HomeMy WebLinkAboutMONTAVA - PHASE G & IRRIGATION POND - BDR210013 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 5 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
Page 1 of 48
Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6689 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview
Montava - Phase G and Irrigation Pond, BDR210013, Round Number 5
Responses to Staff Comments for Round Number 4
April 12, 2023
December 09, 2022
Angela Milewski
BHA Design Inc.
1603 Oakridge Dr #100
Fort Collins, CO 80525
RE: Montava - Phase G and Irrigation Pond, BDR210013, Round Number 4
Response to Comments
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing
agencies for your submittal of Montava - Phase G and Irrigation Pond. If you have
questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your
questions through your Development Review Coordinator, Tenae Beane via phone at
970-224-6119 or via email at tbeane@fcgov.com.
Staff comments in Grey were shared for information only, or were answered in a previous round,
so no response is provided.
Comment Summary:
Department: Development Review Coordinator
Contact: Tenae Beane, 970-224-6119, tbeane@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
I will be your primary point of contact throughout the development review and
permitting process. If you have any questions, need additional meetings with the
project reviewers, or need assistance throughout the process, please let me
know and I can assist you and your team. Please include me in all email correspondence
with other reviewers and keep me informed of any phone conversations. Thank you!
Comment Number: 2
Page 2 of 48
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
As part of your resubmittal, you will respond to the comments provided in this
letter. This letter is provided to you in Microsoft Word format. Please use this
document to insert responses to each comment for your submittal, using a
different font color. When replying to the comment letter please be detailed in
your responses, as all comments should be thoroughly addressed. Provide
reference to specific project plans or explanations of why comments have not
been addressed, when applicable, avoiding responses like noted or acknowledged.
Comment Number: 3
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
Please follow the Electronic Submittal Requirements and File Naming
Standards found at https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/electronic
submittal requirements and file naming standards_v1_8 1 19.pdf?1566857888.
File names should begin with the file type, followed by the project information,
and round number.
Example: UTILITY PLANS_PROJECT NAME_PDP_Rd2.pdf
File type acronyms maybe appropriate to avoid extremely long file names.
Example: TIS for Traffic Impact Study, ECS for Ecological Characterization Study.
*Please disregard any references to paper copies, flash drives, or CDs.
Comment Number: 4
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
All plans should be saved as optimized/flattened PDFs to reduce file size and remove layers.
Per the Electronic Submittal Requirements AutoCAD SHX attributes need to be
removed from the PDF’s.
AutoCAD turns drawing text into comments that appear in the PDF plan set,
and these must be removed prior to submittal as they can cause issues with the
PDF file. The default setting is "1" ("on") in AutoCAD. To change the setting
and remove this feature, type "EPDFSHX" in the command line and enter "0".
Read this article at Autodesk.com for more tips on this topic:
https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad/troubleshooting/caas/sfdcarti
cles/sfdcarticles/Drawing-text-appears-as-Comments-in-a-PDF-created-by-Aut oCAD.html
Comment Number: 5
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
Resubmittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being
the cut-off for routing the same week. When you are ready to resubmit your
plans, please notify me with as much advanced notice as possible.
Comment Number: 7
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
Please resubmit within 180 days, approximately 6 months, to avoid the
expiration of your project.
(LUC 2.211 Lapse, Rounds of Review).
Comment Number: 8
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The Director shall issue a written decision to approve, approve with conditions,
or deny the development application based on compliance with the standards
referenced in Step 8 of the Common Development Review Procedures (Section 2.2.8).
The written decision shall be mailed to the applicant, to any person who
provided comments during the comment period and to the abutting property
Page 3 of 48
owners and shall also be posted on the City's website at www.fcgov.com.
Response: The applicable development standards for Phase G are contained
in the Montava Uses, Densities and Development Standards. Notice of the Director’s
decision is under discussion with the City Attorney.
Comment Number: 9
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
If the project is approved by the Director, there is a two-week appeal period
from the date of the decision. The project is not able to be recorded until it is
confirmed there are no appeals.
Response: The subject of this comment is under discussion with the City Attorney.
Comment Number: 10
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
All "For Final Approval / For Approval" comments need to be addressed and
resolved prior to moving forward with the final documents and recording of this
project. I will provide a recording checklist and process information when we
are closer to this step.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Jenny Axmacher, , jaxmacher@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5
12/6/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: The cover sheet notes a net
density of 7.4 du/acre when the phase requires a minimum density of 10 du/acre.
Response: The net density has been revised to match the density definitions and requirements
established in the Montava Uses, Densities and Development Standards. As per section 3.3.1.
Density is calculated by dividing the total number of dwelling units by the net developable area of
each phase – excluding both streets and open spaces. We have excluded the future multi-family
areas from the calculations, but still have a net density of 11.45 du/ac (188 units in 16.45 net
developable area).
09/20/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UNRESOLVED
05/25/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Please include more
details on this calculation on the cover sheet, *including the number of dwelling
units.* Do not include the future multifamily phase in the calculation. If you wish,
you can include a separate calculation for future density at build out. The
minimum density must be met in each application.
01/10/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Include a net density calculation on the cover
sheet of site plan set. The minimum density is 10 du/acre. Additional density of
3 du/acre is applicable for ADUs.
Comment Number: 8
12/6/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Based on information on
page 5 of the AIS that was part of the packet for the first reading of the PUD
Master Plan at City Council, Staff believes 3.5.2 (D) is applicable to the
Montava project. That document can be found here:
https://records.fcgov.com/CityCouncil/DocView.aspx?id=3487581&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins
Response: Staff has confirmed its agreement that the Residential Building Standards of
the LUC have been modified and replaced by MUDDS, therefore, LUC Sec. 3.5.2(D) does not apply
within the Montava PUD.
09/22/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Let's discuss a potential
Page 4 of 48
PUD Amendment as referenced in the comment response letter.
05/25/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Based on Staff's review,
while much of Article 3 was replaced by MUDDS, section 3.5.D, appears to still
be applicable. Let's discuss further to clarify what is and is not applicable.
Please provide dimensions on the site plan, or another exhibit, that illustrates
compliance with this standard, if applicable.
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Block 2 Lot 6 and Block 1 Lots 8-13 appear to
violate section 3.5.2 D of the Land Use Code. Please either alter the front
sidewalk so it meets the definition of a major walkway spine or reduce the
distance from a street sidewalk to less than 200 feet.
Comment Number: 22
05/31/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Discussions regarding
model approval are on-going. Additional details, including building materials
and color schemes will be needed for final approval of the single family attached product.
Response: Staff has confirmed that because the Residential Building Standards of the LUC have
been modified and replaced by MUDDS, the review of architectural elevations has been delegated to
Montava’s Architectural Review Committee (MARC). MARC will issue a letter of compliance which the builder will provide to the City for plan review.
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: The single family detached home architectural
elevations will be reviewed as part of the building permit process. All other
building elevations will be reviewed and approved as part of this BDR. Please
submit a full package of elevation drawings, including all sides of the building
and all of the proposed different models with the next submittal so a thorough
review can be completed.
Comment Number: 24
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Discussions regarding
model approval are on-going. Information on proposed building materials and
color palettes are requested.
Response: Staff has confirmed that because the Residential Building Standards of the LUC have
been modified and replaced by MUDDS, the review of architectural elevations has been delegated to
Montava’s Architectural Review Committee (MARC). MARC will issue a letter of compliance which
the builder will provide to the City for plan review.
05/31/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Discussions regarding
model approval are on-going. Information on proposed building materials and
color palettes are requested.
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: How will housing model variation be achieved
as described in MUDDS 5.13.7?
Comment Number: 27
05/26/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UNRESOLVED:
Response: This was answered in a previous round.
Previous response: The applicant is under contract with the Poudre School District to swap land
parcels immediately upon the applicant’s closing of the AB land. There will be no development on
the property until and after the AB property is exchanged with PSD. Both AB and PSD are well
aware of the platting work going on now and letters of intent indicting such can be provided to the
City is required. To clarify, the irrigation will not be located on current PSD land, it is going on land
currently owned by AB, but that will be purchased by applicant before any construction. We are
aware of the need to have the current landowners executing the final approved plan set. Copies of
the purchase contract and amendments are provided with this resubmittal.
01/11/2022: IRRIGATION POND - FOR APPROVAL: REVISED Please provide
Page 5 of 48
proof of ownership of the land proposed to be developed as the irrigation pond
or documentation from Poudre School District stating the applicant can proceed
with the development on their property. Staff would recommend providing a
letter of intent from the school district. The property owner will need to sign the
final, approved plan set.
Comment Number: 29
01/11/2022: IRRIGATION POND - FOR APPROVAL: Per Exhibit C of the PUD
Master Plan, Section 3, Condition 5 (on the top of the last page of the exhibit), if
a shared irrigation pond is agreed upon between the City and the Developer
and/or Poudre School District, the pond must be located proportionally on
Developer and/or Poudre School District property, in addition to park property.
Please clarify how can this pond be constructed prior to an agreement with the
other entities, if it must be sited proportionally between the users.
Response: This was answered in a previous round.
Previous response: The original intent of this language was to assure that City Parks was
not overburdened by this pond being located on their property or taking away from the Community Park
experience. We fully agree with that and currently the majority of the pond is not on parks land. A small
portion is planned to be on parks property at their request. We are supportive of this approach.
Comment Number: 30
01/11/2022: IRRIGATION POND - FOR APPROVAL: Fencing around the pond
is strongly encouraged for safety. The fence should be aesthetically attractive in
nature while adequately restricting access to the pond area.
Response: This was answered in a previous round.
Previous response: We don’t want to fence the pond, we instead have low walls
designed along the pond edge for safety.
Comment Number: 38
12/6/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UNRESOLVED: Though previously
resolved, this submittal round contained documents with AUTOCAD SHX Text
that does not comply with these requirements. Any further submittals of
documents that do not comply with these standards will be deemed incomplete.
Response: The AutoCAD files have been updated.
05/25/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Once this submittal is at final plan level,
or 100% drawings it must comply with the City's Development Review Submittal
Requirements found here:
https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/dev-review-submittal-requi
rements_v3-3-31-2021.pdf?1641507328
and the City's Electronic Submittal Requirements found here:
https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/electronic-submittal-requir
ements-and-file-naming-standards_v1_8-1-19.pdf?1641507328.
The plans currently do not comply.
Comment Number: 43
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED - IRRIGATION POND:
Please provide an update on the status of negotiations with Larimer and Weld
Irrigation Company, including when an agreement is planned to be reached,
and what the developer’s plan is if no agreement is reached. We understand
that the company is directing the developer to put the ditch in a pipe but that is
Page 6 of 48
still subject to an agreement on pipeline design and easement issues.
Response: The Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company (LWIC) No. 8 ditch associated with
the Phase G plans will be piped per LWIC’s request. Both the plans and agreements are in ongoing
negotiation. Our goal is to have them executed Q2 2023.
The Nonpotable Irrigation System Report for Montava Subdivision, dated
August 22, 2022 (“Nonpot Report”) references shares in the Water Supply and
Storage Company (“WSSC”) that the developer intends to use. We are aware
of the developer owning 1.5 WSSC shares, which are also the subject of the
developer’s Water Court Case No. 2020CW3208. Does the developer own
additional WSSC shares that would be used in the proposed nonpotable
irrigation system?
Response: This was answered in a previous round.
Previous response: The Developer owns approximately 2.5 shares of WSSC that can be used in its
irrigation system. We are happy to share details on those transactions if requested.
From documents in the developer’s Water Court Case No. 2020CW3208, we
understand that the developer intends to use the 1.5 WSSC shares that are the
subject of that case to replace depletions from the pumping of tributary
groundwater wells. However, the developer also appears to plan to use those
same 1.5 WSSC shares as a source of water for irrigation in the proposed
nonpotable irrigation system. This appears to potentially be double-counting.
Please explain and provide an analysis of how these 1.5 WSSC shares will be
used for both purposes.
Response: This was answered in a previous round.
Previous response: Your understanding of this is inaccurate. Our water court case is not double counting
water that will be supplying our irrigation system.
The Nonpot Report references shares in the North Poudre Irrigation Company
(“NPIC”) intends to use. Please identify the number of shares. Please confirm
that the developer owns these shares, as claimed in Section 2.1 of the Nonpot
Report. If the developer does not own the shares, please clarify and provide
evidence that the developer can and will acquire these shares.
Response: This was answered in a previous round.
Previous response: There is no intention of using any NPIC shares in the non-potable systems serving
west of Giddings Rd.
The Nonpot Report indicates that the developer will use an NPIC pipe/lateral
from the Larimer County Canal to deliver both WSSC and NPIC water to the
development. We understand that the developer would need an agreement with
NPIC to use their pipe/lateral. Please explain what modifications will be
needed for the pipe/lateral, if any, as more water would seem to be planned to
be conveyed through that pipe/lateral than what occurred historically. Please
provide an update on the status of negotiations, including when an agreement is
planned to be reached, and what the developer’s plan is if no agreement is reached.
Response: This was answered in a previous round.
Previous response: Your understanding of this is incorrect. We are the sole user of the Montava Irrigation
Lateral. We will not be using more than what has historically come through the Montava Irrigation Lateral.
Easements have been obtained and recorded to allow the WSSC irrigation water to come off the WSSC
ditch with a new headgate and run through the Lateral. The head gate is being designed currently with the
WSSC engineer; copies of the recorded easements are appendices to the Non-Potable Irrigation System
Report.
05/31/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - IRRIGATION POND:
Could the pond be constructed in phases to correspond to water availability and
Page 7 of 48
water need as development comes online?
Provide written confirmation from WSSC that WSSC shares can be used as proposed.
Provide a copy of an agreement with the Baker Lateral for use of the lateral as
described in the design memo.
Provide written confirmation from NPIC that the NPIC shares can be uses as proposed.
Provide documentation on the ownership of the various wells and whether the
applicant has agreements in place to acquire ownership of any of the wells.
Describe how the ponds would work if use of the Baker Lateral is not acquired
or if there is not enough physical capacity in the lateral for a period of time.
Confirm the ponds would be empty until the Water Court Case is complete due
to the current lack of storage rights.
Provide additional information on the actual volume and flow rates of water
demand and supply.
In the Non-Potable Irrigation System Report, Appendix B, the well names on the
map should correspond to decreed names for reference to limits on amount and
place of use. Tie the names to those on Table 1 of Appendix G.
Comment Number: 44
12/6/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PUD Amendments are needed for the following items:
-Undergrounding of the #8 Ditch that causes the relocation of the associated NHBZ and Wetlands.
- Changes to street network including the proposed roundabout and Timberline Cross Section.
- Additional amendments may be needed to address the PPD conditions of
approval on the Master Plan and the architectural elevation review.
Response: We have communicated and continue to believe that no PUD amendments are needed
for these items.
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Discussions on amendments are on-going.
05/31/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Staff has evaluated the need for
amendments to the PUD as part of this submittal. The following areas have
been identified for further discussion:
-Piping of the #8 Ditch
-Current Conditions of Approval including configuration of the irrigation pond and at-grade trail crossings
-Roadway master plan updates
-Water systems
-Review procedures including building elevation review.
Comment Number: 46
12/6/2022: FOR INFORMATION: Thank you! This note brings me joy. We will
need to discuss whether this submittal will fall under the first amendment to
MUDDs, or not, and potentially add a note for that too.
Response: Phase G will be subject to MUDDS Amendment #1.
09/20/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please provide a note on plat and site
plan set cover sheet that this development is part of the Montava PUD Master
Plan, approved under Ordinance No.014, 2020 and recorded as reception
number: (INSERT RECEPTION NUMBER)
It is subject to the Montava Metro District Service Plan, approved under
Resolution 2018-083 and recorded as reception number: (INSERT
RECEPTION NUMBER IF RECORDED) as well as the Public Benefits
Agreement, approved under Resolution 2020-007 and recorded as reception
number: (INSERT RECEPTION NUMBER IF RECORDED).
Comment Number: 49
Page 8 of 48
09/22/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please add labels in the legend for the
trail connection surfaces on the landscape plans. There is a trail connection
material on sheet L3 near the intersection that is not crusher fines and it is
unclear what the material proposed is going to be. It's part of the boardwalk.
Response: This was answered in a previous round.
Comment Number: 52
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Provide dimensions and total areas on
the site plan set (S-19?) and/or the landscape plan set that show how the civic
spaces comply with table 10.2.2 in MUDDS. The greenway with rain garden
and pollinator path that runs across the southern portion of the development may
not meet the minimum 40 ft dimension.
Response: This was answered in a previous round.
Comment Number: 56
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please identify which required program
element is present in the Mountain Vista Greenway.
Response: This was answered in a previous round.
Comment Number: 58
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: For the Ditch Buffer mitigation, please
distinguish between new proposed mitigation areas and previously proposed
areas that are being enhanced and provide a measure of the enhancement.
This will impact whether or not the undergrounding of the ditch is a change in
character or not.
Response: This was answered in a previous round.
Comment Number: 59
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The non-potable irrigation system will
be subject to the Water Adequacy Review and staff will have additional
comments and input through that process.
Response: Because the City’s Water Adequacy Determination Code Update has not yet been
adopted or finalized, it is inapplicable to the finalization of Phase G. Such implementation would
impose unilateral retroactive regulations upon Montava that are not uniformly applied elsewhere
within the City. Montava is happy to address any concerns the City may have regarding water
adequacy at this time but does not agree to be bound by future, as yet, undefined regulations.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Jin Wang, ,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
12/08/2022: UPDATED:
Width of waterproofing need to be min. 12” wide
Response: Callout for width of waterproofing will be updated.
09/22/2022: PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS STRUCTURAL REVIEW:
Need waterproofing over precast arch section joints, top and sides
Comment Number: 2
12/08/2022: UPDATED:
This item needs to be tracked somehow to make sure it does not fall thru the
cracks. Need to submit for review
Response: The plate connection will be a post-installed bolted connection provided by Contech in
Page 9 of 48
the shop drawings submitted on 3/15/2023. Reviewed and approved as (Exceptions as Noted) on
3/23/2023.
09/22/2022: PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS STRUCTURAL REVIEW:
Need weld plate connection details between precast sections
Comment Number: 3
12/08/2022: UPDATED:
This item needs to be tracked somehow to make sure it does not fall thru the
cracks. Need to submit for review
Response: Typical Non-Shrink grout detail was submitted by Contech in the shop drawings
submitted on 3/15/2023. Reviewed and approved as (Exceptions as Noted) on 3/23/2023.
09/22/2022: PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS STRUCTURAL REVIEW:
Need non-shrink Epoxy Grout at connection between arch and floor precast section.
Comment Number: 5
12/08/2022: UPDATED:
Not updated as responded. Details shows 6” gap
Response: Maximum opening was updated to show 4”.
09/22/2022: PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS STRUCTURAL REVIEW:
Headwall and wingwall railing is not typical for us. Opening should not be greater then 4”
Comment Number: 6
12/08/2022: UPDATED:
I am assuming that the precast designer will seal the design of the WWF that is
to be extended into the headwall and wingwall.
Response: Precast designer (Contech) has selected to use form savers and provided a typical
doweling detail on headwalls was provided on section D/CT5 on the shop drawings submitted on
3/15/2023. Reviewed and approved as (Exceptions as Noted) on 3/23/2023.
09/22/2022: PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS STRUCTURAL REVIEW:
Need headwall design and connection details
Comment Number: 7
12/08/2022: UPDATED:
I am assuming that the precast designer will seal the design of the WWF that is
to be extended into the headwall and wingwall.
Response: Precast designer (Contech) has selected to use form savers and provided a typical
doweling detail on wingwalls was provided on section D/CT5 on the shop drawings submitted on
3/15/2023. Reviewed and approved as (Exceptions as Noted) on 3/23/2023.
09/22/2022: PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS STRUCTURAL REVIEW:
Need wingwall connection to precast details.
Comment Number: 8
12/08/2022: UPDATED:
I am assuming that the precast designer will seal the design of the WWF that is
to be extended into the headwall and wingwall.
Response: Precast designer provided CIP bottom slab detail within the shop drawings submitted
on 3/15/2023 and we no longer need a connection detail for the toewall. It will be poured in
conjunction with the bottom slab. Plans have been updated accordingly.
09/22/2022: PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS STRUCTURAL REVIEW:
Need toewall connection to precast details
Comment Number: 9
12/08/2022: UPDATED:
Min. concrete topping thickness need to be call out. Cannot be too thin as it will
Page 10 of 48
crack and fall apart easily.
Response: Precast designer provided a CIP bottom slab detail within the shop drawings submitted
on 3/15/2023, thus we no longer will have a topping slab. The top surface of the CIP bottom slab will
configured to provide the path cross-slope. Plans have been updated accordingly.
09/22/2022: PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS STRUCTURAL REVIEW:
Need concrete topping on the path to smooth out/cover the joint of precast
Contact: Tim Dinger, , tdinger@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 12
11/30/2022: UPDATED:
This project is proposing non-standard utility easements, and no easements
behind the ROW whatsoever. There was no easement layout that was vested
with the PUD. Therefore, an official variance request for the non-standard easements
will be required. The variance should explain why you are not providing the standard
easements, what you are providing in lieu of the standard easements, and how this will
not be detrimental to the project. Variances are an important part of the process that helps
Staff better understand the ideas and concepts behind the specific non-standard designs of the project.
Response: A variance has been submitted for the on-site local roadways to support the non-
standard roadway section without the continuous utility easement adjacent to ROW. Discussions
and coordination with various utility providers and the City have occurred to date which have
guided the utility design and determination of utility providers to and within the development.
Pocket easements have been added outside of ROW to support the utility infrastructure design.
09/14/2022: UPDATED:
You need to submit an official variance request for any proposed utility
easements that do not meet LCUASS Standards. All variance requests need to
be approved prior to the final plans being recorded.
05/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UPDATED: Utility easement requirement
discussions behind the right-of-way (ROW) are ongoing, with reference to
franchise agreements between the City and Comcast, as well as with other
external utility providers. Per the needs of City of Fort Collins Light and Power
Department, the standard 15-foot width utility easements for arterial roads will
be required adjacent to the Timberline Road ROW.
01/11/2022: The plat does not indicate the dedication of any utility easements
along the interior public street system, where typically a 9 foot utility easement is
provided. I'm noting that the typical dry utility layout on Sheets 5.9 and 5.10 do
not depict natural gas as a utility and perhaps this speaks to the lack of utility
easements. I believe a utility coordination meeting to confirm the lack of utility
easements along the public streets should be conducted. With electric, phone,
cable, broadband potentially needing raised pedestals/transformers along the
public street system, there may be general concerns as these are not allowed in
the parkway between the sidewalks and the street, and the utility easement
behind the sidewalk is typically where these are situated.
Comment Number: 16
11/28/2022: UPDATED - UNRESOLVED:
Per the response to comments letter provided with the round 4 submittal, the
applicant team is working with K&M Company to dedicate the ROW necessary
for Mountain Vista Drive and Timberline/Mountain Vista roundabouts
Page 11 of 48
improvements associated with Phase G and Phase E. We will be looking for
the Deed of Dedication prior to final plan approval.
Response: The Deed of Dedication will be submitted for City acceptance prior to final
approval of Phase G.
09/13/2022: UPDATED:
Will there be any right-of-way or easements to be submitted by separate
document? If so, submit the easement or ROW dedication documents with the
next submittal. Easement dedications must be approved prior to final plan recordation.
05/27/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UPDATED: We will look for the Timberline
right-of-way to be dedicated by the final plat. We will look for dedication of the
Mountain Vista right-of-way by separate document. Both of these items must be
included in the Round 3 submittal.
01/11/2022: The plat appears to demonstrate that abutting Timberline Road
and Mountain Vista Drive rights-of-way are not being dedicated by plat, but are
to be dedicated by separate document. Dedications by separate document are
subject to the newer deed of dedication fees under the 2022 fee schedule as
linked here:
https://www.fcgov.com/engineering/files/engineering-services-fee-intake-form_v1.pdf?1640212430
If the conveyance can occur via plat instead of separate document, the fees
referenced above would not apply.
Comment Number: 26
11/30/2022: UPDATED:
This project is proposing non-standard utility easements, and no easements
behind the ROW whatsoever. There was no easement layout that was vested
with the PUD. Therefore, an official variance request for the non-standard
easements will be required. The variance should explain why you are not
providing the standard easements, what you are providing in lieu of the
standard easements, and how this will not be detrimental to the project.
Variances are an important part of the process that helps staff better
understand the ideas and concepts behind the specific non-standard designs of the project.
Response: A variance has been submitted for the on-site local roadways to support the non-
standard roadway section without the continuous utility easement adjacent to ROW. Discussions
and coordination with various utility providers and the City have occurred to date which have
guided the utility design and determination of utility providers to and within the development.
Pocket easements have been added outside of ROW to support the utility infrastructure design.
09/14/2022: UPDATED:
You need to submit an official variance request for any proposed utility
easements that do not meet LCUASS Standards. All variance requests need to
be approved prior to the final plans being recorded.
05/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UPDATED: Utility easement requirement
discussions behind the right-of-way (ROW) are ongoing, with reference to
franchise agreements between the City and Comcast, as well as with other
external utility providers. Per the needs of City of Fort Collins Light and Power
Department, the standard 15-foot width utility easements for arterial roads will
be required adjacent to the Timberline Drive ROW.
Page 12 of 48
01/11/2022: We will need to get an understanding on the overall need for offsite
easements/right-of-way that would need approvals from other parties, offsite
landowners, relevant utility providers, ditch owners, and other existing interests.
An exhibit that would identify these parties in conjunction with the improvements
depicted would be helpful.
Comment Number: 28
09/14/2022: UPDATED:
I am leaving this comment active, as discussion regarding the design and
operation of the oval ("kidney bean") roundabouts is still ongoing. We are
looking forward to the setup and demonstration of the kidney bean intersections
in the near future.
Response: We received the January 13, 2023 letter outlining the remaining concerns of the City and
PFA, and Kimley-Horn responded on January 27, 2023. All concerns have been addressed and we
have been advised by the City and PFA that the kidney bean intersections on Timberline Road are
acceptable. Final plans are submitted for your approval.
05/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL: The following items must be included in the
next submittal, which will be the first 100% complete plan set submittal: Platted
tracts for Phase E (to allow overlot grading), platted tract(s) for the irrigation
pond and non-potable irrigation distribution system, full roadway designs for
both Timberline Road and Mountain Vista Drive, supporting materials for the
proposed roundabout to take to City Council, and an analysis of how the
oval-shaped roundabouts will work. This list is not all-inclusive, and other
departments and their comments from this round may require additional items.
Comment Number: 35
11/28/2022: UPDATED:
Sight distance easements were provided per the LCUASS variance request
that was submitted. There are minor edits to make to the variance request itself.
Please make these changes to the variance request and resubmit with next round.
Response: The variance request for sight distance easements was updated per City comments and
was resubmitted ahead of the construction plan updates and submittal documents.
09/14/2022: UPDATED:
Sight distance easements were not provided as requested. Please see
LCUASS Figure 7-11F, detail 2, which describes the easements required. Add
the sight distance easements to the plat with the next submittal. Please note that
no fences may encroach the sight distance easements, and all landscaping
must be no higher than 12 inches.
05/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Sight distance easements will be required
where the alleys connect to the ROW of another roadway. Please see LCUASS
Figure 7-11F, detail 2. We will not require that the triangles be dedicated as
ROW, but can be dedicated as easement instead. Please show these
easements on the plat with the next submittal.
Comment Number: 36
11/28/2022: UPDATED:
The variance request for local streets was submitted and has been reviewed.
There are minor redlines on the variance requests, please address the
comments and resubmit with the next round.
Response: The variance request for local streets was updated per City comments received and
was resubmitted ahead of the construction plan updates and submittal documents.
09/13/2022: UPDATED:
Page 13 of 48
A variance request must be submitted during the next round for each cross
section that has not been vested by the PUD. The connector local, connector
local alt 1, connector local alt 2, and residential local alt 2 do not meet LCUASS
standards, nor are they vested through the PUD. Please submit all required
variance requests with the next round. All required variances must be approved
before final plans can be recorded.
05/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL: The 28' width residential local street is the only
street width that has been vested by the PUD. None of the connector local
sections have been vested. Variance requests for all unvested street sections
will need to be submitted with the 100% submittal.
Comment Number: 37
11/28/2022: UPDATED:
The City is not comfortable with the brick paver usage in the median of the
kidney-bean roundabouts. Per the turning radius exhibits, larger vehicles will
need to mount the median to some extent while crossing from east to west (or
west to east). Extended vehicle usage, especially from larger vehicles, will wear
the pavers extremely quickly, and could cause frequent maintenance. Per
previous conversations, the City will not maintain any brick pavers in the ROW
due to the complexity and cost of repairing and maintaining brick pavers. Other
median materials may be used, such as concrete stamped with brick patterns,
that may have a similar aesthetic feel but would incur less maintenance.
Response: Staff has agreed that the Montava Metropolitan District will be
responsible for the maintenance of pavers in the parkways. A draft of the ROW Maintenance and
License Agreement which will memorialize this obligation is included in this submittal and a copy
has been provided to the City Attorney’s office.
09/14/2022:
Turning radius exhibits will be required for all movements of all roundabouts that
are proposed with this phase. Per previous discussions with Poudre Fire
Authority, the "kidney bean" intersections would not allow for emergency vehicle
access with several of the possible intersection movements. The turning radius
exhibits will also be used when the roundabouts are taken to City Council for approval.
Comment Number: 40
11/28/2022: UPDATED:
The DA information form was received, but there is no draft Development
Agreement as of now. We will provide the draft as soon as we have one for
review for the applicant team. There are several final design level items that are
in discussion, and we cannot put together a complete draft at this time. In the
meantime, please complete the DA information form where the information in incomplete.
Response: An updated Information for Development Agreement form accompanies this
resubmittal. We have been advised by Tenae Beane that generation of Staff’s initial draft of the
Development Agreement should not be delayed because certain signatures are TBD. Please
provide your first draft of the Development Agreement as soon as possible.
09/15/2022:
Please fill out the Development Agreement Information form and return to us
with the next submittal, or as soon as possible. This form contains vital
information for us to start drafting the development agreement. The DA info form
can be found online (https://www.fcgov.com/engineering/devrev), and should
also be included with the redlines you receive with this round of review.
Comment Number: 41
Page 14 of 48
11/28/2022: UPDATED:
Please provide the agreement to the City once it has been executed. This is not
a City requirement, but we would like to see the agreement and have it on file
with the project.
Response: The agreement amendment is in process of being executed and a copy will be
provided.
09/16/2022:
Per the City surveyors who are reviewing the plat, the item labeled Rec.
#98086673 is not an actual easement, just an agreement between Storybook
Farm, LLC and Poudre School District (Rec. #98086673). It is highly
recommended that you dedicate an actual easement over top of this
agreement. A copy of the current agreement can be found online at the Larimer
County Public Records search (https://records.larimer.org/landmarkweb) at
searchable reception number 19980086673. The searchable reception number
is different than what is listed on the plat due to a numbering format change.
Comment Number: 42
12/06/2022: UPDATED:
Label all culverts, utilities, and crossings on the Timberline and Mountain Vista
cross sections, per the utility plan checklist.
Response: Sections revised to include utilities.
09/16/2022:
Per the utility plan checklist, cross sections for proposed arterial streets and for
proposed collector streets must be provided at 50-foot intervals. Providing only
typical sections for final design is not acceptable. Please provide the required
cross sections with the next submittal.
Comment Number: 43
11/30/2022:
Per the plat, many of the Tracts that are used as alleys and easements are to be
owned and maintained by the Montava Metro District. Does this Metro district
have a "sunset" date or timeline, and if so, who will own and maintain the private
alleys after the Metro district dissolves?
Response: The Metro District will not “sunset” or disband but will provide ongoing
operation and maintenance services as permitted by its Service Plan.
Comment Number: 44
12/06/2022: The utility easements along Timberline Road are not correctly
depicted. Easements and ROW cannot overlap, as it is essentially redundant.
15-foot utility easements are required to be provided per LCUASS standards,
with the easements outside of and adjacent to the ROW.
Response: A revised variance for Timberline Road has been submitted.
Comment Number: 45
12/06/2022: Please provide a copy of the ditch agreement. The City needs to
know who will maintain the ditch after it has been reconstructed underground, as
well as what other utilities are allowed within the easement. Please clarify. You
are currently showing irrigation and stormwater utilities within the ditch easement.
Response: The Ditch agreement is in ongoing negotiation. Our goal is to have
It executed Q2 2023. A copy will be provided.
Comment Number: 46
12/06/2022: For the next round, please submit a Final Soils Report and a Final
Page 15 of 48
Subsurface Hydrology report, with more borings and groundwater information.
The only soils report that has been provided is labeled as a "Preliminary report",
and very few soils borings were taken. We need the groundwater information for
analysis of the pedestrian underpass and pump design.
Response: The Final Soils Report and Final Subsurface Hydrology Report have been
completed and submitted as part of the project documents.
Comment Number: 47
12/06/2022: On the nonpotable water plans, there are several places where
active water wells are shown in or near future ROW of Country Club Road.
Active water wells can not be within the ROW, so ROW must be adjusted or
water wells closed/moved.
Response: The wells shown in the future County Club ROW will be relocated.
Comment Number: 48
12/06/2022: Please make sure that the plat shows all easements that are to be
dedicated. There are some irrigation easements on the nonpotable water plans
that do not appear on the final pat. The easements say that they are "By
separate document", but they still need to appear on the final plat.
Response: Easements have been added to the plat.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Steve Gilchrist, 970-224-6175, sgilchrist@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 27
01/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans
The transitions from 2 lanes to 1 on the outgoing legs of the roundabout should
be extended. Please take a look at a couple of other roundabouts in
neighboring jurisdictions for examples: Boyd Lake/Lost Creek in Loveland (just
north of Hwy 34 and west of I-25) and CR5/CR32 in Windsor (north of Hwy 392 on CR5).
Response: For the northern leg of the roundabout, the roadway will be signed at
30 mph similar to Country Club Road. With multiple traffic calming measures like raised crossings
and the kidney bean intersections, a slow speed is more conducive to the walkable
community goals we are trying to achieve.
Comment Number: 31
12/05/2022: FOR INFORMATION:
Based on the comment response these improvements will happen with Phase
H & I portion of the development.
Response: This was answered on a previous round.
09/23/2022: FOR NEXT SUBMITTAL
Please address comment.
06/03/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
The eastbound left turn lane at Mountain Vista Drive/Giddings Road was
identified in the traffic study as a needed improvement based on Mountain Vista
Drive being an arterial roadway at the Mountain Vista Drive/Giddings Road
(#10) intersection. We would like to discuss implementation of this
improvement with you.
Comment Number: 2
Page 16 of 48
12/5/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
As we move forward with the proposed Kidney Bean intersection design, we
are working through some of the finer details and additional comments are
forthcoming. We still do not see the dedicated locations for the RRFB's
(Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons,) or any design details on how those will be built.
Response: Flashing beacons have been added to the raised crossings.
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
We would like to continue working with you on the design of Timberline Rd.
north of Mountain Vista. We need a better understanding of the intersection designs.
01/11/2022:
Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans
There will need to be some discussion about the proposed Timberline section
north of Mountain Vista. The City would prefer to see a section that is
consistent with LCUASS. Perhaps the City would be okay with a different
section, but it would likely need to incorporate some items such as detached
walk on the west side of the roadway, for example.
Comment Number: 4
9/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Please work the engineering department and our TCEF administrator to
determine responsibilities regarding the infrastructure buildout.
Response: Montava has begun discussions with TCEF staff and are working toward
resolution.
01/11/2022: PRIOR TO NEXT SUBMITTAL
Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans
It sounds like the responsibility for the Timberline/Mountain Vista
intersection/roundabout is still up in the air. Depending on who is responsible
for design, construction, funding, etc., there may be additional comments or
revisions to these comments. This may also impact the utility plan set that is
submitted to the City for review and approval. This should be all figured out
prior to a next submittal.
Comment Number: 12
12/05/2022: FOR FINAL APPORVAL: The Autoturn exhibits show the
firetrucks barely clearing the outside corners of the Kidney Bean
intersections. This is concerning and just want to make sure this is feasible
from the standpoint of Poudre Fire Authority.
Response: We received the January 13, 2023 letter outlining the remaining concerns of the City and
PFA, and Kimley-Horn responded on January 27, 2023. All concerns have been addressed and we
have been advised by the City and PFA that the kidney bean intersections on Timberline Road are
acceptable. On-going coordination with Poudre Fire Authority has resulted in a revised curb section within the kidney bean intersections to better accommodate fire trucks. Final plans are submitted
for your approval.
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Per previous discussions, we need to better understand the operation of the
kidney bean intersections. We have requested autoturn exhibits and would like
to work with you and PFA on the details of how these might work.
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans
We will need to see more detail on the intersection details for Timberline and
Mountain Vista site access intersections, with subsequent submittals.
Page 17 of 48
Comment Number: 13
12/05/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
As we finalized the intended operation of the Kidney Bean intersection we will
redline the signing and striping for the Timberline and Mountain Vista.
Concerns about the trail interaction within the intersection need to be reviewed
so appropriate signs can be placed. Additional comments for the
neighborhood portion of the develop are provided below.
Response: Comment noted.
09/23/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
We will do a complete signing and striping review once we finalize intersection design.
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans
A more thorough signing and striping plan review will be performed once we
receive more detailed plans. Some initial comments: There should be bike lane
symbology on Mountain Vista and potentially Timberline, depending on it's final
proposed section. I'd like to see the specific MUTCD street sign images shown
on the signing and striping plans. I can share examples of other plans that we
have approved in the past, for reference.
Comment Number: 34
12/05/2022: FOR INFORMATION:
We will need to continue to work with Larimer County to determine the
proportional contribution from the Montava Development for this intersection improvement.
Response: The Montava team advocates for leaving the intersection as a four-way stop
since the future traffic projections are decreased and the goal is to limit traffic in the area, not
increase it. Funds should be allocated to improving Country Club Road itself as the primary
means for deterring traffic in the area and improving flow for residents. We are waiting for a
proposal from Larimer County.
09/23/2022: FOR NEXT SUBMITTAL
Please address comment.
06/03/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Regarding Country Club Road and Lemay Ave. this intersection does not meet
our LOS standards and we would like to work with you to determine a project
proportional contribution towards improvements at this intersection.
Comment Number: 39
12/06/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
We will finalize the signing and striping plans for Timberline and Mountain
Vista as we determine the appropriate intersection controls at the Kidney Bean
intersections. Concerns about the functionality and assignment of right of way
within the intersection will need to be ironed out so appropriate signage can be
placed. Redlines will be forthcoming.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 40
12/06/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The sign and marking plans for the neighborhood portion need to have all stop
signs place in advance of the sidewalk/ramp. Street name signs should be
shown at each intersection, and any private streets will need the Privately
Maintain Street Name signs. We can provide details. Please remove the 4
inch parking lines you have indicated on your plans. The City does not typically
maintain parking stall lines in residential areas.
Page 18 of 48
Response: Signing plans have been updated per City comments.
Comment Number: 41
12/06/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
As we finalized the design and operation of the non-standard kidney bean
intersections, the City agrees to move forward with this design if the developer
agrees, that if at any time it is determined to be a safety of operational issue,
that they will convert these to traditional roundabouts. This may require further
coordination on what will trigger this to be converted, and how those funds will
be provided. We would also like to see the design of the roundabouts within the
submittal of this portion of the development.
Response: A contingent design has been prepared; an Intersection Control Conversion
Exhibit is provided with this resubmittal.
Department: Stormwater Engineering – Erosion Control
Contact: Andrew Crecca, , acrecca@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 27
12/06/2022: For Final Approval:
Repeat Comment from Round 3: Will look for final signed copy by Mylar or Final Plan set.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 28
12/06/2022: For Final Approval:
Thank you for addressing all comments from round 3. Only missing item is for
Erosion is a signed and stamped erosion control plan and report. Otherwise all
submitted Erosion Control Materials are ready for final acceptance.
Response: Comment noted.
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1
09/19/2022: Fees will be reevaluated at next submittal based upon those site changes.
Response: Comment noted.
05/26/2022: Fee Information:
Based upon the updated materials and information provided since the last
review comments, we have recalculated an Erosion Control Inspection fee
of $17807.36 and a Stormwater LID/WQ Inspections fee of $2705. A copy of
the calculation spreadsheet will be provided. The fee will need to be provided at
the time of erosion control escrow.
01/05/2022: For Final: (Revised Estimate Based upon provided response)
The City Manager’s development review fee schedule under City Code 7.5-2
was updated to include fees for Erosion Control and Stormwater Inspections.
As of January 1st, 2021, these fees will be collected on all projects
for such inspections.
The Erosion Control fees are based on; the number of lots,
the total site disturbance, the estimated number of years the project will
be active and the Stormwater Inspection Fees are based on the number of
LID/WQ Features that are designed for on this project.
Page 19 of 48
Based on the proposed site construction associated with this project we are
assuming 202 lots, 35.13 acres of disturbance, 13 years from demo through
build out of construction and an additional 3 years till full vegetative
stabilization due to seeding. Which results in an Erosion Control
Fee estimate of $17807.36.
We could not make any assumptions at this time for the number of LID and
WQ features, each porous pavers will be $365.00, each bioretention/level
spreaders $315.00, each extended detention basins $250.00, and each
underground treatment will be $415.00. Stormwater LID/WQ Inspections to be $TBD.
Please note that as the plans and any subsequent review modifications of the
above-mentioned values change the fees may need to be modified. I have
provided a copy of the spreadsheet used to arrive at these estimates for you to review.
Please respond to this comment with any changes to
these assumed estimates and why, so that we may have a final
fee estimate ready for this project. The fee will need to be provided at the time
of erosion control escrow.
Comment Number: 2
09/19/2022: There are some comments that will need to be addressed in the
returned redlines. Redlines in the Erosion Control Plan Sheets, Report and
Escrow Calculation.
Response: The erosion control plans and report were updated with the last submittal.
05/26/2022: For Final Acceptance:
The plan provided on this project was reviewed against the City Criteria
(FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.3). The erosion control plan is missing key
components to meet City Criteria. Please review the provided comments and
redlines and address them accordingly.
The report provided on this project was reviewed against the City Criteria
(FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.4). The erosion control report was missing key
components to meet City Criteria. Please review the provided comments and
redlines and address them accordingly.
The escrow calculation provided on this project was reviewed against the City
Criteria (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.5). The erosion control escrow calculation
was missing key components to meet City Criteria. Please review the provided
comments and redlines and address them accordingly.
01/05/2022: For Final:
Erosion Control Plans, Reports and Escrows have be initially reviewed and
provided returned redlines for revision. Will look for correction upon next submittal.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5
Page 20 of 48
12/06/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL:
Please include Note 20 on Sheet C1.5 on all Grading Plan sheets as well.
Response: Note has been added to the grading plan sheets.
09/20/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL:
For single family-detached, please show building envelopes and grading around them.
05/31/2022: Reminder for next submittal.
01/11/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
Detailed grading plans are required, including for the single family lots.
Comment Number: 13
09/23/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL - UPDATED:
Will review this thoroughly next round.
Response: Comment noted.
01/11/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL:
There are many locations where the City's minimum separation distances are
not being met between storm water infrastructure and trees. The minimum
separation requirement is 10 feet from trees. Please revise.
Response: BHA is meeting the minimum tree separations where possible. Due to the unique nature of this project and the intentionally narrow streets there are a few locations (such as along Gollings
Street) where the street trees are less than the standard separation requirement from the in-street
utilities.
Comment Number: 14
09/23/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL - UPDATED:
Will review this thoroughly next round.
Response: Comment noted.
06/01/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
The storm sewer alignment needs some adjusting. There are locations where
separations are not being met with other utilities. 10 feet is the standard for
separation. Also, generally speaking, the alignments need to be parallel to the
roadway which will result in a few manholes being added. A meeting is
suggested to go over the alignment and identify all issues.
Comment Number: 22
12/06/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL:
The Typical Section states a width of soil media. This width varies for each rain
garden and is not typical. Please clarify.
Response: The typical section has been updated to reference width shown in plan.
09/20/2022: FOR PLAN APPORVAL:
The City has a revised rain garden detail that includes some updated notes. I
will email the updated version to include in the plans.
Comment Number: 25
12/06/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL:
The outlet structure for Pond E needs to be discussed. A more consistent outlet
structure to the City's standard detail is wanted.
Response: Pond E’s outlet structure has been revised to a City of Fort Collins standard outlet
structure.
Comment Number: 26
12/06/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL:
Page 21 of 48
The Stormtech system on the future park appears to have only one (1) isolator
row. An isolator row is needed for each row of chambers that are being used
for LID water quality treatment. Please revise.
Response: The Stormtech system has been revised by Stormtech to include isolator rows for each
chamber row.
Comment Number: 29
12/07/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL:
On sheet C4.27, Storm line F can be public to, but not including, the flared-end section.
Response: Storm line F is labeled as public, excluding the forebay.
Comment Number: 30
12/07/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL:
On sheet C4.28, Storm line P can be public to, but not including, the flared-end section.
Response: Storm line P is labeled as public, excluding the forebay.
Comment Number: 31
12/09/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL:
On sheet C4.29, there is a note stating that all storm sewer is public. Please
remove note and scan the rest of the storm sewer sheets to make sure this note
is not on any of the sheets.
Response: Note removed from all sheets.
Comment Number: 32
12/09/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL:
On sheet C4.33, Storm line D can be public all the way to Storm Line A
Response: Storm line D is labeled as public all the way to Storm line A.
Comment Number: 33
12/09/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL:
On sheet C4.34, please label Storm Line Lateral D13 as Public. It is not currently labeled.
Response: Storm line Lateral D13 has been labeled as public.
Comment Number: 34
12/09/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL:
On sheet C4.35, please label Storm Line Lateral A13 as Public.
Response: Storm line Lateral A13 has been labeled as public.
Comment Number: 35
12/09/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL:
On sheet C4.37, please label Storm Line Lateral A10 as Private from Inlet
A10.6 to MH A10.5 and as Public at the downstream end all the way to MH A10.
Response: Storm line Lateral A10 has been labeled private from Inlet A10.6 to
MH A10.5 and public from MH A10.5 to MH A10.
Comment Number: 36
12/09/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL:
On sheet C4.37, please label Storm Line Lateral A11 as Public.
Response: Storm line Lateral A11 has been labeled as public.
Comment Number: 37
12/09/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL:
On sheet R3.34 in the Roadway Set, please label Storm Line K & S as Public in their entirety.
Response: Storm line K and S are labeled as public in their entirety.
Comment Number: 38
Page 22 of 48
12/09/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL:
On sheet R3.36 in the Roadway Set, please label Storm Line T as Public in its entirety.
Response: Storm line T and Lateral T4 and T5 have been labeled as public.
Comment Number: 39
12/09/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL:
On sheet R3.37 in the Roadway Set, please label Storm Line V as Public in its entirety.
Response: Storm line V and Lateral V4 and V5 have been labeled as public.
Comment Number: 40
12/09/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL:
On the Landscape Plan, it appears that cobble mulch is proposed for the
bottom of the rain gardens over the bio-retention soil media. This has proven to
be not sustainable in that it hinders maintenance of sediment removal and most
importantly root mass is critical for longevity of infiltration. A grass seed mix is
needed on the bottom of rain gardens. Please revise.
Response: Cobble mulch is adjacent to and helps define the rain gardens, but there are no
areas where cobble mulch is over the rain garden planting areas or the bio-retention soil
media.
Comment Number: 41
12/09/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL:
Please remove any wetland seed mix in the rain gardens as well, only rain garden seed mix.
Response: Seed areas have been adjusted to indicate rain garden seed mix in these areas.
Comment Number: 42
12/09/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL:
On sheet L7, there are two trees on top of two different inlets along the eastern
side of Timberline Road.
Response: Trees have been relocated to meet utility separation requirements.
Comment Number: 43
12/09/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL:
On sheet L10, there is a tree on top of an inlet along the eastern side of
Timberline Road near the bottom of the sheet.
Response: Tree has been relocated.
Comment Number: 44
12/09/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL:
On the Plat, please revise the verbiage "Detention Pond Easement" to just
"Drainage Easement". A Drainage Easement dedicated to the City is needed
for all drainage infrastructure, private or public.
Response: Detention Pond Easement annotation has been revised to Drainage Easement.
Comment Number: 45
12/09/2022: FOR PLAN APPROVAL:
A drainage easement is needed on Tract EE for the Stormtech water quality
device, storm sewers, and for the detention pond.
Response: A storm easement has been added to encompass the Stormtech water quality device
and associated storm sewer within Tract EE.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Austin Kreager, 970-224-6152, akreager@fcgov.com
Page 23 of 48
Topic: General
Comment Number: 17
01/12/2022: INFORMATION:
Please research Colorado's laws as they relate to a private utility owner and
ensure that there is a plan in place to locate your irrigation lines in the event that
a utility locate request is made.
Response: This was answered on a previous round.
Previous response: Montava is coordinating with the Montava Metropolian District to engage with a private
utility locating service company who will provide this service.
Comment Number: 21
09/20/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Please show a detailed utility layout for what is being proposed on Timberline
Rd. From what is submitted, it appears that the sanitary sewer will make it
difficult for our facilities on the west side of Timberline. We should be in the
parkway on both sides of Timberline.
Response: Timberline alignment has shifted to the west to gain more clearance with the
existing 24” water line. The sanitary line will be abandoned but a sequencing note has
been added to the utility and demo plans for clarity.
Comment Number: 22
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Please label the utility easement on the plat
Response: The utility easement has been shown on the plat.
09/20/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
It is unclear how Light and Power will be able to service Block 11, lot 13 with
electricity. Please show a proposed route for service on your next submittal.
Comment Number: 23
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
There are locations where proposed electric lines are being shown within the
ditch easement. Clarification of the ditch easement language as it relates to
other utilities will be needed prior to approval
Response: The Ditch easement language is in ongoing negotiation. It is our
understanding that the easement will not be exclusive.
09/20/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Is the ditch easement exclusive to just the ditch company or will utility providers
be allowed to be located within that easement?
Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-416-2772, tsiegmund@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges and any system
modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this development.
Please contact me to discuss development fees or visit the following website for
an estimate of charges and fees related to this project:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investment-development-fees
Comment Number: 3
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Page 24 of 48
It does not appear that adequate separation requirements are being met from
the electric lines and wet utilities along Timberline. A utility coordination meeting
is requested with ELCO and Box Elder to discuss the utility layout.
Response: Coordination meetings have been held with Light and Power, ELCO
and Boxelder. The alignment of Timberline has been revised to provide separation between
Light and Power and ELCO utility infrastructure that is acceptable to both utility districts.
The existing Boxelder sanitary sewer main along Timberline is to be abandoned and
they did not have objections to the proposed utility alignments.
05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Please locate our primary electric lines in the middle of the parkway for phase G
and along both sides of Timberline as it extends north. The proposed irrigation
line will need to move out of the parkway location on Timberline Rd.
01/11/2022: SITE SPECIFIC:
Please show the primary electric routing on the utility plans. We will provide
redlines of the electric routing for the second submittal following a utility
coordination meeting.
Comment Number: 4
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
During utility infrastructure design, please provide adequate space along the
public roads and private drives to ensure proper utility installation and to meet
minimum utility spacing requirements. 10ft minimum separation is needed
between all water, sewer, storm water, and irrigation main lines. Light and
Power has a 3ft minimum separation requirement from all utility
lines/infrastructure.
Response: Coordination meetings have been held with Light and Power, ELCO and the City. The
alignment of Timberline has been revised to provide separation between Light and Power and
ELCO utility infrastructure that is acceptable to both utility districts. Additional adjustments have
been made to utility alignments to provide minimum separation. Where 10’ was not achievable
coordination meetings have been held with the utility provider to determine acceptable separation.
Comment Number: 6
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
Any existing electric infrastructure that needs to be relocated as part of this
project will be at the expense of the developer. Please coordinate relocations
with Light and Power Engineering.
Comment Number: 7
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
All utility easements and required permits (crossing agreements, flood plain,
etc.) needed for the development will need to be obtained and paid for by the developer.
Comment Number: 8
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
Any existing and/or proposed Light and Power electric facilities that are within
the limits of the project must be located within a utility easement.
Comment Number: 9
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
A commercial service information form (C-1 form) and a one line diagram for all
commercial meters, multifamily buildings, and duplexes will need to be
completed and submitted to Light & Power Engineering for review. A link to the
C-1 form is below:
Page 25 of 48
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-
forms-guidelines-regulations
Comment Number: 10
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
Streetlights will be placed along public streets. 40 ft separation on both sides of
the light is required between canopy trees and streetlights. 15 ft separation on
both sides of the light is required between ornamental trees and streetlights. A
link to the City of Fort Collins street lighting requirements can be found at:
http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/Ch15_04_01_2007.pdf
Comment Number: 12
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
This project will need to comply with our electric metering standards. Electric
meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and Power Engineering.
Reference Section 8 of our Electric Service Standards for electric metering
standards. A link has been provided below.
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStanda
rds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf
Comment Number: 13
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
For additional information on our renewal energy programs please visit the
website below or contact John Phelan (jphelan@fcgov.com).
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/go renewable
Comment Number: 14
01/11/2022: INFORMATION:
The City of Fort Collins now offers gig-speed fiber internet, video and phone
service. Contact Brad Ward with Fort Collins Connexion at 970-224-6003 or
bward@fcgov.com for commercial grade account support, RFPs and bulk agreements.
Comment Number: 20
05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
With the proposed irrigation main line and the ditch along Timberline, the
right-of-way appears to be getting tight. Please keep in mind that Light and
Power will need to be located in the parkway on both sides of Timberline with
the possibility of setting above grade facilities in the easement behind right-of-way.
Response: The design team has coordinated directly with Light & Power and the revised plans
currently accommodate lighting on both sides of Timberline and Mountain Vista within right of way.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Scott Benton, (970)416-4290, sbenton@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 18
09/19/2022: (UPDATED) FOR APPROVAL: Thank you for identifying the
various areas and features that will be dedicated to mitigating the loss of the
No. 8 wildlife movement corridor. Language will need to be provided on the
landscape plan (adjacent to the 'Ditch Buffer Area Mitigation' table on L18) to
indicate that those features will be maintained in perpetuity. Language stating
the same will also be provided in the Development Agreement.
Response: Plans have already been revised as requested, therefore, this
Page 26 of 48
comment has been resolved.
Comment Number: 23
12/05/2022: FOR APPROVAL: The maintenance requirements of the
Pollinator Master Plan still need to be addressed. The intention of the Pollinator
plan will not be recognized if conventional landscaping maintenance practices
are utilized within the pollinator resource areas. Recommendations can be
provided. Notes on the Pollinator Master Plan sheet (L15) seem like a sensible
location, and a maintenance manual for the metro district also makes sense.
Response: Notes have been added.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Carrie Tomlinson, , ctomlinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 29
12/07/2022: FOR INFORMATION: Please understand that DA language for this
development will include language supporting the code requirement for the
establishment of the street trees due the challenges with water quality and salt in
the irrigation water here. This will include a requirement for supplemental
watering or alternative sources of watering to support the establishment of the
trees prior to tree permitting.
Response: Understood and we anticipate this to be addressed in the Development
Agreement.
Comment Number: 30
12/07/2022: FOR INFORMATION: Please contact ctomlinson@fcgov.com for
species changes due to salt tolerance or pests . Some changes include
reducing the number of ohio buckey, eliminating english oak, and adding
possibly a few honeylocust back and bald cypress.
Response: Tree species changes have been made.
Comment Number: 1
09/20/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Please provide separation of trees from signs on plan sets. If these are stop
signs, please provide 50 feet of separation from the sign. See redlines for
examples. These redlines may not catch all instances of this. Please review all
plan sheets to find all possible instances. If these are other types of signs 50
feet of separation is not needed but a minimum of 5 feet of separation is
needed for offset from the base of the tree. There are a few electric vault
conflicts, a water line conflict, and a couple of storm drain inlet conflicts on the
plan set also. These have been marked on the redlines for your review.
Response: Plans have already been revised as requested, therefore, this
comment has been resolved.
5/31/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED
Please include and label locations of utilities on the landscape plan including
but not limited to water service/mains, sewer service/mains, gas, electric,
streetlights, and stop signs. Please adjust tree locations to provide for proper
tree/utility separation.
Streetlight/Tree Separation:
Canopy shade tree: 40 feet
Page 27 of 48
Ornamental tree: 15 feet
Stop Sign/Tree Separation:
Based on feedback from Traffic Operations, it is preferred that trees be planted
at least 50 feet from the nearest stop sign in order to minimize conflicts with regulatory traffic signs.
Driveway/Tree Separation:
At least 8 feet from edges of driveways and alleys.
Utility/Tree Separation:
10’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines
6’ between trees and water or sewer service lines
4’ between trees and gas lines
10’ between trees and electric vaults
Department: Parks
Contact: Missy Nelson, , mnelson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 7
12/06/2022: UPDATED - UNRESOLVED:
The PUD references 80 acres for the future Community Park. If your proposed
facilities, infrastructure and easements are utilizing and encumbering much of
the programmable park land, then other land needs to be dedicated for future
park land. Where would you propose to find this land? The minimum required
park land is based on the level of service requirements as specified in the
Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Park Planning and Development is
looking to identify the 80 programmable acres. It is understood that the park
isn’t necessarily required to be completely figured out with Phase G, but we
want to take a time out to get this figured out now so that it doesn’t negatively
affect future phases. We know this Community Park is important to you as well!
Response: We are excited to create this community park as well. The park will require
the installation of utilities and we have limited the impact of these utilities that serve the park to
the best of our ability.
09/20/2022: UPDATED
Please see comments from PP&D regarding detention/retention areas on Tract EE.
05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL
Due to the offsite and private storm water management nature of the raingarden
located in the SE corner of the park land, Parks will not maintain the Rain
Garden. Please remove from city owned Park land and reallocate the land to
ensure that the park is 80 AC as specified in the approved PUD.
Comment Number: 10
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UNRESOLVED:
Thank you for providing this information. For the maintenance piece, can you
please add a note to the site and landscape plan regarding the areas to be
maintained by the City Parks Department?
Response: All landscape areas in Phase G are anticipated to be maintained by the property
owner and/or Metro District. Only the Arterial Road medians and roundabout associated
Page 28 of 48
with Phase G are anticipated to be maintained by the City Parks Department. The landscape
and irrigation design for these medians have been included in the ‘Roadway and
Infrastructure’ construction plans. A note has been added to the Site and Landscape Plan
indicating that only Arterial Road medians and roundabouts will be maintained by the City
Parks Department for Phase G – see Roadway and Infrastructure Plans.
Would you also please add a colored plan exhibit so that the City maintained areas are highlighted and
obvious? Medians, including roundabouts are required to be landscaped.
Please see the https://www.fcgov.com/planning/pdf/streetscape-doc.pdf?
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards and revise the landscape and
irrigation plan to include these elements.
Response: While we did not include a color exhibit, we have added notes to clarify that 1) all
landscape in the Phase G plans will be maintained by the property owner and/or Metro
District, and 2) only the Arterial Road medians and roundabout are anticipated to be
maintained by the City Parks Department. The landscape and irrigation design for these
medians have been included as a standalone landscape package in the ‘Roadway and
Infrastructure’ construction plans for the City’s approval.
All areas to be turned over to the Parks Department require it’s own point-source of connection, potable
Elco Tap and cannot be combined with the Metro District’s tap.
Response: The irrigation system and separate POC has been indicated in the Roadway and
Infrastructure Plans.
That being said, site plan notes 11 & 12 seem to indicate the Metro district will
be responsible for the maintenance of all parkways and medians. Please
confirm that the Metro district will not be maintaining this area. Please note, the
Metro District may be able to provide a higher level of service for these areas. If
the MD will not be maintaining, please revise comments 11 & 12 by adding a
note that says “see exhibit for exceptions.”
Response: Notes 11 and 12 are standard City notes, so we have not removed them from the
Site Plan but have added the clarification as you suggested – thank you.
09/20/2022 UPDATED: UNRESOLVED - FOR APPROVAL: Please label and
prepare separate plans for all areas that will be turned over to Parks for long
term maintenance. Please include break downs of square footages for
hardscape and softscapes, linear feet of trails, native seed areas, and separate
plant lists for medians and roundabout(s). Additional review or coordination will
be required for areas that Parks will be taking over for maintenance.
https://www.fcgov.com/planning/pdf/streetscape-doc.pdf?
05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL
Additional coordination will be required for the trails, underpasses, and areas to
be turned over to Parks (West Pond?, Dog park, Maint Facility, streetscapes,
etc) for long term maintenance. Each area will need to be reviewed and
approved by the Parks Dept. to ensure they meet our standards. A complete
list of areas to be turned over to Parks will need to be created. Parks will
provide comments to each area under the comment heading FOR APPROVAL.
Please coordinate with the Parks dept. in creating this list and providing
detailed plans for each area for us to review and approve.
Comment Number: 15
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UNRESOLVED:
Thank you for the additional information. The next steps will be to set-up a
meeting between our groups, including the City’s water attorney, to prepare a
draft shared use agreement for water rights, water conveyance, water quality, etc.
Page 29 of 48
Response: We await this draft document.
05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL
Parks has many questions about the Non-Potable Irrigation System that require
additional input from the City Attorney’s Office in regard to water rights, mixing,
storm water for irrigation, watering schedules, wells, ownership and
maintenance of irrigation components, and others that still require an intensive
coordinated effort.
Comment Number: 16
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UNRESOLVED:
Thank you for the additional information. The next steps will be to set-up a
meeting between our groups, including the City’s water attorney, to prepare a
draft shared use agreement for water rights, water conveyance, water quality, etc.
Response: We await this draft document.
07/14/2022: FOR APPROVAL
Parks has not approved any plans or documents/reports concerning water
rights, pond sharing, irrigation, or water sharing.
Comment Number: 17
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UNRESOLVED:
Need to partner to come up with the size of the wet well. Coordinate and
complete wet well design.
Response: We await your feedback.
07/14/2022: FOR APPROVAL
In reference to the irrigation pump system, Parks prefers our own wet well and
intake, and pump for pulling water from the ‘shared pond’ system to maintain as
much flexibility as possible when sharing an irrigation system.
Comment Number: 18
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UPDATED:
See comment #10.
Response: See response to Comment Number 10 above.
07/14/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Parks needs a clear understanding of the streetscapes and medians that will be
turned over to our department for long term maintenance.
Comment Number: 20
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UNRESOLVED:
See comments 15 & 16. This information needs to be included for water attorney review.
Response: We have provided full information and documentation about our system
including water rights. We are not aware of the City needing any more information.
09/20/2022: UPDATED: In light of new information coming from the applicant
regarding water source, please see original comment.
06/02/2022 UPDATE: Parks has a tentative meeting with the manufacturers
rep. for the product being proposed to remove the salinity. We will provide a
response for the use of this product after we have had a chance to meet.
01/10/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR APPROVAL Pond Issues: Please clarify
how the water quality be addressed for the multiple entities that will have a stake
in the irrigation pond?
Please clarify how water volumes will be accommodated for the multiple entities
Page 30 of 48
that will be relying on the irrigation pond. Parks needs to keep the run time in
mind as this is a WSSC share and will require us to fill the pond at intervals for
use. How will Parks water needs be balanced with the needs of the other water users?
Comment Number: 21
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UPDATED:
Medians, including roundabouts are required to be landscaped. Please see the
https://www.fcgov.com/planning/pdf/streetscape-doc.pdf? Larimer County
Urban Area Street Standards and revise the landscape and irrigation plan to
include these elements. All areas to be turned over to the Parks Department
require its own point-source of connection, potable Elco Tap and cannot be
combined with the Metro District’s tap.
Site plan notes 11 & 12 seem to indicate the Metro district will be responsible
for the maintenance of all parkways and medians. Please confirm that the
Metro district will not be maintaining this area. Please note, the Metro District
can provide a higher level of service for these areas. If not, please revise
comments 11 & 12 by adding a note that says, “see exhibit for exceptions.”
Response: See response to Comment Number 10 above. To confirm,
all parkways and non-arterial medians will be maintained by the Metro District.
09/20/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Mtn. Vista and Timberline roundabout and medians will require their own
irrigation system, please prepare a separate irrigation plan package along with
site, landscape plans etc. for these areas to be turned over to Parks. Please
refer to the Parks irrigation standards for irrigation design and details:
https://www.fcgov.com/parks/files/fc-ipt-final-report-with-standards.pdf?1621463830
Comment Number: 22
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UNRESOLVED:
Thank you for providing the overall trail exhibit! A few minor items: Please
make it more clear which trails are to be built with each phase and please make
it clear which trail is the regional trail. See redlines (available at Friday's final
comment letter) for trail deletions and additional note changes. We would still
like to see more detail on the crossing at Country Club drive from the shared
pond to the future park site on the next phase.
Response: An updated trail exhibit is being provided.
UPDATED 09/20/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR APPROVAL: Per new
information on the plans please continue to work with us on the location and
placement of the below named items.
01/10/2022: UNRESOLVED - FOR APPROVAL Please clarify how the trail
system, ditch system, future park, PSD school needs and irrigation pond all fit
together. Additionally, we need to see how the trail, ditch, roundabout and all
the pedestrian networks will fit together.
Comment Number: 23
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UNRESOLVED:
Please see comment 10 & 15. Water sourcing and conveyance needs to be
tied to shared agreement.
Response: We await this draft document.
09/20/2022 UPDATED: UNRESOLVED - FOR APPROVAL
In light of new information from the applicant regarding water sourcing please
Page 31 of 48
see original comment.
06/02/2022: UPDATE: UNRESOLVED - FOR APPROVAL
Thank you for providing information on a potential shared irrigation system. All
of the information provided is based on Option #1 of the shared system.
Please provide adequate details for the other 2 options of shared irrigation
pond scenarios that were included with the approved PUD to determine the
feasibility of each option.
01/10/2022:
Parks needs further detail. Is the pond shown on the plans sized for a
partnership with the city? Please clarify the intent of the pond, is it sized with the
city partnership in mind or are you contingent upon the city for moving forward?
Comment Number: 24
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UNRESOLVED:
Please see comment #7. More coordination and partnering needed on the PUD/Planning.
Response: This has been accomplished.
09/23/2022:
Property boundaries & park encumbrances
The plat identifies property boundaries for the future park site, as well as the
future irrigation pond. Much of the 80 acres dedicated to the park (Tract EE) is
not usable, developable park land, with encumbrances that include the number
8 ditch, a sizable area dedicated to a detention pond with concrete trickle
channels, 4 water quality ponds, park trails, boardwalks, Country Club Road
ROW, and other items. As per the PUD, the City is interested in 80 acres of
developable park land, and the encumbrances significantly reduce the quantity
of usable park property for future development, and significantly complicate
maintenance and operations relative to developer constructed items on future park property.
Comment Number: 25
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UNRESOLVED:
Ongoing, need more information. See previous comments regarding trails and underpass.
Response: The regional trail has incorporated comments like the use of Yosemite brown
for the trail system and grading but we are not planning to build the underpass regional trail
connection until Phase E comes online.
09/23/2022:
Paved trails
More investigation and discussion needed with regards to the grade separated
trail crossing at Mountain Vista Drive. Lighting, safety, pumps and maintenance
responsibilities for the grade separation and trail segments need further
discussion. The steep slopes currently shown near the underpass will likely be
problematic relative to native seed establishment and maintenance of these
steep slopes. PPD would appreciate a broader discussion with the design
team relative to the design and long term maintenance of the trail, underpass, etc.
Comment Number: 26
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UNRESOLVED:
Include water attorney review and associated agreement. Relates to previous comments.
Response: We await this draft document.
09/23/2022:
Irrigation pond
Page 32 of 48
The city remains interested in working with the developer to identify a path
forward for a shared irrigation pond and system. As the development team has
recently begun exploring new opportunities and options, including Long Pond as
potential storage for raw water, more work is needed to determine the
appropriate path forward. The City is developing a set of raw water quality
metrics that would need to be met in order for the shared pond arrangement to
be a viable alternative for the park. A meeting with the development team is
scheduled for Monday, Aug. 26 to discuss this further.
Comment Number: 27
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UNRESOLVED:
Please indicate stub locations on utility plans. Please move irrigation,
stormwater, any other utilities, and infrastructure off the future park site. Also
remove benches from park site. See redlines for reference (available at
Friday's final comment letter).
Response: Per coordination meeting with the City it was agreed that stormwater and the non-
potable utility could reside within future park property. Alignments were updated to be closer to
ROW. Additionally, utility stubs (water and sanitary) have been provided to the future park land
parcel.
09/23/2022:
Utilities
PPD has interest in future utility stubs for the park, including electric, sanitary,
ELCO domestic tap, etc. Coordination is needed to determine where these
connections can be provided.
Department: Park Planning Development (PPD)
Contact: Missy Nelson, , mnelson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 38
12/06/2022: INFORMATION:
The Park Planning & Development and Parks Department is available to
discuss the following comments in more detail. Please contact Missy Nelson.
Comment Number: 14
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UNRESOLVED:
Thank you for providing the overall trail exhibit! A few minor items: Please
make it more clear which trails are to be built with each phase and please make
it clear which trail is the regional trail. See redlines (available for Friday's final
comment letter) for trail deletions and additional note changes.
Response: The trail exhibit has been updated and clarified based on the redlines received. Potential
future trails outside the Montava project extents have not been deleted but have been clearly
marked as ‘potential’ and noted that they are the purview of the City as per PPD comments.
We would still like to see more detail on the crossing at Country Club drive from
the shared pond to the future park site on the next phase.
Response: We support this future crossing as an important pedestrian-focused crossing and may
include raised crosswalks and/or RRFB controls if supported by City staff. This road connection is
not a part of the Phase G plans, and the final design of this crossing will be developed and
reviewed by the City at the time of the road design for this section of Country Club Road.
In addition, there are concerns regarding the trail and trail easements. The
standard easement is 50’ wide. We understand that this width may not be
Page 33 of 48
feasible in this subdivision, however an easement only as wide as the paved
trail portion itself is not acceptable. The trail section needs to also plan for the
separated gravel path adjacent to the paved trail. There are also areas of
concern due to the steep grading directly adjacent to the trail. The plat will also
need to be updated with both width change and type of easement: Trail
Easement (currently labeled as Access Easement)
Response: Based on further discussions with Missy Nelson and Matt Day, we
agreed to a design that follows the City’s regional trail standards as much as
possible but also with design adjustments based on the surrounding context. As the
regional trail passes through the destinations within Montava (town center,
Community Park, etc) between Mountain Vista Drive to north of Country Club, it will
have a more ‘urban’ context than more typical regional trail sections. Here it will be
adjacent to mixed-density neighborhoods, the bicycle-focused sections of
Timberline Drive and it will share the ditch easement for the No. 8 canal. As such, we
are proposing a modified section of the regional trail in this area including:
- Most of the standard trail details will be provided including a planned 12’ width
paved section, 3’ wide level shoulders, 5-6” thickness with fiber mesh, colored
concrete (standard Davis color Yosemite Brown), heavy broom finish.
- The standard separated gravel path will not be provided in this more urban
context. Instead, much of the trail alignment is located over the ditch easement
and will be adjacent to the soft paths and Pollinator Gardens allowed within the
ditch easement and planned as part of Phase E.
- Similar to above, the standard 50’ easement will be narrowed in this more urban
context. Much of the trail will fall within the ditch easement. Maintenance of the
ditch easement area and landscape adjacent to the trail will be provided by the
Developer. A narrower easement will be dedicated over any portions of the trail
outside of public ROW to allow the City of Fort Collins to access the trail and
provide maintenance of the trail surface.
For review, we will need to see additional details, including but not limited to:
ADA, cross-slopes, cross-sections, profile. We would like to have separate
plan sheets dedicated to the trails. These sheets would be located in the site
and utility plan sets. We're working on creating a template for you to use.
Response: Separate trail plan sheets have been provided in the Roadway and Infrastructure
Plans set.
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: Park Planning and Development must approve the
trail alignment and design. Recreational trails do not function as widened
sidewalks adjacent or within street rights-of-way.
Comment Number: 15
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UPDATED:
Water quality will need to be part of the adequacy review with water attorney.
Documentation of water analysis and site use from CSU as referenced. Please
identify a Plan B if water source does not prove to be adequate to meet our City
standards and support our urban forest. This will need to be part of the
agreement drafted by water attorney.
Response: As described in detail in our non-potable plan submittal, the system has been designed
with environmental responsibility at the forefront. There are three major components:
1. Flexible design using surface water rights for the vast majority of supply.
2. Plant species that are tolerant of small increases in water salinity that will be present from time to time.
Page 34 of 48
3. A fertigation system which will be built into the non-potable irrigation system to feed and
enhance the soil with both microbial life and food for those microbes. It has been proven that soil
quality has a substantial impact on plants’ ability to take up nutrients even with higher salinity
present.
In average or above average moisture years the groundwater will be used only in the shoulder
seasons, with surface water being used for 85% or more of the irrigation during the
season. Coupled with the wintertime flushing of soils with clean snow melt/moisture, this is more
than sufficient for supporting the soil and landscape quality.
In years of drought, when ELCO or Fort Collins have completely shut off their irrigation systems
and let the landscape die, our system will still be able to water with the extremely reliable
groundwater, will still be feeding the soil microbes, and will keep the plants healthy through the
season of drought much better than systems that rely on surface water.
05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UNRESOLVED:
Thank you for providing additional irrigation system information and your
commitment to providing the highest water quality possible. Please work with
the City to develop criteria/parameters for acceptable water quality to be used
for irrigation purposes. In addition, please provide information on how water
quality will be ensured as well as if water quality does not meet agreed to parameters.
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: The City is interested in continuing discussions
on a shared non-potable irrigation system. If available, can you share current
water quality data for the proposed non-potable irrigation system?
Comment Number: 23
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UNRESOLVED:
Thank you for continuing to provide unique ideas and solutions! Overall, Park
Planning has concerns regarding the at-grade crossing provided at the
roundabouts. The City has a Vision Zero policy,
https://www.fcgov.com/traffic/visionzero. How does the roundabout solution
provide a safer outcome than a grade-separated crossing? We will need to
continue to work in coordination with Traffic for right-of-way and safety concerns.
We would also like to explore option B in case of failure and secure an
easement for a possible future underpass.
Response: The Dutch Inspired Pedestrian Roundabout near the irrigation pond was designed in
collaboration with our Dutch consultant at Mobycon and our American traffic engineering team at
Kimley Horn. Since grade separation is impossible in this area, and the PUD allows for other
alternatives, this Dutch approach in our design fits well with the rest of the community
transportation plan. Included in this submittal is a detailed presentation regarding bike priority in
roundabouts to help you understand all the safety components incorporated in this system.
05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UNRESOLVED:
Thank you for all the work to date on the regional trail and additional multimodal
connectivity both within the Montava development and for northeast Fort Collins.
Park Planning staff is looking forward to additional discussions on these connections.
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Thank you for including a preliminary layout of
the trail underpass at the Mountain Vista/Timberline Road intersection in the
infrastructure Roadway and Utility Plans. This is an important crossing for the
regional trail. Please plan to develop a trail plan and centerline profile design
Page 35 of 48
for this section of the regional trail as segments of the trail will need to be
constructed with this intersection. This shall include engineering design for the
underpass. Plans must indicate that the final grade within the easement can
provide a trail alignment that meets the American Disabilities Act (ADA)
standards for cross slopes between 1 and 2% and a maximum centerline profile
grade of 5%. Trail cross sections shall also be developed and included with
the plan and profile design.
Comment Number: 24
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UNRESOLVED:
Please continue to work on the pump details with Engineering. In addition,
please refer to redlines (available at Friday's final comment letter). In addition
to the detail on Sheet R5.6 (needs to be incorporated into the Utility Plan Set),
the City needs additional information: power to pump, electrical plan, lighting
design/fixture specification (reminder: no greater than 3000K and depending on
location of fixtures [exterior of underpass], needs to be fully shielded and down-directional).
Response: The additional detail requested has been provided on Sheet R5.6.
Power to the pump is being designed and coordinated with Fort Collins Light and Power.
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: Thank you for providing the geotechnical report for
the Phase G area as part of this submittal. Groundwater levels appear to be
roughly 24’ to 29’ below existing grade in the general vicinity of the trail
underpass. As final engineering plans for the underpass are developed, please
plan to coordinate with the City on means to mitigate groundwater infiltration (if
applicable) and stormwater runoff into the underpass.
Response: With groundwater depths of 29 ft from existing grade, the design team does not
anticipate the need to mitigate groundwater infiltration for the proposed underpass. A wet well and pump design are included for interception of stormwater.
Comment Number: 25
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UNRESOLVED:
Please see previous comments regarding future park site (comment #7).
Response: See response to Comment Number 7 above.
05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UPDATED:
As noted in comment #20, Park Planning is interested in an overall exhibit
which clarifies the interaction of the future park, the irrigation pond, the
maintenance facility, the regional trail, and the detention/LID system.
Response: This was answered in a previous submittal and the exhibit continues to evolve;
see the revised exhibit in this submittal.
01/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: As there are improvements being discussed
and proposed that are departures from the improvements defined in the PUD,
can you develop and provide a high-level exhibit that demonstrates the
interactions between the regional trail, the Community Park, proposed roundabouts
(Mountain Vista/Timberline, Mountain Vista/Turnberry, Country Club/Timberline),
and other multimodal improvements? The City would like to use this exhibit to further
discuss connectivity for the Montava Development understanding the Applicant’s and City’s
goals for a safe and connected multimodal network for this development.
Comment Number: 28
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UNRESOLVED:
Trail easement + ditch approval (to make sure trail is allowed in ditch
easement). What is allowed and what are the restrictions in regards for the
ditch easement. This will need to come from the ditch company, not just a
Page 36 of 48
general statement from your team.
Response: The Ditch agreement will provide for trail easements in its nonexclusive
easement. The Ditch agreement is in ongoing negotiation. Our goal is to have it executed
in Q2 2023. A copy will be provided.
05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UPDATED:
Thank you for the additional information provided in your response. Please plan
to coordinate with Park Planning staff on the cross-sectional design of the trail if
it is to used for maintenance access.
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: A trail easement may not be located within a ditch
easement unless the applicant provides written approval for the trail easement
within the ditch easement from the ditch company. The paved trail surface
cannot function as a ditch access road if heavy equipment will use or cross the
trail to maintain the ditch.
Comment Number: 30
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UPDATED:
Please add this note to trail exhibit & site plan:
"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. The underlying property owner
is responsible for all other landscaping maintenance within the easement.
Landscaping shall be designed in accordance with all applicable City codes.
Spray irrigation, if required, shall be designed and maintained to avoid spray on the trail."
Response: Note has been added to the Trail Exhibit and Site Plan.
01/11/2022: INFORMATION: The City is responsible for the long-term
maintenance of the regional trail within the development. Maintenance consists
of snowplowing of the paved surface, occasional seasonal mowing 2-3’
adjacent to the trail surface, repairing/replacing surface damage of the trail, and
all other landscaping maintenance within the easement.
Comment Number: 32
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL - UPDATED:
Please coordinate with PP&D and Traffic. Will there be a beacon, flashing light,
crosswalk or combination? What options will make this a safe O&M and pedestrian
crossing? Please also clarify which phase this crossing will be part of (Phase E?).
Response: We support this future enhanced pedestrian-focused crossing that may include raised
crosswalks and/or RRFB controls if supported by City staff. This road connection is not part of the
Phase G or Phase E plans. In Phase G, flashing beacons are only included at our proposed mid-
block crossings that do not include the regional trail. However, the regional trail as proposed in
Phase G will have all raised crossings. The final design of this crossing will be developed and
reviewed by the City at the time of the road design for this section of Country Club Road.
05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Thank you for your submittal and all the work to detail an irrigation option and its
relationship to an adjacent dog park space and City of Fort Collins maintenance
facility. Please see the following questions regarding these two items:
Dog Park Space
- Please provide clarification on the location and size of the dog park. Is what
is shown for conceptual purposes only?
Page 37 of 48
Response: Yes, this is part of Tract EE, intended for future City Parks uses. We’ve illustrated a
maintenance facility and dog park areas north of the shared irrigation pond based on previous
discussions with Parks but final future park uses are TBD.
- How will this space be accessed?
Response: Access will depend on final uses and configurations but there are public roads planned
to the southwest (Country Club Road) and to the east of this Tract where access could be provided.
- PPD would like to better understand the gathering space between the pond
and the City maintenance facility. Is this part of the future park or part of the neighborhood?
Response: This is part of Tract EE which is intended for future City Parks uses.
Maintenance Facility
- Please coordinate with City Parks on the layout and working space for the
regional maintenance facility. For comparison purposes, the East Community
Park Maintenance Facility is roughly 6,500 square feet and the yard is 55,500 square feet.
Response: This is part of Tract EE intended for future City Parks uses, and a maintenance
facility and dog park have been illustrated based on discussions to date, but final
improvements would be based on park needs. The maintenance facility indicated is based
on the current park maintenance facility at Spring Canyon Park.
- Does the maintenance facility need to be adjacent to the irrigation pond? If
so, to access the park, maintenance crews will need to cross Country Club
Road, currently identified as a collector level street. Please verify City Parks is
ok with this scenario.
Response: No, the maintenance facility does not need to be adjacent; the non-pot pond has its own
pumphouse facility.
Park Planning staff is looking forward to additional discussions regarding the
above and how they relate to the irrigation pond and future community park.
Response: All of Tract EE is intended for future City Parks uses, and a maintenance facility
and dog park have been illustrated in this north portion based on discussions to date, but
final improvements would be based on parks and the community’s needs.
Comment Number: 33
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UNRESOLVED:
Please indicate stub locations on utility plans.
Response: Utility stubs (water and sanitary) have been provided to the future park parcel.
05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Please coordinate with Park Planning to include utility connections for water and
sanitary to the future park site. If this phase does not make the most sense to
include these connections, please plan to include these in a future phase. Thank you.
Comment Number: 37
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UNRESOLVED:
Please see previous comments regarding future park site (comment #7).
Response: This has been addressed.
05/31/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Please continue to coordinate with the City regarding the detention pond and
LID features located within the future park site. As you continue to design these
improvements, please consider the following:
- Can the LID feature be increased to accommodate additional paved areas
associated with future parking lots?
Page 38 of 48
Response: The proposed underground water quality treatment array has been sized to treat the
tributary flows from Phase G, as well as the north half of Longwood Dr, which services the future
park. The underground system cannot be expanded to accommodate future paved areas. Additional
LID treatment systems will need to be implemented for future park features.
- Is there an interim condition for the detention pond?
Response: The current park detention pond has been sized to detain runoff from the full buildout
condition of Montava and the park. The pond bottom and geometry can be modified with future park
improvements if it can be documented that the overall volume and release rates are not impacted.
- Long term maintenance considerations.
Response: The underground water quality treatment system and detention pond will be maintained
by the Montava Metro District. Once the park comes online there will need to be a maintenance
agreement between the Montava Metro District and the park for continued maintenance.
Department: PFA
Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2869, marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
12/6/2022: UPDATED FOR APPROVAL
The submitted turning exhibit for the alleys shows engine specs with no
overhang and was accepted for approval in areas where no aerial access
would be required. In areas where there are 3 story townhomes (Do-More
Townhouse B), aerial access may be required if the building is over 30 feet in
height measured to the eave. If buildings are over 30 feet, a turning exhibit is
required to show tower specs in the alleys where these townhomes are located.
Tower must also be able to navigate public streets. This was agreed upon with
the Fire Marshal for approval.
Response: Height of eaves/parapets on proposed buildings will be below 30ft above grade to
preclude the necessity for aerial ladder access.
09/16/2022: UNRESOLVED FOR APPROVAL:
The submitted turning exhibit shows body and wheel overhang in alley corners.
Some of the overhang appears to be crossing property lines and parking areas.
If the corners do not meet requirements and a turning exhibit is submitted, it
shall not have any body or wheel overhang beyond the curbs.
01/03/2022: UNRESOLVED FOR APPROVAL:
The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of
25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. Most all corners do not meet this
requirement and provided autoturn exhibit shows overhang outside of the
corners. In order to meet the requirement, the corners must meet the required
dimensions or provide an autoturn exhibit with no overhang into areas with obstructions.
12/6/2022: Submitted turning exhibit for the alleys shows engine with no
overhang and was accepted for approval. Engine only specs in the alleys.
Tower must be able to navigate public streets. This was agreed upon with the
Fire Marshal for approval.
Comment Number: 8
12/6/2022: UNRESOLVED FOR APPROVAL
No hydrants have been added to Timberline.
Page 39 of 48
Response: Hydrants have been added adjacent to Timberline and are shown within
the Phase G utility plans as previously requested.
09/16/2022: UPDATED FOR APPROVAL
Thank you for providing the overall hydrant plan. All hydrants look like they are
within the required distance to properties and on center spacing.
Still need hydrant infill along Timberline Road and Mountain Vista.
01/04/2022: UNRESOLVED FOR APPROVAL
Please provide an overall hydrant plan.
Hydrants are required to provide 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure,
spaced not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter
as measured along approved emergency access routes.
The hydrants located in the alleys used as access roads will require the alley to
be at least 26 feet wide as part of IFC D103.1
Hydrants will also need to be installed along Timberline Rd. and Mountain Vista
as part of this phase or future phases.
Comment Number: 11
12/06/2022: UNRESOLVED FOR APPROVAL
The provided turning exhibit for the roundabouts shows only wheel path. Body
path was not included. The wheel path is shown to go over curbs and the
median area in the roundabout. Historically, damage has occurred to the air
ride suspension and aerial ladder attachment from driving over rollover curbs
and the next submittal shall correct any overhang of wheel or body path. Also,
in the next submittal, please provide a turning exhibit with body and wheel path
and include signage/ landscaping in the plans for the roundabouts.
Response: Turning templates have been revised to include and show the overhang
of the wheels and body path and the signage has been adjusted accordingly.
09/16/2022: FOR APPROVAL
The proposed oval roundabouts appear to be an obstruction for Fire Apparatus.
The roundabouts can either be designed to meet minimum turning radius or a
turning exhibit can be provided for these. The turning exhibit shall show no body
or wheel overhang beyond the curbs.
Comment Number: 12
12/06/2022: FOR APPROVAL
AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS
The Do-More Townhouse Elevation B is measuring over 30 feet in height to the
eave. Buildings over 30' in height trigger additional fire lane requirements 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 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.
Response: Height of eaves/parapets on proposed buildings will be below 30ft above grade to
Page 40 of 48
preclude the necessity for aerial ladder access.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 9
12/06/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
We are still finding issues that are unresolved, but will do a complete review next round.
Response: Comment noted.
09/21/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
Please look at our Round 1 redlines. We are finding many issues that are unresolved.
05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED:
PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: No plans were provided for
review. We will need to review before plans are filed.
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: Please provide the following
information for the Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown below.
PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL
DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29
UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) FOR
THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS.
IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DATUM) IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION
SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF
FORT COLLINS DATUM) = NAVD88 DATUM - X.XX’.
Comment Number: 10
12/06/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
We are still finding issues that are unresolved, but will do a complete review next round.
Response: Comment noted.
09/21/2022: Please look at our Round 1 redlines. We are finding many issues
that are unresolved.
05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED:
PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: No plans were provided for
review. We will need to review before plans are filed.
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Page 41 of 48
PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: There is missing data on sheet R1.2.
Comment Number: 11
12/06/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
We are still finding issues that are unresolved but will do a complete review next round.
Response: Comment noted.
09/21/2022: Please look at our Round 1 redlines. We are finding many issues
that are unresolved.
05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED:
PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: No plans were provided for
review. We will need to review before plans are filed.
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: There are text over text issues.
See redlines.
Comment Number: 12
12/06/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
We are still finding issues that are unresolved, but will do a complete review next round.
Response: Comment noted.
09/21/2022: Please look at our Round 1 redlines. We are finding many issues
that are unresolved.
05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED:
PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: No plans were provided for
review. We will need to review before plans are filed.
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: There is text that needs to be
masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines.
Comment Number: 13
12/06/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
We are still finding issues that are unresolved, but will do a complete review next round.
Response: Comment noted.
09/21/2022: Please look at our Round 1 redlines. We are finding many issues
that are unresolved.
05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED:
PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: No plans were provided for
review. We will need to review before plans are filed.
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G ROADWAY & INFRASTRUCTURE: There are line over text issues.
See redlines.
Comment Number: 14
12/06/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
We are still finding issues that are unresolved, but will do a complete review next round.
Response: Comment noted.
09/20/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: Please provide the following information for the
Page 42 of 48
Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown below.
PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL
DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29
UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) FOR
THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS.
IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DATUM) IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION
SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF
FORT COLLINS DATUM) = NAVD88 DATUM - X.XX’.
05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: Please provide the following information for the
Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown below.
PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL
DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29
UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) FOR
THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS.
IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DATUM) IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION
SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF
FORT COLLINS DATUM) = NAVD88 DATUM - X.XX’.
01/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: Please provide the following information for the
Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown below.
PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88
Page 43 of 48
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL
DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29
UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) FOR
THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS.
IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DATUM) IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION
SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF
FORT COLLINS DATUM) = NAVD88 DATUM - X.XX’.
Comment Number: 15
12/06/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
We are still finding issues that are unresolved but will do a complete review next round.
Response: Comment noted.
09/20/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There is missing data on some General Notes sheets.
05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There is missing data on some General Notes sheets.
01/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There is missing data on sheets C1.2 & C1.4.
Comment Number: 18
12/06/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
We are still finding issues that are unresolved but will do a complete review next round.
Response: Comment noted.
09/21/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
Please look at our Round 2 redlines. We are finding many issues that are unresolved.
05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
01/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 19
12/06/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
We are still finding issues that are unresolved, but will do a complete review next round.
Response: Comment noted.
09/21/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
Please look at our Round 2 redlines. We are finding many issues that are unresolved.
05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Page 44 of 48
01/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 22
12/06/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
We are still finding issues that are unresolved, but will do a complete review next round.
Response: Comment noted.
09/21/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
Please look at our Round 2 redlines. We are finding many issues that are unresolved.
05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: Some of the sheet titles & sheet numbers in the
sheet index do not match the noted sheets. See redlines.
Comment Number: 23
12/06/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
We are still finding issues that are unresolved, but will do a complete review next round.
Response: Comment noted.
09/21/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
Please look at our Round 2 redlines. We are finding many issues that are unresolved.
05/30/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
PHASE G UTILITY PLANS: There are cut off text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 24
12/06/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
We are still finding issues that are unresolved, but will do a complete review next round.
Response: Comment noted.
09/21/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
NON-POT PUMP STATION: Please revise the sub-title as marked. See redlines.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 21
12/06/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
We are still finding issues that are unresolved but will do a complete review next round.
Response: Comment noted.
05/26/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
LOT TYPICALS: A lot of the text is small, fuzzy & grainy. Please increase text
sizes if possible & clean up the quality.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 2
12/06/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree
with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not
made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response
letter. If you have any specific questions about the redlines, please contact John
Von Nieda at 970-221-6565 or jvonnieda@fcgov.com
Response: Plat has been updated per City comments received.
09/20/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree
with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not
Page 45 of 48
made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response
letter. If you have any specific questions about the redlines, please contact John
Von Nieda at 970-221-6565 or jvonnieda@fcgov.com
05/26/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree
with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not
made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response
letter. If you have any specific questions about the redlines, please contact John
Von Nieda at 970-221-6565 or jvonnieda@fcgov.com
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree
with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not
made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response
letter. If you have any specific questions about the redlines, please contact John
Von Nieda at 970-221-6565 or jvonnieda@fcgov.com
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 4
12/06/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
We are still finding issues that are unresolved but will do a complete review next round.
Response: Comment noted.
09/21/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
Please look at our Round 2 redlines. We are finding many issues that are unresolved.
05/27/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
There are line over text issues. See redlines.
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Clay Frickey, Urban Renewal Authority, 970-416-2517,
cfrickey@fcgov.com, ,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
05/17/2022: Include a note on the last sheet of the lot layouts indicating that all
single-family attached and detached homes have meet the Zero Energy Ready
Home standard per Section I(F) of the Public Benefits Agreement.
Response: A note has already been provided; this comment is resolved.
Comment Number: 2
05/17/2022: Perhaps there could also be a note on the last sheet of the lot
layouts that none of the units are contributing to the affordable housing
requirements of Section I(H) of the Public Benefits Agreement? We will need to
document somewhere how many market rate units Montava has built so we can
keep track of the affordable housing requirement and when/if we need to
withhold building permits.
Are any of these units used to satisfy the workforce housing in the Public
Page 46 of 48
Benefits Agreement?
Response: A note has already been provided; this comment is resolved.
Comment Number: 3
05/17/2022: For the non-potable system, we should include Section I(G)(2)-(4)
as notes so that way we are all aware of the non-potable water requirements.
Response: A note has been provided that explains the prerequisites for building
permits and COs in the areas of Phase G that will be served by the non-potable system.
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Autumn Penfold, Larimer & Weld Ditch, apenfold@eatonditch.com, ,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 6
12/22/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Please see the agency's letter for their comments.
Response: The Ditch plans and agreements are in ongoing
negotiations. Our goal is to have them executed in Q2 2023.
Contact: Boxelder Sanitation, Heidi Jenson, 970-498-0604, ,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4
05/31/2022: Please see attached comments for Montava Phase G & Irrigation
Pond.
Response: Comments have been addressed.
2/16/2022: See updated utility plan comments.
01/25/2022: Please see attached comments from Boxelder Sanitation.
Contact: Don Kapperman, Comcast, don_kapperman@comcast.com, ,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5
05/31/2022: I do not see any front or rear lot utility easements.
Comcast would need a 6’ rear lot utility easement or 9’ front lot easement to
protect their infrastructure.
If you have any questions please reach out to Jon Lehmann with Comcast
(jon_lehmann@comcast.com)
Response: Front and rear lot utility easements are not available. Utilities will need
to follow a route through City ROW. Montava staff has contacted Comcast and requested a
final confirmation on this matter. We are waiting for Comcast’s formal response.
Contact: ELCO, Randy Siddens, 970-493-2044, ,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
05/31/2022: See attached for ELCO comments. There is also a separate
document regarding the utility layout – which includes concerns for where we
have identified two general scenarios, one where the meter is behind the
sidewalk, one where it is in front of the sidewalk.
Page 47 of 48
Response: Utility alignments and meter locations have been coordinated with ELCO.
01/25/2022: See attached comments from ELCO.
Contact: Ryan Donovan, Lawrence Custer Grasmick Jones & Donovan, LLP,
970-622-8181, ,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
05/31/2022: Please find attached a letter and attachments thereto on behalf of
Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company, Larimer and Weld Reservoir Company,
and WRCC, Inc. in relation to Montava’s Phase G & Irrigation Pond BDR.We
appreciate the opportunity to provide further comments on this proposed
project.
Response: The Ditch plans and agreements are in ongoing
negotiations. Our goal is to have them executed in Q2 2023.
01/11/2022: Attached is a letter on behalf of our clients, the Larimer and Weld
Irrigation Company, the Larimer and Weld Reservoir Company, and WRCC,
Inc. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments, particularly related to
the No. 8 Ditch. Please reach out with any questions.
Contact: Sarah Brucker, 303-866-3581, sarah.brucker@state.co.us, ,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
12/07/2022: The Division of Water Resources does not have any additional
comments for Round 4 of this referral.
Response: Comment noted.
05/31/2022: The Division of Water Resources does not have any additional
comments for Round 2 of this referral.
01/11/2022: See attached comments from the Colorado Division of Water
Resources.
Department: Street Oversizing
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
09/20/2022: This is a repeat from the Phase E submittal but provided as it's
applicable with Phase G having frontage to TImberline.
for approval:
Elements of the design for Timberline Road north of Mountain Vista may have
limited TCEF reimbursement with the planned downgrading of Timberline Road
to a collector. Elements of the Timberline design with medians including the
"kidney bean" intersection control would be part of the development
requirements and not reimbursable.
Response: This was answered on a previous round.
Previous 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
Page 48 of 48
life the City Council’s approved Active Modes Plan, should be reasonably reimbursed through TCEF.
Clearly, the kidney bean intersection design leads the way in this regard.
Comment Number: 2
09/20/2022: This is a repeat from the Phase E submittal but provided as it's
applicable with Phase G as well.
FOR APPROVAL:
Overall, understanding the anticipated phasing of construction with E & G and
required improvements associated with each in coordination with the traffic
study would be helpful to understand the level of improvements being built in
conjunction with building permits from a TCEF reimbursement perspective.
Response: Phase E is following behind Phase G. We anticipate residential
construction to start as soon as lots are available.