HomeMy WebLinkAboutMONTAVA - PHASE E - TOWN CENTER RESIDENTIAL - BDR220003 - MONTAVA SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
1
Community
Development and Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6689
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/developmentreview
Montava Phase E-Town Center Residential, BDR220003, Round Number 3
Responses to Staff Comments for Round 2
April 26, 2023
January 06, 2023
Forrest Hancock
Montava Development, LLC
430 N College Ave #400
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: Montava - Phase E-Town Center Residential, BDR220003, Round Number 2
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing
agencies for your submittal of Montava - Phase E-Town Center Residential. If you have
questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your
questions through your Development Review Coordinator, Tenae Beane via phone at
970-224-6119 or via email at tbeane@fcgov.com.
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: 2
SUBMITTAL:
As part of your resubmittal, you will respond to the comments provided in this
letter. This letter is provided to you in Microsoft Word format. Please use this
document to insert responses to each comment for your submittal, using a
different font color.
When replying to the comment letter please be detailed in your responses, as
all comments should be thoroughly addressed. Comments requiring action
should NOT have a response such as noted or acknowledged . You will need to
2
provide references to specific project plans, pages, reports, or explanations of
why comments have not been addressed [when applicable].
Comment Number: 3
SUBMITTAL:
Please follow the Electronic Submittal Requirements and File Naming
Standards found at https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/electronic
submittal requirements and file naming standards_v1_8 1 19.pdf?1566857888.
File names should begin with t he file type, followed by the project information,
and round number.
Example: UTILITY PLANS_PROJECT NAME_PDP_Rd2.pdf
File type acronyms maybe appropriate to avoid extremely long file names.
Example: TIS for Traffic Impact Study, ECS for Ecological Characterization
Study.
Reach out to me if you would like a list of suggested names.
*Please disregard any references to paper copies, flash drives, or CDs.
Comment Number: 4
SUBMITTAL:
All plans should be saved as optimized/flattened PDFs to reduce file size and
remove layers.
Per the Electronic Submittal Requirements AutoCAD SHX attributes need to be
removed from the PDF’s.
AutoCAD turns drawing text into comments that appear in t he PDF plan set,
and these must be removed prior to submittal as they can cause issues with the
PDF file.
The default setting is "1" ("on") in AutoCAD. To change the setting and remove
this feature, type "EPDFSHX" (version 2016.1) or “PDFSHX (ver sion 2017 and
newer) in the command line and enter "0".
Read this article at Autodesk.com for more on this topic:
https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad/troubleshooting/caas/sfdcarti
cles/sfdcarticles/Drawing-text-appears -as -Comments -in-a-PDF-created-by -Aut
oCAD.html
Comment Number: 5
SUBMITTAL:
Resubmittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being
the cut-off for routing the same week. When you are ready to resubmit your
plans, please notify me with as much advanced notice as possible.
Comment Number: 6
INFORMATION:
Please resubmit within 180 days, approximately 6 months, to avoid the
expiration of your project.
Comment Number: 7
INFORMATION:
ANY project that requires four or more rounds of review would be subject to an
additional fee of $3,000.00.
Comment Number: 8
FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The Director shall issue a written decision to approve, approve with conditions,
or deny the development application based on compliance with the standards
3
referenced in Step 8 of the Common Development Review Procedures
(Section 2.2.8).
The written decision shall be mailed to the applicant, to any person who
provided comments during the comment period and to the abutting property
owners and shall also be posted on the City's website at www.fcgov.com.
Response: The applicable development standards for Phase E 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
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
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: 4
01/03/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Staff appreciates the
ongoing discussions regarding Phase E/Transect 5 and the interactions with
the future Town Center in Phase H. Staff’s primary concerns center around the
lack of minimum residential density for Phase E when this submittal only shows
residential development. Staff wants to ensure that Phases E, H and I strike the
proper balance of land uses to support the Town Center’s success.
Response: We do not believe it is appropriate to request a minimum density for the reasons
outlined in our attorney’s letter of January 25, 2023. However, in order to assuage Staff’s
concerns, we have agreed to subject Phase E to a minimum density and the following note
has been added to the Phase E Site Plan:
“Notwithstanding that pursuant to Section 3.3.2.d and Table 3.3-1 of the Montava PUD
Master Plan Uses, Densities and Development Standards (MUDDS), there is
no minimum residential density requirement for Phase E as it is depicted on the Montava
PUD Master Plan Conceptual Development Phasing Plan, the Developer agrees that the
overall minimum average residential density for Phase E at full build out shall be sixteen
(16) dwelling units per acre of net developable land in all of Phase E, to be calculated in
accordance with MUDDS Sections 3.3.2 and 3.2.1. Accessory Dwelling Units shall not be
counted in the residential density calculations for Phase E.”
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please provide information on the future
adjacent town center development including where the epicenter of the town
center is planned to be. MUDDs notes “Phases E, H and I do not define a
minimum density as these areas include a significant non -residential
component, supported by adjacent housing in other phases.” I will have
4
additional comments on this phase based on the response to this comment.
Comment Number: 6
01/03/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Thank you for the response.
The addition of a note would be appreciated.
Response: The following note was added to the conceptual elevations in the previous
round: "All building footprints and metrics are preliminary. All MUDDS requirements will be
met at the time of building permit.”
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL Approval: Add a note with calculations confirming that
the frontage requirements are being met (60% for T4 and 80% for T5).
Comment Number: 8
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: MUDDS includes frontage façade
glazing standards for Transect 4 in table 5.8 4. A calculation for the amount of
glazing on the front facade should be included with all elevation submittals.
Response: The following note was added to the conceptual elevations in the previous
round: "All building footprints and metrics are preliminary. All MUDDS requirements will be
met at the time of building permit.”
Comment Number: 12
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Add note that the maximum driveway
width is 12’ unless the driveway is providing access to more than 4 units.
Response: With the revision to the definition of driveway in MUDDS Amendment No. 1., the
vehicular access ways proposed in Phase E do not qualify as “driveways.”
Comment Number: 14
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please include species diversification
calculations and include minimum tree size specifications on the next submittal
or with 100% plans.
Response: Tree species quantities with species diversification has been added.
Comment Number: 17
01/03/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED: It was not staff's intent
through the approval of the PUD for this project to defer review of the
architectural elevations to another entity. Staff welcomes the creation of and
review by the Montava Design Review Committee of projects within the
Montava Development as a complimentary element to staff review. Further
discussion on this is needed.
Response: It has been discussed wi th Staff that the Developer will provide sufficient detail
to approve the building elevations in the BDR process and for proper evaluation of building
permit applications including conceptual elevations, lot typicals, a summary table of
applicable MUDDS requirements and additional information regarding building materials
and color schemes for the various building types, with the exception the single family
detached homes. In addition to these City processes, the Montava Architectural Review
Committee will be responsible for reviewing detailed architectural elevations for all building
types to ensure compliance with Montava’s vision for the character of the built
environment.
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: As of today, the single family detached
home architectural elevations are planned to be reviewed as part of the building
permit process. All other building elevations will be reviewed and approved as
part of this BDR. Discussions regarding model approval are on going. Right
now, additional details, including building materials and color schemes will be
needed for final approval of the single family attached product.
Comment Number: 18
5
01/03/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Thank you. Staff will confirm
whether or not a letter of intent will be required.
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please provide proof of ownership of
the land proposed to be developed or documentation from the current owner
stating the applicant can proceed with the development on their property. The
property owner will need to sign the final, approved plan set
Comment Number: 19
01/03/2023: FOR INFORMATION: There are currently Autocad SHX text in the
site plan.
Response: Plan has been corrected.
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Once this submittal is at final plan level,
or 100% drawings it must comply with the City's Development Review Submittal
Requirements found here: https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/dev
review submittal requirements_v3 3 31 2021.pdf?1641507328 and the City's
Electronic Submittal Requirements found here:
https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/electronic submittal
requirements and file naming standards_v1_8 1 19.pdf?1641507328. The
plans currently do not comply.
Comment Number: 33
01/05/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Based on the current proposal with the
dutch roundabout and associated at -grade crossing of the future regional trail, a
PUD Amendment may be needed for Exhibit C, #3 Parks Conditions.
Response: B ecause the No. 8 Ditch will be piped, grade separated pedestrian and trail
underpass crossings at locations #2 and #3 as shown on Sheet 1 of the Master Plan will not
be constructed. Developer does not believe that a PUD amendment is necessary because
the Parks Conditions specifically allowed for piping of the ditch, however, in the spirit of
cooperation, Developer proposes to amend Sheet 1 of the Master Plan to add a note stating
that the grade separated pedestrian and trail underpass crossings at these locations are no
longer a requirement.
Comment Number: 34
01/05/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please include a diagram that shows
how this proposal complies with 3.5.2(D).
Response: Staff has confirmed 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.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Tim Dinger, tdinger@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
12/07/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are additional variances that you must submit with
the next round. The additional variances needed include the non -standard easements
and reverse diagonal parking along Godwink Drive.
Response: Standard easement variance is included with this submittal. The reverse
diagonal parking has been removed from the design.
09/09/2022:
Please make a list of possible variance requests that you will need and submit
them to the City with the next round. This includes anything that has previously
been discussed in Phase G, as variance requests do not carry over from
6
phase-to-phase. Variance requests should be submitted to the City along with
the plans for anything that does not fit City standards (and, by extension,
LCUASS Standards).
Response: All requested variances to the LCUASS Standards are submitted with this
Round.
Comment Number: 3
12/14/2022: UPDATED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The metes and bounds of Tract DD on the plat for Phase G do not match the
metes and bounds for the replat that is being done under Phase E. These
measurements must match exactly.
Response: Plat has been updated to match Phase G.
09/09/2022:
The Phase E and Phase G plats need to be coordinated between the two
different surveyors working on them. There are several discrepancies, and there
needs to be continuity between them, and thought put into which one will be
approved first.
Comment Number: 4
12/07/2022: UPDATED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please address the redlines on the variance request that was submitted with
this round.
Response: These have been revised.
09/09/2022:
All non-standard street sections that are not vested from the approved PUD will
require an approved variance. On the cover sheet, the Commercial Local
section is the only vested street section from the PUD. All three collector street
sections on the cover sheet, as well as the connector street section, will require
an approved v ariance prior to plan approval.
Comment Number: 5
12/19/2022: UPDATED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The timing of the rescinding of Resolution 2001-120 is not yet known. Do you
intend on waiting for approval of the plans for Phases E until after the resolution
has been rescinded?
Response: Resolution 2001-120 was rescinded January 17, 2023 by City Council
Resolution 2023-013, therefore, City Council review of the Timberline/Country Club
roundabout i s no longer required. Regarding the Master Street Plan, Staff has advised that
this roundabout does not trigger a stand-alone amendment, therefore, Staff will include this
change in its next periodic update to the Master Street Plan.
09/09/2022:
You are currently showing Timberline Road as a Major Collector Street. Per the
City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan, Timberline Road to the southwest of the
roundabout at Country Club Road is a 2-Lane Arterial Street. If you would like to
reclassify Timberline Road, the master street plan will need to be revised
through City Council action. Ideally, you could present City Council with the
Timberline/County Club roundabout at the same time as the presentation of the
reclassification of Timberline Road. The Master Street Plan revision would need
to be approved prior to final plan approval.
Comment Number: 6
12/15/2022: UPDATED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please submit the variance request after the final dimensions are determined.
7
Response: Reverse diagonal parking has been removed from the design.
09/09/2022:
The diagonal parking along Godwink Drive will require a variance request. The
standard cross sections permit only parallel on -street parking. Reverse
Diagonal Parking stalls have a wider width than standard head -in diagonal
parking. Please label the parking stall dimensions.
Comment Number: 10
12/07/2022: UPDATED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL: We will be expecting to see the flowline profile
design with the first final-level design submittal, which is anticipated to be round 3.
Response: Flowline profiles are included with this submittal.
09/09/2022:
Flowline plan and profile design will be required for both sides of all proposed
streets. Any alleys that drain to center only require centerline profiles. The
flowline profiles are not required until final design, which is equivalent to the first
“100% submittal” for this phase.
Comment Number: 11
12/07/2022: UPDATED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL: We will be expecting to see the alley centerline
profile design with the first final-level design submittal, which is anticipated to be round 3.
Response: The alley centerline profile design is part of this submittal. Note also that we are
using a lettering system for the alleys for clarity.
09/09/2022:
Centerline profiles are required for all proposed streets, including alleys. Please
provide plan and profile sheets for all alley centerlines in the next submittal. Alley
naming or numbering may be useful for clarity.
Comment Number: 14
12/19/2022: UPDATED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
No easement variance requests have been included with this submittal.
Response: Variance request is included with this submittal .
09/09/2022:
No utility easements are shown adjacent to the right of way on any of the public
streets. You will be required to submit a variance request to the City if you are
not providing the utility easements, or if the utility easements provided are
different than the standard widths shown in LCUASS.
Comment Number: 15
12/19/2022: UPDATED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
No easement variance requests have been included with this submittal.
Response: Variance request is included with this submittal.
09/09/2022:
On the preliminary plat, all the utility easements are called out simply as “UE”.
Please label the width of the utility easements on the plat. They look to be 5 -foot
width utility easements, which is smaller than the minimum 8’ width along alleys.
A variance request is required for easement widths that are smaller than the standard.
Comment Number: 19
12/19/2022: UPDATED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are electric and irrigation utilities that are not located within an easement
on the round 2 plans.
Response: Additional easements added.
8
09/09/2022:
On the utility plan sheets, many of the proposed telecom pedestals are not
within easements. These pedestals are required to be within a utility easement.
Additionally, not all the proposed lots have telecom pedestals to provide
service. Is this intentional or was this an oversight?
Comment Number: 21
12/08/2022: UPDATED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
You still have approval blocks on sheets besides just the cover sheet. Please
remove the approval block from every sheet EXCEPT for sheet 1.
Response: These have been removed.
09/09/2022:
The utility plans have the incorrect signature block. Pleas e add the newest City
signature block for utility plans, which can be found here:
https://www.fcgov.com/engineering/devrev. The signature block only needs to
be on the first sheet of the utility plan set.
Comment Number: 22
12/19/2022: UPDATED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are many linetypes in the legend that are very similar to others. Please
revise linetypes so that the difference between existing and proposed for
various features is more clear in the plan views.
Response: Linetypes have been revised.
09/09/2022:
All symbols, hatching patterns, linetypes, etc. must be included in the legend or
explicitly and clearly called out on the sheet in which they appear. This will help
to improve plan clarity. Please see redlines for some examples of missing
legend items. Any items in the legend that are not being used should be
removed from the legend.
Comment Number: 26
12/19/2022: UPDATED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
We will be expecting to see the Signage and Striping Plans with the first
final-level design submittal.
Response: Plan has been added to the set.
09/12/2022:
Signage and Striping Plans will be required with the final design submittal.
Comment Number: 27
01/03/2023: UPDATED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Since Timberline will be reclassified to a collector roadway, you will be required
to provide a 9-foot width utility easement adjacent to the right -of -way.
Response: Variance is being submitted for this item .
09/12/2022:
Per previous discussions that occurred for Montava Phase G, Timberline Road
will need to have 15-foot width utility easements adjacent to the right -of -way.
Comment Number: 29
12/15/2022: UPDATED - FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Engineering is not comf ortable with brick pavers in the public ROW. If the
Montava team wants to keep the brick paver roadways, you will have to make
these streets private instead of public. The City will not provide roadway
9
maintenance, nor plow the snow or salt the streets in the winter. Additional
coordination with other departments (forestry, utilities, light and power, traffic,
etc.) will be necessary if the Montava team wants to keep the pavers and make
the streets private.
Instead of providing right -of -way, you will need to provide public access
easements, and a utility easement for any public utilities that are located under
these brick paver roadways.
Coordination of utility maintenance that will occur and the responsibilities of
replacing brick pavers will be written into the Development Agreement.
Response: Staff has agreed that the Montava Metropolitan District may be responsible for
the maintenance of pavers in the parkways and ROW. 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.
09/13/2022:
Brick pavers are being proposed for Montava Drive and B ig Timber Drive.
What is the planned maintenance for the pavers? Any utility maintenance that
needs to be done in the ROW with pavers will result in the pavers being
removed. Who will pay for replacing the pavers? Typically, it is significantly
easier and less expensive to perform maintenance and patching with asphalt
roadways. This applies to the parkway as well, since City electric utilities are
placed in the parkway. If you want to continue with the paver roadway surface
design, it will require an approved variance.
Comment Number: 37
12/08/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: A final geotechnical report and a final subsurface hydrology
report are required with the first "100% design" submittal, per the BDR/FDP checklist.
Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Nancy Nichols, nnichols@fcgov.com,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
01/03/2023: In any new development, K -12 youth need to have safe routes to
walk, bike and roll to school. From every residence in Montava, kids need to be
able to get all the way from their homes to school safely.
Response: Montava’s core focus is to build a pedestrian and bicycle prioritized community.
All roads and intersections have been designed with this in mind and should provide safe
routes to the school s for all users.
Comment Number: 2
01/03/2023: Regarding the roundabouts, young kids will likely find these difficult
to navigate, even after receiving Safe Routes to School bike -ped safety
instruction at their new schools. Motorists will need to be hyper -aware of kids
using the trails and roadways in this area.
Response: Connecting roadways to the roundabout are designed to minimize traffic speed
and raised table crossings have been designed to further slow traffic and provide a clear
route for pedestrians and cyclists. This combi nation of design elements should provide a
10
safe experience for all users.
Comment Number: 3
01/03/2023: Of particular concern is whether the roundabouts and roadways
are designed for small groups to use safely. A key component of safety for kids
comes through not traveling alone but in small groups. Therefore every aspect of
the transportation system must accommodate not just individual
bikers/walkers/skateboarders/scooterers but also small groups of them. For
example, the refuge islands between the motor-vehicle lanes in the
crosswalks/bike crossings need to be large enough for a small group to use.
The Safe Routes program will be leading small groups of bi kers and walkers
along the trails and roadways in this area, and we will greatly benefit from a
design that makes it safe and convenient for us.
Response: We agree and the design has considered these factors.
Comment Number: 4
01/03/2023: To help slow traffic in the roundabouts and to help protect
bikes/peds/skateboarders/scooterers, raised crosswalks/bike crossings could help.
Response: Raised crossings are included in the design.
Comment Number: 5
01/03/2023: Since many kids will exit their homes through their garages into
the alleys behind their homes, especially if they are traveling by
bike/skateboard/scooter, there should be consideration given to making those
alleys safe for kids to travel in.
Response: Our alleys aren designed per LCUASS standards.
Department: Street Oversizing
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
01/06/2023: for approval:
Carried over as unresolved understanding the response provided by the
applicant. Will look forward to further discussion on the topic.
Response: As the plans are finalized we will work with you to identify all eligible items for
TCEF. It is our strong belief that transportation infrastructure which complies with and in
fact brings to life the City Council’s approved Active Modes Plan, should be reasonably
reimbursed through TCEF.
09/16/2022: for approval:
Elements of the design for Timberline Road north of Mountain Vista may have
limited TCEF reimbursement with the planned downgrading of Timberline Road
to a collector. Elements of the Timberline design with medians including the
"kidney bean" intersec tion control would be part of the development
requirements and not reimbursable.
Comment Number: 4
01/06/2023: for approval:
Carried over as unresolved understanding the response provided by the
applicant. Will look forward to further dis cussion on the topic.
Response: Noted.
11
09/16/2022: for approval:
The use of special pavers in collectors/arterials would be considered above and
beyond and not part of the TCEF reimbursable.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Steve Gilchrist, 970-224-6175, sgilchrist@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 10
01/03/2023 FOR FINAL - UPDATE
Further comments will be forthcoming when we receive the final design plans
and signing and striping for the roundabout at Country Club and Timberline.
Response: Acknowledged.
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
The roundabout at Country Club Road and N. Timberline Road shows a raised
pedestrian crossing and a bike crossing as separate yield points. We would
like to see these combined (delineated separate through striping) either as both
raised or both at grade. We also would like to continue working with you on this
design and plan for implementation.
Comment Number: 11
01/02/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
We are coordinating a formal response with our Engineering Department and
Poudre Fire Authority regarding to the intersections being proposed on
Timberline. Further discussion will be needed regarding this comment.
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 were submitted with Phase G
for review.
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
We would like to continue to work with you on the innovative intersection
designs along Timberline. We had discussed laying some of these concepts
out in a field study.
Several of the intersections proposed with this development are not traditional
intersections and may be the first of their kind in the US. As such, the
Development Agreement shall include a section that establishes criteria for
modifying the intersections if they don’t work as intended. The developer will be
responsible for providing cost estimates to retrofit the unconventional
intersections and the developer will be expected to escrow or provide bonds to
fund the retrofits if necessary.
Comment Number: 12
01/02/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
With this going through the BDR process we will need to see Final Signing and
Striping plans with these submittals.
Response: Signing and striping plan is included with this submittal.
We may need to have further conversations regarding the roadway variances
and the striping expectations for each type of street. We typically don't paint
Local roadways, or parking lanes.
12
Response: Understood.
Trees shall not be placed within 50 feet on the approach to Stop signs in order
to maintain a visual sight distance. Please show stop signs on the Landscape plans.
Response: Signs have been included in plans.
Comment Number: 13
01/02/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Is there a reason there are no truncated domes for pedestrians at the
intersection of Paseo and Chesapeake?
Response: These have been added.
Comment Number: 14
01/03/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
The Paseo and Mountain Vista intersection (Phase E Access #22) is detailed
the the Traffic Study as full movement, but the plans for the Timberline and
Mountain Vista roundabout show the median extending further to the east that
would restrict this to a right in/right out. Is Paseo the true East Access #22, or is
there another access expected within the second portion of Phase E?
Response: The Phase G & E traffic study has been updated to show the Paseo and
Mountain Vista intersection (Phase E Access #22) restricted to right-in/right-out movements.
The updated TIS is included in this submittal.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 5
01/02/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL UPDATE
Following the meeting between the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County and
representatives of the Montava Development, details were provided from
Larimer County that this is not a full y funded project at this time and they are still
working on the overall design that could greatly impact cost. A proportional
share based on Montava impacts will still need to be determined as more
detailed costs come to light. This comment will re main Active until then.
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 f or residents. We
understand that the County has submitted for a federal grant to do these improvements ; we
are all hopeful for a positive outcome. We are waiting for a proposal from Larimer County.
09/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Regarding Country Club Road and Lemay Ave. intersection: this intersection
does not meet our LOS standards and we would like to work with you to
determine a project proportional contribution towards improvements at this
intersection. Please remove comment on page 4 stating the City has planned
improvements at this intersection. This intersection is in the county and we will
work with the applicant and the county to determine appropriate mitigation
measures. Please revise the build out model ing on page 48 that shows the
improvement at this intersection. This improvement is not currently funded and
that should be reflected in the traffic study.
Response: The reference as a City planned improvement has been removed. It is
understood that the applicant will work with the County in the future to determine the
appropriate improvement at County Club Road and Lemay Avenue intersection. However, to
avoid demonstrating a substandard level of service in the traffic study, roundabout control
has been utilized in this study to demonstrate acceptable level of service. It is understood
13
that different control or improvements could be decided in the future.
Comment Number: 6
01/02/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL UPDATE
The Trails Exhibit you provided shows great detail on the anticipated routes and
facilities through Phase G but not Phase E. Please expand this into and
through Phase E.
Response: Please review the new Phase E Trails Exhibit.
09/12/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Please further develop the bicycle analysis in the traffic study. We would like to
better understand how the project will connect into existing infrastructure.
Please also include a diagram showing locations of bike lanes on site.
Department: Erosion Control
Contact: Andrew Crecca, acrecca@fcgov.com
Comment Number: 9
12/27/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Erosion Control Plans and Report have returned redlines please ensure all
comments are addressed and sequence and phasing materials are provided.
Erosion Control Escrow will need to be provided for each phase. Recommend
breaking it down by areas that will be established immediately and those
requiring long terms seeding. Fees will be recalculated at later submittal when
LIDs and Building Permit numbers are more finalized.
Response: See separate pdf for comment response.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5
01/04/2023: FOR APPROVAL:
Please add specific labeling... Pond a,b,c etc.
Response: Ponds are now identified as requested.
09/13/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
Please label all bioretention and detention ponds on the Grading Plan.
Comment Number: 10
01/04/2023: FOR APPROVAL:
Pond F & Pond 427 have a concrete pan slope of .3% or less, please revise to
.5% at a minimum.
Response: Pan slope has been increased to 0.5%.
Comment Number: 11
01/04/2023: FOR APPROVAL:
At Final Plan Review, please provide all rain garden details.
Response: These are now provided.
Comment Number: 12
01/04/2023: FOR APPROVAL:
14
Please use the City's standard Pond Outlet/WQ Outlet details instead of details
on Sheet 69.
Response: No longer applies to this situation but we will use the standard outlet as needed
going forward.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-416-2772, tsiegmund@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
01/03/2023: FOR FINAL:
Carryover comment. Electric running line and transformer locations will need to
be determined and shown on the plans to show that minimum utility separation
requirements can be met. A utility coordination meeting is requested prior to
next submittal to discuss the utility layout with all utility providers (ELCO, Box
Elder, Stormwater, etc.)
Response: Utility coordination meetings have been held and the design has been modified .
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL:
The proposed electric system does not work as designed on the utility plans. A
meeting to discuss the electric layout, transformer locations, vault locations, etc.
is requested so plans can be updated prior to the next submittal
Comment Number: 2
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL:
Once the electric system is revised, a utility coordination meeting with all utility
providers is requested to discuss the overall utility layout.
Response: Utility coordination meetings have been held and the design has been modified.
Comment Number: 3
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL:
All electric infrastructure must be within City ROW or a dedicated utility
easement. There are numerous locations where transformers and electric lines
are within private property.
Response: Easements have been established where lines are not in the ROW.
Comment Number: 5
01/03/2023: FOR FINAL:
Discussions surrounding the design of Timberline are ongoing. Understanding
of the private ditch easement language is needed to determine if other utilities
can be installed within the limits of the private easement adjacent to Timberline Rd.
Response: The Ditch easement language is in ongoing negotiation. It is our
understanding that the easement will not be exclusive. Our goal is to have the Ditch
easement executed Q3 2023. A copy will be provided.
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL:
Light and Power will have electric infrastructure in the parkway (between curb
and sidewalk) on both sides of Timberline. Please move the proposed gas
main outside of the parkway location.
Comment Number: 6
01/03/2023: FOR FINAL:
Utility conflicts exist. Light and Power will need a minimum 3ft separation from
all other utilities including irrigation main line/service lines, water
15
meters/services.
Response: Acknowledged – design has been revised.
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL:
There are recurring utility conflicts where minimum separation requirements are
not being met.
See mark ups
A minimum of 10 ft separation is required between electric, water, sewer,
stormwater, and irrigation facilities. A minimum of 3 ft separati on is required
between electric and natural gas. Please show all electrical routing on the Utility Plans.
Comment Number: 8
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
Brick pavers are not ideal in the parkway locations. Light and Power will not
assume maintenance responsibilities of settlement of pavers above or adjacent
to Light and Power facilities in the parkway.
Response: Staff has agreed that the Montava Metropolitan District may be responsible for
the maintenance of pavers in the parkways and ROW. A draft of the ROW Maintenance and
License Agreement to memorialize this obligation is included in this submittal and a copy
has been provided to the City Attorney’s office.
Comment Number: 9
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges and any system
modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this development.
Please contact me to discuss development fees or visit the following website for
an estimate of charges and fees related to this project:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders -and-developers/plant -investmen
t-development -fees
Comment Number: 10
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
Any existing electric infrastructure that needs to be relocated as part of this
project will be at the expense of the develope r. Please coordinate relocations
with Light and Power Engineering.
Comment Number: 11
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
All utility easements and required permits (crossing agreements, flood plain,
etc.) needed for the development will need to be obtained and paid for by the
developer.
Comment Number: 12
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
Any existing and/or proposed Light and Power electric facilities that are within
the limits of the project must be located within a utility easement or public
right-of -way.
Comment Number: 13
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
Meter location(s) will need to be coordinated with Light and Power. Please
16
show proposed meter location on the utility plan. Reference Section 8 of our
Electric Service Standards for electric metering standards. A link has been
provided below.
ht tps://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStanda
rds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf
Comment Number: 14
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
During utility infrastructure design, please provide adequate space of all service
and main lines internal to the site to ensure proper utility installation and to meet
minimum utility spacing requirements. A minimum of 10 ft separation is
required between water, sewer and storm water facilities, and a minimum of 3 ft
separation is required between Natural Gas. Please show all electrical routing
on the Utility Plans.
Comment Number: 15
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
Transformer locations will need to be coordinated with Light & Power.
Transformers must be placed within 10 ft of a drivable surface for installation
and maintenance purposes. The transformer must also have a front clearance of
10 ft and side/rear c learance of 3 ft minimum. When located close to a building,
please provide required separation from building openings as defined in
Figures ESS4 - ESS7 within the Electric Service Standards. Please show all
proposed transformer locations on the Utility Plans.
Comment Number: 16
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
Streetlights will be placed along public streets. 40 ft separation on both side s of
the light is required between canopy trees and streetlights. 15 ft separation on
both sides of the light is required between ornamental trees and streetlights.
Please coordinate the light placement with Light & Power. Please reach out to
me before the first round of the Final Development Plan so I can provide a
streetlight layout. The City of Fort Collins street lighting requirements can be
found at:
http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/Ch15_04_01_2007.pdf
Comment Number: 17
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
Multi family buildings and duplexes are treated as customer owned services;
therefore a C -1 form and one line diagram must be filled out and submitted to
Light & Power Engineering for each building. All secondary electric service
work is the responsibility of the developer and their electrical consultant or
contractor. A C -1 form can be found here:
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders -and-developers/development -f
orms -guidelines -regulations
Comment Number: 18
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
This project will need to comply with our electric metering standards. Electric
meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and Power Engineering.
17
Residential units will need to be individually metered. For all attached units,
please gang the electric meters on one side of the building, opposite of the gas
meters. Reference Section 8 of our Electric Service Standards for electric
metering standards. A link has been provided here:
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/u ploads/ElectricServiceStanda
rds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf
Comment Number: 19
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
All units other than single family detached at 200 amps or less are considered
customer owned service; therefore, the applic ant is responsible for installing the
secondary service from the transformer to the meter(s) and will be owned and
maintained by the individual unit owner or building owner.
Comment Number: 20
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
If the private drives/alleys are proposed to be illuminated, the streetlights are
considered private and will need to be privately installed, maintained, and
metered. Please show all private streetlights and private meters on the plans.
Comment Number: 21
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
The City of Fort Collins now offers gig-speed fiber internet, video and phone
service. Contact John Stark with Fort Collins Connexion at 970 -207-7890 or
jstark@fcgov.com for commercial grade account support, RFPs and bulk
agreements.
Comment Number: 22
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
For additional information on our renewal energy programs please visit the
website below or contact John Phelan (jphelan@fcgov.com).
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/go renewable
Comment Number: 23
09/13/2022: INFORMATION:
Please contact Tyler Siegmund or Austin Kreager with electric project
engineering if you have any questions at (970) 416-2772. You may reference
Light & Power’s Electric Service Standards at:
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/electricservicestandar
ds.pdf?1645038437
Reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee
estimator at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders -and-developers .
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Scott Benton, (970)416-4290, sbenton@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4
12/19/2022: FOR APPROVAL: The hatchings defined on the Landscape Plan
18
legend don't match the hatchings used within the plan sheets. Specifically, the
confusion seems to be with the rain garden seed mix. Please rectify.
Response: Plans have been updated and corrected.
Comment Number: 5
12/19/2022: FOR APPROVAL: If any changes have been made to the
Pollinator Master Plan from Phase G, please update on Phase E.
Response: Plans have been updated and corrected.
Comment Number: 6
12/19/2022: FOR APPROVAL: Only two seed mixes are specified - the rain
garden mix and Type 1 (PBSI Low Grow Mix). Type 1 is half non -native and will
not be approved to be used so broadly. Pawnee Buttes has native low grow
mixes. Additionally, Type 1 relies heavily on species that produces via seed (the
fescues), which will make maintenance critical as to whether those species
spread on their own or not.
Response: Based on the design changes made to the storm drainage system there are no
rain gardens planned for Phase E. Seed mixes have been revised to reflect this.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Carrie Tomlinson, ctomlinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
01/03/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED:
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Please include and label locations of utilities on the landscape plan including
but not limited to water service/mains, sewer service/mains, gas, electric,
streetlights, and stop signs. Please also adjust tree locations to provide for
proper tree/utility separation, see recent redlines from Forestry for additional
information. Not all possible conflicts are assumed to be redlined, please use
the redlines as examples for the full plan set.
Street Light/Tree Separation:
Canopy shade tree: 40 feet
Ornamental tree: 15 feet
Stop Sign/Tree Separation:
Based on feedback from Traffic Operations, it is preferred that trees be planted
at least 50 feet from the nearest stop sign in order to minimize conflicts with
regulatory traffic signs.
Driveway/Tree Separation:
At least 8 feet from edges of driveways and alleys.
Utility/Tree Separation:
10’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines
6’ between trees and water or sewer service lines
4’ between trees and gas lines
10’ between trees and electric vaults
19
Response: Plans have been updated.
Comment Number: 2
01/03/2023:FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UNRESOLVED:
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
It is understood that this plan set is still in its early stages, when appropriate to
your process, please label tree species with their species abbreviation and
update the plant list accordingly. Please include species diversity percentages
for review. Also please limit the use of all maple to areas where irrigation water
will be lower salt levels. Also please consider reducing the number of ohio
buckeye due to salt effects on foliage.
Standard LUC standard for Tree Species Diversity states that in order to
prevent insect or disease susceptibility and eventual uniform senescence on a
development site or in the adjacent area or the district, species diversity is
required and extensive monocultures are prohibited. The following minimum
requirements shall apply to any development plan:
Number of trees on site Maximum percentage of any one species
10-19 50%
20-39 33%
40-59 25%
60 or more 15%
The City of Fort Collins’ urban forest has reached the maximum percentage of
the following species. Ash (Fraxinus), Honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthose:
‘Shademaster’, ‘Skyline’, etc), Bur Oak (Quercus macrocarpa), and Chanticleer
Pear (Pyrus calleryana).
Please note that additional species might join this list as we work through the
review process.
Response: Plans have been updated.
Comment Number: 3
01/03/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL- UNRESOLVED:
09/13/2022: INFORMATION ONLY
Per Land Use Code 3.2.1.(D)(c), canopy shade trees shall constitute at least 50
percent of all tree plantings.
Response: Plans have been updated.
Comment Number: 4
01/03/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL UNRESOLVED:
09/13/2022: INFORMATION ONLY
Please adhere to the parkway widths of 6.5 feet as per the narrative in the PUD.
Some parkways are fairly narrow on this plan set. Please double check to make
sure that you are making the parkways wide enough to ensure long term viab ility
for rooting area of the canopy trees.
Response: We have provided parkway widths that comply with the street cross-sections
20
approved with the PUD Master Plan for commercial local streets without bike lanes. We
plan to use species with growth patterns best adapted to these urban conditions but would
appreciate your expertise on appropriate tree species.
Comment Number: 5
01/03/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL UNRESOLVED:
09/13/2022: INFORMATION ONLY
Due to the lack of room for canopy trees on parcel areas, please take
advantage of your open areas to provide as many canopy trees as possible on
your plan set to help provide as much canopy cover and tree benefits as
possible including cooling, water retention and infiltration, character, wind
mitigation, and all the benefits of an urban tree canopy to your residential areas.
Response: We appreciate this comment and have revised the plans to address this where
possible.
Comment Number: 6
01/03/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL UNRESOLVED:
9/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Please mark all mitigation trees on your plan set when appropriate to your
design process.
Response: Plans have been revised to indicate the required mitigation trees.
Comment Number: 7
01/03/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL UNRESOLVED:
09/13/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Please provide a landscape plan that includes the following City of Fort Collins
notes:
General Landscape Notes
Tree Protection Notes
Street Tree Permit Note, when applicable.
These notes are available from the City Planner or by following the link below
and clicking on Standard Plan Set Notes:
https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/applications.php
Required tree sizes and method of transplant:
Canopy Shade Tree: 2.0” caliper balled and burlapped
Evergreen tree: 6.0’ height balled and burlapped
Ornamental tree: 1.5” caliper balled and burlapped
Required mitigation tree sizes:
Canopy Shade Tree: 2.0” caliper balled and burlapped
Evergreen tree: 8.0’ height balled and burlapped
Ornamental tree: 2.0” caliper balled and burlapped
Response: Plans have been updated.
Comment Number: 8
01/03/2023: FOR INFORMATION:
Please widen the parkway widths in locations where they are under 6 feet to at
least 6 feet for the health of the trees and also consider widening to 8 feet to
21
provide healthy tree canopy for this neighborhood areas. Lower amounts of
rooting volume w ill restrict the health and eventual size of mature canopy trees.
Response: We have provided parkway widths that comply with the street cross-sections
approved with the PUD Master Plan for commercial local streets without bike lanes. We
plan to use species with growth patterns best adapted to these urban conditions but would
appreciate your expertise on appropriate tree species.
Comment Number: 9
01/03/2023: FOR INFORMATION: Please do not put pavers adjacent to trees
in the ROW. The pavers eventually sink causing roots to surface and trip
hazards to develop.
Response: We have reduced the areas of pavers near trees significantly. The one key
exception is in Montava Avenue which is designed as a ‘convertible street’ similar to the
200 block of Linden Street. The pavers in this area will be constructed to accommodate
vehicles so will have a more robust section than would have been used in sidew alk areas.
Department: Park Planning
Contact: Missy Nelson, mnelson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
01/03/2023: INFORMATION - UPDATED: The Park Planning & Development
and Parks departments are available to discuss the following comments.
Please contact Missy Nelson.
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: The Park Planning & Development (PPD)
Department is available to discuss these comments in more detail. Please
contact PPD staff at 970.416.2192, parkplanning@fcgov.com.
Comment Number: 4
01/03/2023: The trail exhibit provided for this phase was from the previous
phase (G). Please update this phase with the same additional content provided
at the round 4 comments and redlines from Phase G.
Also, as noted in round 4 comments of Phase G: The trail section needs to also
plan for the separated gravel path adjacent to the pave d trail.
Response: Please review the new Phase E Trails Exhibit. Locations for the separated gravel
path have been identified where warranted - the regional trail is paired with a paved walk for
the majority of its length adjacent to Phase E and other trails exclusively pass through more
heavily developed areas.
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: City of Fort Collins Ordinance Number 014, 2020
approved the Montava PUD Master Plan and Montava PUD Overlay. This
document shall provide guidance on the general improvements for both parks
and trails located within the planned Montava development unless otherwise.
Comment Number: 6
01/03/2023: 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 crossi ng? We will need to
22
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 Inspi red 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 componen ts
incorporated in this system.
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: Grade separated crossings of arterial roadways
and major collectors are required (LCUASS Chapter 17.3) and provide safe
trail connectivity. Additional easement area for underpass/overpass
approaches may be required in locations of potential grade separated
crossings for the trail. Location and responsibilities of the grade separations
have been preliminarily defined in the Montava PUD Master Plan.
Comment Number: 8
01/03/2023: UDATED - FOR APPROVAL: Thank you. Please add this
information to the trail exhibit also. We are also working on updating a sheet to
add to your drawing sets with regional trail details.
Response: There are no new arterial roadways or major collectors proposed in this filing,
therefore no new grade separated crossings are required (trail underpass at Mountain Vista
per the Phase G filing has been called out in th e updated exhibit for coordination purposes).
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: The regional trail shall be a CDOT Class B
concrete mix. Color of the regional trail shall be Davis Color Yosemite Brown.
The trail thickness shall be 5” if fibermesh is inclu ded in the mix (fibermesh
additive as recommended by manufacturer) or 6” thick. Joints shall be sawcut.
The surface finish for the trail shall be a heavy broom finish. The subgrade shall
be reconditioned to 12 inches. Walks and other multi -use paths that are not
part of the regional trail shall not be colored. PPD staff shall approve the final
concrete mix design for the trail.
Comment Number: 9
01/03/2023: UPDATED - FOR APPROVAL: The regional trail is crossing at the
roundabout in this Phase E. There are still concerns about the general safety
for bicycles and pedestrians with the regional trail adjoining the right -of -way. As
in the round 4 comment from Phase G: 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 w ay and safety concerns.
Provide an option B that includes the grade-separated crossing in case of
failure.
Response: The Dutch Inspired Pedestrian Roundabout near the irrigation pond was
designed in collaboration with our Dutch consultant at Mobyc on 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.
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: Thank you for your continued coordination to
23
accommodate the regional trail as it crosses local streets with the Phase G
submittal. Although it doesn’t appear that the regional trail intersects with local
streets as part of Phase E, please plan to include PPD staff in these
discussions if they occur.
Comment Number: 10
01/03/2023: FOR APPROVAL: The plans are still showing as disconnected
south of the Phase E roundabout. Please revise.
Response: This has been corrected.
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: Understanding continuity challenges as sections
of the regional trail are being shown in both Phases G and E, please ensure the
horizontal and vertical trail alignments match.
Comment Number: 12
01/03/2023: FOR APPROVAL: The regional trail needs to be clearly defined so
that the multimodal travelers can quickly and easily follow the regional trail while
navigating the roundabout. Only the regional trail shall be the Yosemite Brown
concrete mix and this needs to be shown on the plans. No spurs or other
connections to the regional trail should be this color.
Response: Yosemite Brown will be used exclusively for the regional trail.
09/13/2022: FOR HEARING: Thank you for the coordination regarding the
proposed roundabout at Timberline and Country Club Road. Please plan to
have discussions with PPD, Parks, and Traffic staff to more clearly
designate/delineate the regional trail as it navigates the roundabout.
Comment Number: 16
01/03/2023: FOR APPROVAL: The trail exhibit provided for this phase was
from the previous phase (G). Please update this phase with the same additional
content provided at the round 4 comments and redlines from Phase G.
Response: Please review the new Phase E Trails Exhibit which incorporates guidance from
the Phase G comments.
09/13/2022: FOR HEARING: Thank you for your commitment to the regional
trail within the Montava Development. Can you develop and provide a high -level
exhibit that demonstrates the interactions between the regional trail, the
Community Park, proposed roundabouts (Mountain Vista/Timberline, Mountain
Vista/Turnberry, Country Club/Timberline), and other multimodal improvements?
The City would like to use this exhibit to further discuss connectivity for the
Montava Development understanding the Applicant’s and City’s goals for a safe
and connected multimodal network for this development. I believe this exhibit
was developed for Phase G, and I would like to include it with Phase E as well.
PPD Staff is willing to develop this exhi bit collaboratively with the Montava
team.
Comment Number: 17
01/03/2023: FOR APPROVAL: The property lines on the site plans are not very
clearly defined in order to see which section of the regional trail falls on private
property (and would then require a public access and trail easement) versus
right-of -way. Please help provide clarity.
Response: Plans have been updated and easements added.
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: The Public Access and Trail easement width is
typically 50’ unless additional space is necessary to accommodate grade
separations or approved otherwise. The location of the easement must be
24
approved by Park Planning & Devel opment and shown on the plat.
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.
Comment Number: 20
01/03/2023: Overlapping phases G & E – NE corner of Mountain Vista and
Timberline – trail and underpass are part of phase G, but landscaping is part of
phase E. Can you please move the landscaping to Phase G so that it can be
reviewed together? The grading, etc. will affect the plantings. If only underpass
is being built with Phase G and the trail north of it will be Phase E, then please
clarify.
Response: Only the underpass is being constructed at this time (with the intersection
improvements). Trail north of underpass to Timberline and associated landscape will be
provided with future development of this area – Phase H.
Trail main issues to work through:
- Regional trail requires flat 3’ on each side, see Trail Master Plan for details.
- Regional trail requires separated gravel trail,
- Swale? Trail highpoint, edges grade down, then swale before goes up to
slope – whatever needed to facilitate making sure water is not draining onto trail
for safety purposes.
- Need to understand grading and adjacent planting.
*Either a modification of standards request or alternative compliance request
will need to be reviewed if the full build-out of the trail as defined in the Trail
Master Plan cannot be built.
25
Talk to PP&D to discuss in more detail please!
Response: Separate trail plan sheets have been provided in the Roadway and Infrastructure
Plans set associated with Phase G.
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: Grading within the designated trail easement is
required to occur during overall site grading. The City’s Park Planning and
Development and Parks teams are interested in participating in discussions
related to the timing of construction of the regional trail.
Comment Number: 21
01/03/2023: Please add this note to site, landscape and utility plans.
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: The City is responsible for the long -term
maintenance of the regional trail within the development. Maintenance consists
of snowplowing of the paved surface, occasional seasonal mowing 2 -3’
adjacent to the trail surface, repairing/replacing surface damage of the trail, and
all other landscaping maintenance within the easement.
Response: Note has been added to Site, Landscape and Utility Plans.
Comment Number: 23
01/03/2023: Please add this note to site, landscape and utility plans.
09/13/2022: INFORMATION: Landscaping within the trail easement shall be
provided in accordance with all applicable City codes and will remain the
responsibility of the underlying landowner. Landscaping must provide
acceptable clearances from the trail surfaces as specified in the Trail Master
Plan. Spray irrigation, if required, shall be designed and maintained to avoid
over spraying onto the trail.
Response: Note has been added to Site, Landscape and Utility Plans.
Comment Number: 24
01/03/2023: Streetscapes (medians and parkways):
- Please provide exhibit highlighting the areas that Parks will be maintaining
- Including parkways adjacent to future Park land (note this will be maintained by
Parks in the future when the park is developed.
- Dual zone irrigation (drip for trees as well as spray system) for all parkways
that parks will maintain, including parkways adjacent to future park.
- Separate tap required for all areas that Parks will maintain.
- Follow streetscape standards
https://www.fcgov.com/planning/pdf/streetscape-doc.pdf?
- Please provide a separate page/s in the landscape plans for just the Parks
maintained landscape areas providing a separate Plant Schedule.
Response: While we did not include a color exhibit, we have added notes to clarify that 1) all
landscape in the Phase E 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 concurrent with Phase G for the City’s approval.
Comment Number: 25
01/03/2023: FOR INFORMATION:
Proposed classification of Timberline – if downgraded to collector, Parks will
not maintain the medians or parkways. This should be reflected on Parks
maintenance exhibit.
26
Response: Agreed. The city-maintained medians are indicated in the standalone landscape
package in the ‘Roadway and Infrastructure’ construction plans concurrent with Phase G
and include only the Arterial Road medians and roundabout.
Comment Number: 27
01/06/2023: Thank you for confirming via email that Tract BB is planned for the
future Recreation Center site. Please refer to the ReCreate Master Plan (
https://www.fcgov.com/parksandrecplan/files/fort -collins -parks -and-recreation-m
aster-plan-spreads -web.pdf?1627053367 , pgs 144-146). It references
community and neighborhood recreati on centers. The northeast is referenced
under neighborhood centers with the ability to expand into a community center.
In the master plan neighborhood centers are 15K -45K square feet. Community
Centers are 45K-75K square feet. Example, if the community is planned to be
30,000 people, the facility would ideally be in that 45,000 square feet or larger
range, include indoor aquatics, and the required onsite parking. Please include
the Recreation Director LeAnn Williams, lewilliams@fcgov.com, as well as Park
Planning early on as this site develops and evolves.
Response: We look forward to working with you.
Department: PFA
Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2869, marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
12/29/2022: UPDATED FOR APPROVAL
There is still some areas in the alley that are dedicated but only a portion is
driving surface. All areas of EAE shall be drivable.
Response: This has been corrected.
08/29/20222: FOR APPROVAL
FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS
It is unclear what areas are to be used as access. The plat designates tracts as
EA but these tracts also include green space and other landscape areas. I'm
assuming all alleys are to be used as fire lanes. Please provide clarification on
what is to be used as fire apparatus access.
Comment Number: 2
12/29/2022: UPDATED FOR APPROVAL
The apparatus dimensions shown on the roundabout are not correct. Please
correct the dimensions and resubmit making sure there is no wheel or vehicle
overhang on or near the curbs.
The Tower turning exhibits are very tight in most all corners and do not leave
much room for error. Some areas show overhang into parking areas. This
apparatus will be on all fire calls and is required to be able to navigate easily on
all public streets. In order to approve this, you can either meet code as written
or more space will be needed to provide adequate access.
The Engine turning exhibit for the alleys shows overhang into parking areas at
entrances to alleys. Areas within the alleys seem to provide adequate
clearance other than the area behind the 3 story townhomes on Country Club
Rd. No turning exhibit i s shown here but it is dedicated as EAE.
Also if the alleys surrounding the 3 story is required to provide aerial access,
27
you will need to provide Tower turning exhibits in these areas.
Response: Apparatus has been updated from the roundabout turn ing exhibit. Parking will
not be allowed in areas that there is overhang into parking zones. Area with townhomes off
County Club have been redesigned. Townhomes will have eaves lower than 30’ so tower
truck exhibits not required.
08/29/2022: FOR APPROV AL
FIRE LANE TURNING RADIUS
Most corners on the site do not meet the required inside and outside turning
radius. In order to approve this design, you will need to submit a turning exhibit
showing no body or wheel overhang. Overhang will include curbs, landscaping,
parking areas and anything that can be considered an obstruction. Turning
exhibit shall show all areas of site and include turns both ways if angle of
approach is different. Areas of concern include all roundabouts, median
divided streets at roundabout, alley entrance, all alley corners and parking near
any intersection/entrance.
- IFC 503.2.4 and Local Amendments: The required turning radius of a fire
apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet
outside.
Comment Number: 3
12/29/2022: UPDATED FOR APPROVAL
If the eave heights are below 30 feet, please show on the elevation plans.
Response: Elevation drawings are conceptual and only meant to communicate the
intended architectural character. Notes have been added to the relevant sheets to clarify
any questions regarding eave/parapet height.
08/29/2022: FOR APPROVAL
AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS AC CESS ROADS
If the 3 story buildings are over 30' in height, additional fire lane requirements
will apply in order to accommodate the logistical needs of aerial apparatus
(ladder trucks). The intent of the code is to provide for rescue operations and
roof access via ladder trucks when ground ladders cannot reach upper floors.
Aerial access should therefore be available on at least one entire long side of
the building, located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from
the building. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum
unobstructed width of 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of
the building or portion thereof. Dead end access roads shall have a minimum
width of 30 ft. Parapet heights greater than 4' in height do not support ladder
truck operations.
Comment Number: 5
01/06/2023: FOR FINAL - UNRESOLVED:
Response: Main egress door locations are not known, but we have highlighted walkway
locations to the front side of buildings on the hydrant exhibit.
09/09/2022: FOR FINAL: ACCESS TO BUILDING OPENINGS
An approved access walkway leading from fire apparatus access roads to the
main egress door of the building shall be provided on this site. The walkway
shall be capable of providing access for emergency personnel and equipment.
Please provide details on site plan for the access walkway.
Comment Number: 6
01/06/2023: FOR FINAL - UNRESOLVED:
28
Response: We will work with PFA on the final addressing and wayfinding during the
individual building permit process.
09/09/2022: FOR FINAL PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: ADDRESS POSTING &
WAYFINDING
Where possible, the naming of private drives is usually recommended to aid in
wayfinding. New and existing buildings shall be provided with approved
address identification. The address identification shall be legible and placed in
a position that is visible from the street or road fronting the property. Address
identification characters shall contrast with their background. Address numbers
shall be arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall not be spelled
out. The address numerals for any commercial or industrial buildings shall be
placed at a height to be clearly visible from the street. They shall be a minimum
of 8 inches in height unless distance from the street or other factors dictate
larger numbers. Refer to Table 505.1.3 of the 2021 IFC as amended. The
address numbers for one- and two-family dwellings shall be a minimum of 4” in
height with a minimum ½” stroke and shal l be posted on a contrasting
background. If bronze or brass numerals are used, they shall only be posted on
a black background for visibility. Monument signs may be used in lieu of
address numerals on the building as approved by the fire code officia l.
Buildings, either individually or part of a multi - building complex, that have
emergency access lanes on sides other than on the addressed street side, shall
have the address numbers and street name on each side that fronts the fire
lane.
Comment Number: 7
12/29/2022:UPDATED FOR FINAL
Some of the hydrants within alleys are are located along a 25 foot wide fire lane
or in areas that have 28 foot wide EAE but 25 foot width of driving surface. The
requirement is 26 feet in width.
An overall hydrant plan was not provided. Please provide on the next submittal.
Response: This is provided with this submittal.
09/09/2022: FOR FINAL
WATER SUPPLY
Please provide overall hydrant plan.
Hydrant spacing and flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of
occupancy. A fire hydrant capable of providing 1000 gpm at 20 psi residual
pressure is required within 400 feet of any single family residential building as
measured along an approved path of vehicle travel. For the purposes of this
code, hydrants on the opposite side of arterial roadways are not considered
accessible to the site.
Also, it appears many hydrants are proposed on the 20 ft alleys. Access roads
with a hydrant are required to be 26 feet in width.
Comment Number: 8
01/06/2023: FOR FINAL - UNRESOLVED:
Response: Fire lane signage has been added to signing and striping plan.
09/09/2022: FIRE LANE SIGNS
The limits of the fire lane shall be fully defined. Fire lane sign locations should be
29
indicated on future plan sets. Refer to LCUASS detail #1418 & #1419 for sign
type, placement, and spacing. Appropriate directional arrows required on all
signs. Posting of additional fire lane signage may be determined at time of fire
inspection. Code language provided below.
- IFC D103.6: Where required by the fire code offici al, fire apparatus access
roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING - FIRE LANE signs
complying with Figure D103.6. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12
inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective
background. Signs shall be posted on one or both sides of the fire apparatus
road as required by Section D103.6.1 or D103.6.2.
- IFC D103.6.1; ROADS 20 TO 26 FEET IN WIDTH: Fire lane signs as
specified in Section D103.6 shall be posted on both sides of fire app aratus
access roads that are 20 to 26 feet wide.
- IFC D103.6.1; ROADS MORE THAN 26 FEET IN WIDTH: Fire lane signs as
specified in Section D103.6 shall be posted on one side of fire apparatus
access roads more than 26 feet wide and less than 32 fee t wide.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5
01/03/2023: INFORMATION ONLY:
A complete review of all plans will be done when the plans get to 100% final
submittal.
09/12/2022: INFORMATION ONLY:
A complete review of all plans will be done when the plans get closer to 100%.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1
01/03/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The outer boundary does not match Montava Phase G’s boundary for Tract DD.
It’s critical that these boundaries match exactly – we will not be able to review
the Phase E plat until this is rectified. Both Martin & Martin and Washburn need
to be using the exact same line work.
Response: This has been corrected.
09/12/2022: INFORMATION ONLY:
Based on City staff conversations - We will not be reviewing the Plat until it
reflects the boundary of the Phase G Plat submitted on August 26th.
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: AJ Ramsey, Wilson & Company, Inc, andrew.ramsey@wilsonco.com,
816.701.3137, ,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4
09/12/2022: I am with a consulting firm assisting BNSF with the review of the
Montava project. We have taken a cursory review of the drainage report
provided as part of the Phase E package and would like to request the following
data to better facilitate our review. Please let me know if you have any questions
30
or an estimated timeframe to when this data can be provided.
1 - It appears that the Phase E Drainage Report references detention ponds by
others and a master drainage study. Please provide the master drainage study
which and pre/post -development runoff/detention calculations.
2 - Any relevant information for that would provide detail o n the phasing of this
project and how it may impact temporary stormwater runoff.
3 - The model (we assume EPA SWMM) might be helpful to aid our review.
Response: The master drainage study has been provided to the BNSF review consultant. It
should be noted that the interim drainage approach associated with the Phase E
improvements i s to reduce stormwater discharges at or below existing rates. Martin/Martin
will provide the master plan and interim conditions SWMM modelling to Wilson.
Contact: Autumn Penfold, Larimer & Weld Irrigation Co., apenfold@eatonditch.com,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 10
01/05/2023: Please see attached letter from Larimer & Weld Irrigation Co.
Response: The Ditch plans and agreements are in ongoing
negotiations. Our goal is to have them executed in Q3 2023.
Contact: Heidi Jenson, Boxelder Sanitation District, heidij@boxeldersanitation.com,
970.498.0604, ,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 7
09/13/2022: Please see these comments in a separate document included
with the redlines (Boxelder - Design review No. 1 9-09-22.pdf).
Response: Comments noted above were addressed separately in our last submittal .
Boxelder has not provided further comments.
Contact: Megan Harrity, Larimer County Office of the Assesso r,
mharrity@larimer.org, 970.498.7065, ,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 8
09/13/2022: Please correct the label for Lot 46 in Block 1. the lot is labeled as
90. It should be labeled 46. Thank you.
Response: Corrected.
Contact: Rafer Nichols, BNSF Railways - Manager Public Projects, 817.471.6614,
Rafer.Nichols@BNSF.com,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
08/30/2022: BNSF needs to do an overall drainage plan review of the total
Montava development to ensure our existing structures have the capacity to
handle this flow across our ROW. Please contact Rafer Nichols with BNSF
31
regarding the review and copy City Stormwater Staff (Wes Lamarque,
wlamarque@fcgov.com) as they will need to be consulted during the review as
well.
Redlines included (BNSF Drainage Markups_AJR.pdf). I want to make sure we
are covered form a hydrologic perspective.
Response: The Phase E drainage infrastructure report, prepared by Martin/Martin, Inc., has
been provided to BNSF, which documents the design of the Phase E regional detention
facilities and shows that existing conditions discharges are being met.
Contact: Randy Siddens, East Larimer County Water District,
randys@elcowater.org, 970.493.2044, ,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 6
09/12/2022: Please see these comments in a separate document included
with the redlines (Utility Plans -ELCO Notes.pdf).
Response: These comments were addressed separately in the last round.
Contact: Ryan Donovan, Larimer and Weld Ditch Company, ryan@lcwaterlaw.com,
970.622.8181, ,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 9
09/13/2022: Please see these comments in a separate document included
with the redlines (Larimer and Weld Ditch Co_220912.pdf).
Response: The Ditch plans and agreements are in ongoing
negotiations. Our goal is to have them executed in Q3 2023.
Contact: Sarah Brucker, Colorado Division of Water Resources,
sarah.brucker@state.co.us,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5
12/20/2022: FOR APPROVAL:
The Division of Water Resources offers the following additional comments
regarding Round 2 of this referral:
In response to comments from the Park Planning & Development Department,
the applicant has indicated that the trail underpass is being design ed with a
"wet well" pumping system to discharge stormwater and groundwater. A
dewatering system water well permit will be required to be obtained for this
system. A substitute water supply plan or plan for augmentation will not be
required if there is no beneficial use of the water other than incidental use
associated with normal discharge and the water is returned to the nearest
surface stream or to the aquifer with efforts to ensure minimal consumption.
Response: The contractor will obtain a dewatering permit. There is no beneficial use for
pumped groundwater at the underpass. The wet well will discharge to the No. 8, so it is
being returned to the receiving drainageway, therefore a substitute water supply plan or
plan for augmentation will not be required.
32
09/12/2022: Please see attached redline (CDWR - Montava Phase E Rd1.pdf)
for comments from the Colorado Division of Water Resources.
Department: Building Services
Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 1
09/12/2022: FOR BUILDING PERMIT: A permit is required for this project and
construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended. Current adopted
codes are:
· 2021 International Residential Code (IRC) with local amendments
· Colorado Plumbing Code (currently 2018 IPC) with local amendments
· 2020 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado
· Copies of current City of Fort Collins code amendm ents can be found at
fcgov.com/building.
· Please read the residential permit application submittal checklist for complete
requirements.
· Snow Live Load: Ground Snow Load 35 PSF.
· Frost Depth: 30 inches.
· Wind Loads: Risk Category II (most structures):
· 140mph (Ultimate) exposure B or Front Range Gust Map published by The
Structural Engineer's Association of Colorado
· Seismic Design: Category B.
· Climate Zone: Zone 5
· Energy Code: 2021 IECC residential chapter
INFORMATION AL ITEMS:
· 5ft setback required from property line or provide fire rated walls & openings
for non-fire sprinkled houses per chap 3 of the IRC. 3ft setback is required for
fire sprinkled houses.
· Fire separation of 10ft between dwellings is required.
· Bedroom egress windows (emergency escape openings) required in all
bedrooms.
· For buildings using electric heat, heat pump equipment is required.
· A passing building air tightness (blower door) test is required for certificate of
occupancy.
· For projects located in Metro Districts, there are special additional code
requirements for new buildings. Please contact the plan review team to obtain
the requirements for each district.
Stock Plans:
When the same residential buildings wi ll be built at least three times, a stock
plan design or master plan can be submitted for a single review and then built
multiple times with site specific permits. More information can be found in our
33
Stock Plan Guide at fcgov.com/building/res -requirements.php.
Response: Thank you.
Comment Number: 2
09/12/2022: FOR BUILDING PERMIT: Townhome and duplex construction shall
comply with adopted codes as amended. Current adopted codes are:
2021 International Residential Code (IRC) with local amendments
2018 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado
2020 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado
Copies of current City of Fort Collins code amendments can be found at
fcgov.com/building.
Please read the residential permit application submittal checklist for complete
requirements.
· Snow Live Load: Ground Snow Load 35 PSF.
· Frost Depth: 30 inches.
· Wind Loads: Risk Category II (most structures):
· 140mph (Ultimate) exposure B or Front Range Gust Map published by The
Structural Engineer's Association of Colorado
· Seismic Design: Category B.
· Climate Zone: Zone 5
· Energy Code: 2021 IECC residential chapter.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
· For a fire-sprinkled building, 3ft setback required from property line or provide
fire rated walls & openings per chap 3 of the IRC.
· Bedroom egress windows (emergency escape openings) required in all
bedrooms.
· For buildings using electric heat, heat pump equipment is required.
· Attached single-family townhomes and duplexes are required to be fire
sprinkled per local amendment and must provide a P2904 system min and
provide fire rated wall per R302. This fire sprinkl er system usually requires a ¾”
or 1” water line and meter to meet all P2904 requirements.
· New homes must provide electric vehicle ready wiring if garages are attached,
see local amendment.
· Provide site-wide accessibility plan in accordance with CRS 9-5. This requires
accessible units per that state standard.
· For projects located in Metro Districts, there are special additional code
requirements for new buildings. Please contact the plan review team to obtain
the requirements for each dis trict.
Stock Plans:
When residential buildings will be built at least three times with limited
variations, a stock plan design or master plan can be submitted for a single
review and then built multiple times with site specific permits. More informa tion
can be found in our Stock Plan Guide at
fcgov.com/building/res -requirements.php.
Response: Thank you.