSF has been contacted.
Contact: Randy Siddens, East Larimer County Water District, randys@elcowater.org, 970.493.2044
Topic: General
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/12/2022
09/12/2022: Please see these comments in a separate document included
with the redlines (Utility Plans-ELCO Notes.pdf).
Response: These comments have been addressed separately.
Contact: Ryan Donovan, Larimer and Weld Ditch Company, ryan@lcwaterlaw.com, 970.622.8181
Topic: General
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/13/2022
09/13/2022: Please see these comments in a separate document included
with the redlines (Larimer and Weld Ditch Co_220912.pdf).
Response: We continue to work with LWIC and will resolve all issues and concerns directly with
them.
Contact: Sarah Brucker, Colorado Division of Water Resources, sarah.brucker@state.co.us
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/12/2022
09/12/2022: Please see attached redline (CDWR - Montava Phase E Rd1.pdf)
for comments from the Colorado Division of Water Resources.
Response: These comments have been addressed separately.