HomeMy WebLinkAboutMONTAVA - PHASE D CORE AND IRRIGATION POND - BDR240006 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - Responses (2)
Page 1 of 26
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 D and Irrigation Pond, BDR240006, Round Number 2
Responses to Staff Comments for Round Number 1
July 17, 2024
May 30, 2024
Montava Development & Construction LLC
430 N. College Ave, #410
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: Montava - Phase D Core and Irrigation Pond, BDR240006, Round Number 1
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing
agencies for your submittal of Montava - Phase D Core 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, Todd Sullivan or via email at tsullivan@fcgov.com.
No response is necessary for Staff comments in Grey.
Comment Summary:
Department: Development Review Coordinator
Contact: Todd Sullivan tsullivan@fcgov.com 970-221-6695
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
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
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
Page 2 of 26
document to insert responses to each comment for your submittal, using a different font color.
When replying to the comment letter please be detailed in your responses, as
all comments should be thoroughly addressed. Comments requiring action
should NOT have a response such as noted or acknowledged. You will need to
provide references to specific project plans, pages, reports, or explanations of
why comments have not been addressed [when applicable].
Comment Number: 3
SUBMITTAL:
Correct file naming is required as part of a complete submittal. Please follow
the Electronic Submittal Requirements and File Naming Standards found here:
https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/electronic-submittal-requiremen
ts-and-file-naming-standards_v1_8-1-19.pdf?1703783275
File names should have the corresponding number, followed by the file type
prefix, project information, and round number. For example: 1_SITE
PLAN_Project Name_FDP_Rd1. A list of numbers and prefixes for each file
can be found at the link above.
Comment Number: 4
SUBMITTAL:
All plans should be saved as optimized/flattened PDFs to reduce file size and remove layers.
Per the Electronic Submittal Requirements AutoCAD SHX attributes need to be
removed from the PDF’s.
AutoCAD turns drawing text into comments that appear in the PDF plan set,
and these must be removed prior to submittal as they can cause issues with the PDF file.
The default setting is "1" ("on") in AutoCAD. To change the setting and remove
this feature, type "EPDFSHX" (version 2016.1) or “PDFSHX (version 2017 and
newer) in the command line and enter "0".
Read this article at Autodesk.com for more on this topic:
https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad/troubleshooting/caas/sfdcarti
cles/sfdcarticles/Drawing-text-appears-as-Comments-in-a-PDF-created-by-Aut oCAD.html
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 preparing to resubmit your
plans, please notify me with an expected submittal date 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 RECORDING - PLAT:
Could you please update the City signature blocks on the plat? Instead of using
"this _______ day of ______A.D., 20____," could you opt for "on this day,
_____________" for the date? This alternative format facilitates smoother date
input with digital signatures.
Page 3 of 26
Additionally, kindly ensure there is sufficient space between the signature line
and the title line to accommodate the digital signature.
Response: Signature blocks gave been updated to reflect the new date format and additional space
has been provided to accommodate digital signatures.
Comment Number: 9
FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
All "For Final Approval / For Approval" comments need to be addressed and
resolved prior to moving forward with the final documents and recording of this
project. I will provide a recording checklist and process information when we are closer to this step.
Response: Thank you.
Comment Number: 10
FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The Director shall issue a written decision to approve, approve with conditions,
or deny the development application based on compliance with the standards
referenced in Step 8 of the Common Development Review Procedures (Section 2.2.8).
The written decision shall be mailed to the applicant, to any person who
provided comments during the comment period and to the abutting property
owners and shall also be posted on the City's website at www.fcgov.com.
Comment Number: 11
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.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Kim Meyer kimeyer@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
05/28/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: A Water Adequacy Determination is
pending an ongoing review of the submitted documents by Staff. Per LUC 5.17
(previously, Sec. 3.13), this Determination is required prior to final approval and
recording of any project that increases the demand for water. It appears there is
sufficient information provided for this review and Staff will reach out with any
questions or concerns that arise. The transitory nature of the current proposal
and water sources may result in a unique Determination, which may require
amendments in the future as final water sources and usage are further settled
among the various entities involved.
Response: Thank you; please contact us if additional information is needed.
Comment Number: 2
05/28/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please see redlines and comments
from Planning in the various plan sets (shown in purple) and reach out with any
questions on intent.
Response: Thank you.
Comment Number: 3
05/28/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Update narrative to include any changes
Page 4 of 26
that may occur due to this round of comments to ensure it remains relevant.
Response: An updated Narrative is provided with this resubmittal.
Comment Number: 4
05/28/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please provide clarity on the “future
development” on Lot 40. That lot will have homes facing it as well as 2 street
frontages, and any use & development there would need to appropriately
integrate into the overall plan and interface with the surrounding residential uses.
Response: Tract Z, Block 7, (formerly labeled Lot 40) is currently envisioned for future development
as a small commercial operation, perhaps a coffee shop. Great care will be taken in its design,
especially any proposed back-of-house spaces. Integration of the design and functionality with
surrounding uses will be coordinated at the time of development.
Comment Number: 5
05/28/2024: FOR INFORMATION: It would be incredibly helpful to future
reviewers and homeowners to have an exhibit, similar to Sheet S3 Housing, to
clarify the permitted/required yard types and any fencing permitted, including a
detail of fence design, materials, heights, etc. Also helpful to distinguish
between HOA/MD responsibility vs owner.
Response: Noted - the team will keep this in mind for when the designs are at a more developed
stage. Owners are responsible for maintenance within the property lines shown in the diagrams.
Since elements outside of the property lines are shown for context only, we will revisit the
“delegation of responsibility” diagrams at a later stage.
Comment Number: 6
05/28/2024: FOR INFORMATION: Consider opportunities for a comprehensive
wayfinding sign program for the overall project in addition to opportunities for interpretive signage.
Response: Noted, we will revisit at a later stage.
Comment Number: 7
05/28/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Provide dimensions and total areas as
a table on Sheet 6 of the site plan set that show how the civic spaces comply
with MUDDS. Some appear to be mislabeled or otherwise not in compliance as currently proposed.
Response: Dimensions and areas have been clarified with a table on Sheet 6, and the civic space
designations have been adjusted to comply with MUDDS.
Comment Number: 8
05/28/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Irrigation plans are required, per LUC
5.10.1(E)(3)(b)(1);
as well as a Hydrozone Table, per LUC 5.10.1(E)(3)(a)(1) [previously LUC
3.2.1(E)(3)(a)(1)]. Please identify which private lots may be irrigated with the
non-pot Metro District water.
Response: We believe that the requirement for irrigation plans does not apply because Montava’s
irrigation water will be provided by our non-potable irrigation system and not from City water,
nonetheless, as discussed with Kim Meyer, we will submit irrigation plans for common spaces in
Phase D Core, and incorporate the City’s water conservation standards therein, prior to the City’s
initial acceptance of the public improvements. The following draft language has been incorporated
into the Development Agreement for your approval:
Notwithstanding that the Non-Potable Irrigation System installed by the Developer will be the
source of irrigation water for the common spaces within the Development and that City water will
not be utilized, the Developer agrees to submit its irrigation plans for such common spaces to the
City for review by the Director prior to the City’s first acceptance of the public improvements for the
Page 5 of 26
Development. Developer further agrees that such irrigation plans shall incorporate the City of Fort
Collins Irrigation System Standards for Water Conservation.
The Hydrozone Table will be included in the irrigation plans.
Comment Number: 9
05/28/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please include species diversification
calculations and include minimum tree size specifications on the next submittal.
Response: Landscape plans with Round 2 now include plant labels, quantities, sizes, and species
diversification calculations.
Comment Number: 11
05/28/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please clarify if there are any
construction phasing boundaries, if anticipated.
Response: The project is planned to be completed in one phase.
Comment Number: 13
05/28/2024: FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: Ensure the Public Benefits
Agreement clauses are appropriately included in the DA, as well as proposing
associated and reasonable triggers to ensure completion prior to full build out,
including parks, open areas, and trails that are constructed along with
development of adjoining lots.
Response: Please see our initial draft of the Development Agreement provided with this
resubmittal.
Comment Number: 14
05/28/2024: FOR INFORMATION: Just a note that Jill Baty (jbaty@fcgov.com)
is one of our City Planners also assisting with the reviews for Montava. Please
feel free to reach out to either or both of us with questions - please also CC
Todd Sullivan on any correspondence.
Response: Thank you.
Comment Number: 12
05/28/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please include the landscaping and
architectural elevations related to the non-potable system within the larger plans.
We don't typically have a separate set of plans that include such elements - so
may be challenging to ensure everyone - from reviewers to inspectors - to locate that information.
Response: We have incorporated the pond area into the Site and Landscape Plans for Phase D
Core. For the Utility Plans, we prefer to continue to retain a separate set of plans for the
Non-Potable Pond Infrastructure Utility Plans since this is an infrastructure project that has
continued to be designed alongside Phases G, E, and now D. The plans will need to be approved
and constructed with the initial phase of development west of Giddings Road, which based on
current schedules will be Phase D. However, we request to not be required to reformat this set of
plans at this time if acceptable.
Comment Number: 10
05/29/2024: FOR INFORMATION: On Lighting Plans, Staff wants to note that
the PUD documents discuss moving towards Dark Skies type lighting and the
recent Land Use Code (LUC) update included more stringent lighting standards
we would strongly encourage that Montava incorporate. We now do not allow
any uplight rating above U2 anywhere in the LUC’s jurisdiction. Likewise, we do
not allow luminaries that give off any uplight (U0 limit) in any residential zone
districts in the LUC’s jurisdiction. This protects our night skies, our residents,
and our wildlife, including migrating birds. The lighting proposed here all has a
U2 or U4 rating. Staff strongly encourages reconsideration to replace the
Page 6 of 26
luminaires with those with uplight rating of U0 to protect the same. I imagine the
values that the LUC’s new standards are striving for are in line with what
Montava is also striving for.
Similarly, the LUC would not allow any glare rating above a G2 city-wide or a G1
in any residential area. Please consider replacing the G3 lights (the bollards,
EB1 and EP1) with luminaires with a lower glare rating. Removing glare helps
the users of the space keep their eyes adjusted to a more consistent level of
lighting throughout the space, improving the function and quality of the light.
Response: The design team has worked to choose appropriate lighting that meet the MUDDS
standards. The current decorative pole does have a U2 rating, but is IDA Dark Sky Compliant, so it
does meet dark sky requirements. The little bit of uplight is due to reflections from the bottom
surfaces. Likewise, the current chosen bollard has an uplight of U3, but we are specifying a dome
top to reduce any uplight. It will have a similar BUG rating as the pole, and the manufacturer is
working towards getting the bollard dark sky compliant in the coming month. A top cap is being
specified for the festoon lighting as well that should reduce the BUG rating to B0-U-G0. All fixtures
have a max G rating of G1 complying with the City standards for residential areas. Additionally, the
fixtures are being specially made to reduce lumen output to meet MUDDS standards.
Comment Number: 15
05/29/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The LUC 5.3.2(D) requires that homes
front a street; or they may front onto a walkway, if not more than 200’ from the
adjacent street’s sidewalk; or a “major walkway spine” (min width 35’, “with all
parts of such outdoor space directly visible from a public street.”) if not more
than 350’ from the street. Staff notes that Lots 14-53 along Passage B, in Tract
AA (Site Plan Sheet S17) front on a green space, but it is only 30’ wide, and not visible from a street.
Response: While many of the lots along pedestrian ways in the Phase D Core meet the intent of
LUC 3.5.2(D) for pedestrian connectivity, this LUC requirement does not apply to Montava because
it has been modified and replaced with the standards in MUDDS Chapter 5. Agreement with staff
on this point was achieved during the review of Phase G.
Department: Historic Preservation
Contact: Jim Bertolini jbertolini@fcgov.com 970-416-4250
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
05/20/2024: NO HISTORIC REVIEW REQUIRED: This proposal does not
require historic review because there are no designated historic resources, or
resources that are at least 50 years old and would require evaluation, on the
development site or within 200 feet of the development site.
Response: Thank you.
Comment Number: 2
05/20/2024: INFORMATION: Please note for pre-submittal for phases K, L,
and/or M, the historic survey is still needed for 2000 Giddings (east side of
road). Please contact Preservation staff to get that ordered as early as possible
to avoid any site planning concerns that may arise.
Response: Thank you. We will initiate this review prior to planning and design of those phases.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Tim Dinger tdinger@fcgov.com
Page 7 of 26
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
05/14/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
You must dedicate 15-foot utility easements adjacent to the Giddings Road
right-of-way (ROW). Phase D Core needs to be able to function on its own prior
to the approval of Phase D Infrastructure. Once the exact ROW dimensions and
layout are determined for Phase D Infrastructure, that project will replat and can
eliminate any unnecessary easements.
Response: A 15-foot utility easement has been dedicated along Giddings Road with this second
submittal. Giddings will be replatted and easements rededicated as part of the Infrastructure Set.
Comment Number: 2
05/14/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
Per the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan, Timberline Road is classified as
a 2-lane (minor) collector road (also known as a collector with on-street
parking). Per LCUASS Figure 7-5F, you are required to provide 9-foot utility
easement adjacent to the ROW.
Response: A 9-foot utility easement has been added with this second submittal, on both Timberline
and the other Minor Collector roadways.
Comment Number: 3
05/14/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
All easements shown on the plat that are dedicated by separate document must
have the recording numbers displayed on the final plat.
Response: Acknowledged, we will begin preparing easements by separate documents after the
second round of comments. These easements will be dedicated and recording numbers will be
added to the plat prior to recording.
Comment Number: 4
05/14/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
The setback lines and easement lines shown on the plans need to have different
linetypes. They look exactly the same in the current plans, but they need to be noticeably different.
Response: Setback linetype has been modified so that it is easily distinguishable from the
easement lines.
Comment Number: 5
05/14/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
Flowline profiles are required for all proposed public roads per the LCUASS
utility plan checklist (Items V.Q and V.R).
Response: Flowline profiles have been added to the plan & profile sheets.
Comment Number: 6
05/14/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
Per the responses to the PDR comments, you plan to restripe Giddings Road to
provide adequate bike lanes. Please show these bike lanes on the utility plan
striping sheets. Bike lanes are required to be on both sides of the road going
into and out of the development.
Response: Existing Giddings Road currently has 8-foot shoulders / bike lanes. We had originally
proposed to just restripe with the north bound left turn lanes and provide 6-foot bike lanes, but the
City has requested to maintain the 8-foot minimum. Therefore, we will be adding approximately 2’ to
each side of the existing roadway for this interim condition. These bike lanes will then be replaced
with the timing of the ultimate Giddings Road improvements. We have also updated the interim
entrances into Phase D to allow for bike access. Please refer to updated plans.
Page 8 of 26
Comment Number: 7
05/22/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
Per discussions with Brad Buckman, all collector- and arterial-level public
streets must have full LCUASS-complaint utility easements adjacent to the
right-of-way, meaning a 9-ft width UE for collectors and 15-ft width UE for
arterials. Please submit a variance request to provide alternative utility
easements widths for all local-level streets.
Response: City staff has indicated that standard 9-foot utility easements along collectors and
standard 15-foot utility easements along arterial roadways will be required per LCUASS, but
that a variance of the LCUASS requirements removing the utility easements on lesser street
classifications would be supported by staff as serving the New Urbanist principles that were
contemplated and approved with the PUD. All arterial and collector streets have been
updated to reflect the required utility easements per LCUASS. The variance request has also
been updated to reflect this change and is submitted to Engineering with this resubmittal for
official approval.
We plan to also request a Montava wide variance to eliminate the easements for the local streets for
the remaining phases of this development, but will submit that request at a later date, in an effort to
prevent the need to submit variance requests for each phase.
Comment Number: 8
05/24/2024: INFORMATION:
Transportation Capital Expansion Fund (TCEF) reimbursements will not be
disbursed to the developer until the roadway is fully constructed and accepted
by the City to meet LCUASS standards. Partial disbursements for partial
construction are not allowed.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 9
05/24/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
Please label all alleys as "PRIVATE ALLEY". We want the plans to be clear that
the City will not take any new alleys on for ownership or maintenance. None of
the alleys should be dedicated as public ROW.
Response: Per e-mail from Tim Dinger on June 26th, we have noted that the Metro District will be
responsible for ownership and maintenance of the alleys on the cover sheet of the Plat.
Comment Number: 10
05/28/2024: FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
For Montava Phase G, the developer's team were the ones to draft the
development agreement. We will allow the Montava team to start drafting the
Phase D Development agreement as well. Please collaborate with all of the
various departments on necessary language to be included as soon as
possible. I will send a base DA form to begin the draft from by Friday, 5/31/24.
Response: Thank you for providing the new base DA form. The Developer’s initial draft of the
development agreement, redlined to the new base form, is provided with this resubmittal. We look
forward to continuing discussions with Staff and the addition of final language acceptable to each
department.
Comment Number: 11
05/28/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
The roadway section variance has several references what need clarification.
On page 6 of the variance, it references a "PUD-approved engineering
variance section" for a 2-lane arterial street. I could not find where in the
Page 9 of 26
approved PUD documents this approved variance was located. Please provide
proof of the variance approval. The only variances that I can find to be approved
within the PUD were for Commercial Local, Residential Local, Connector local,
and local paired one-way streets. It seems like no collector or arterial street
variances were approved.
Response: It’s our understanding per the PDR submittal that the PUD roadway sections have not
been officially approved and that we would be required to submit variance request for each
roadway section. The PUD sections on the variance request were shown for reference only.
However, to eliminate the confusion all variance requests will now just show the proposed vs. the
LCUASS standard sections.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Steve Gilchrist sgilchrist@fcgov.com 970-224-6175
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
05/27/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
The Transportation Impact Study has been received and is being reviewed.
See subsequent comments.
Response: Thank you.
Comment Number: 2
05/27/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
The Transportation Impact Study trip distribution for Phase D Core details a
large portion of the trips utilizing the Phase G, E infrastructure along Timberline.
While is might be built prior to the Phase D Core project, this is not guaranteed.
In order to understand the impact from Phase D Core as a standalone phase of
overall development, additional analysis will be necessary and should evaluate
this as if Phase G and E don't move forward.
Response: An additional analysis was completed for the Phase D only development
program assuming that Phases G and E are not constructed prior to Phase D. Of note,
the only affected intersections are Mountain Vista Drive and Timberline Road, Mountain
Vista Drive and Giddings Road, and the two project accesses along Giddings Road in
the short-term horizon. The other surrounding intersections are not affected by Phase
G and E development since the recommendations are needed prior to adding any
phase of the Montava development. Please see the updated traffic study provided with
the resubmittal which includes the original analysis and now a separate analysis
without Phase G and E in the short-term horizon in Sec. 5.8.
Comment Number: 3
05/27/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
Within the TIS, the conclusions for Mountain Vista and Giddings intersection
detail that this intersection may approach capacity and excessive delays for the
southbound movement. How does the previous comment that adds trips to this
intersection affect the level of service if Timberline isn't utilized. The conclusion
also recommends a single lane roundabout in the short term, but will eventually
be a multi-lane roundabout in the long term. This will need further discussion.
Response: Understood, the Phase D only site analysis without using Phase G and
E infrastructure is now provided as an alternative analysis for the short-term
horizon. See Section 5.8. Under the alternative analysis, with the removal of Phase G
and E and the Timberline accesses in the short-term, this increases eastbound left
Page 10 of 26
turn movements and southbound right turn movements while reducing eastbound
and westbound through movements (removing Phase G and E traffic) at the
Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road intersection. With the southbound right
turn movements having lower vehicle delay than southbound left turn movements,
increasing the southbound right turn movements (and the decrease of eastbound
and westbound through movements) at this intersection decreases the southbound
approach delay due to this approach having a single shared movement lane.
The reference to the possibility of roundabout control in the short-term was only to
document that this intersection also works at a single lane roundabout. This is to
make the project team aware that they have the option to convert to roundabout
control initially in case they would like to avoid constructing an eastbound left turn
lane to then eventually possibly convert this intersection roundabout control in the
future.
Comment Number: 4
05/27/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
The Multi Modal Level of Service analysis for bikes and pedestrians provides
good detail for the long term proposed improvements that will come with the
buildout of Montava as a "walkable" community. With this Phase D Core, and
the limited access to any outside pedestrian destinations, this evaluation is
more about the long term improvements that will come. Within this Phase
though, we want to insure we are starting the foundation for a truly bike-able and
walkable community. Bike faciliities on and to Giddings will need to be included in the plans.
Response: Overall, there are ample pedestrian and bike connections to
the town center and also to the rest of Montava, whether to the north or
across Giddings. All of the major streets have extra protected bike
facilities and comfortable sidewalks. The main disruption to the ped/bike
circulation network is the future elementary school, which may provide
additional connections not yet drawn, but even if not, the streets along
its edges have dedicated ped/bike accommodations.
Please see the Bike Network exhibit is provided with this resubmittal.
Overall, to ensure that most of Montava’s streets are low volume, low
speed, and to provide frequent low stress routes by bike, the main
connections for bikes through Montava are through protected,
sidewalk-adjacent bike lanes, which interface with the regional trail,
supplemented by off-street car-free walkways and bikeways, and low
stress streets.
As for pedestrians, every street internal to Phase D has sidewalks on
both sides, shaded by street trees. Additionally, dedicated pedestrian
and bicycle paths are located throughout Phase D (green lines on the
bicycle plan map). Recreational walkways and bikeways at the irrigation
pond connect to the future regional trail and the future city park. All
intersections include curb extensions to reduce crossing time and the
ped/bike mid-block walkway connections also have curb extensions.
Comment Number: 5
05/27/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
Within the TIS. Please correct the street names for each intersection in the
diagrams. The intersection detailed number 12 should be Mountain Vista and
Page 11 of 26
I-25 SB Ramp. Intersection 16, please correct the East-West street name.
Response: The street names have been corrected in the diagrams (intersection #12) while street
names have also been provided in the cases that generic directions were previously provided as
the street name labels (intersection #16).
Comment Number: 6
05/27/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
Within the TIS, the recommendation for the northbound left turn lane at the I-25
Northbound Ramp and Mountain Vista will need to be coordinated with the
Colorado Department of Transportation. I would recommend contacting Tim
Bilobran, Region 4 Permits Manager at timothy.bilobran@state.co.us. Office
970-350-2163 to initiate this discussion.
Response: Understood, discussions with CDOT will be ongoing through the development of each
Phase. The project team has sent Tim Bilobran a version of the traffic study.
Comment Number: 7
05/27/2024: FOR APPROVAL: Safe Routes to School
Given the lack of design details for the proposed location of the future school, it
should be noted that the crossings adjacent to the proposed site could at some
point become school crossings versus pedestrian crossings. This could require
additional signage/marking. If an access point is considered for the school
along Flint Hill it would probably need to align with the Harwood intersection. A
conversation with Poudre School District should be considered before these plans are finalized.
Response: Acknowledged. Thank you.
Comment Number: 8
05/27/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
On collector roadways, striping is typically required to help identify these as
major roadways versus smaller local streets. Given the alternative design, we
would at least recommend a double yellow centerline. If bike lanes are
separated from the roadway, we would not recommend the parking line.
Response: A center line strip has been added to the collector roadways and called out on the
signage and striping plans.
Comment Number: 9
05/27/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
Signing and Pavement Marking redlines will be provided. We would like to
discuss the number of painted crosswalks shown on the plan.
Response: All crosswalk striping has been removed at this time. Pedestrian signs have been
added at all midblock ramps. All midblock ramps are planned to be raised per LCUASS standards.
As this development progresses the need for additional striping can be evaluated.
Comment Number: 10
05/27/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
Signing and Pavement Markings. We would like to maintain a minimum of 8
foot bike lanes on Giddings with these interim improvements given the speed
and rural nature of this roadway.
Response: The roadway has been expanded to accommodate the 8-foot wide bike lanes. The
signage and striping plans have been updated per the redlines provided on the Bluebeam markup
documents.
Comment Number: 11
05/27/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
Any sidewalk that ends temporarily will need to have Type III Barricades placed
Page 12 of 26
at end. Instead of Type III Barricades for the end of road markings the City also
prefers the use of OM4-3 Object Markers across the end of the road.
Response: Plans have been updated so that all dead-end walks have Type III Barricades called out.
All end of roadway locations have been replaced with the OM4-3 Object Markers.
Comment Number: 12
05/27/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
The continental crosswalk markings should all be to City Standards. 18 inch
wide bars, 12 feet long in length. We would also like to discuss the number of
marked crosswalks being utilized. We typically will only place a marked
crosswalk at higher volume, higher pedestrian areas.
Response: All crosswalk striping has been removed at this time. Pedestrian signs have been
added at all midblock ramps. All midblock ramps are planned to be raised per LCUASS standards.
As this development progresses the need for additional striping can be evaluated.
Comment Number: 13
05/27/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
No Outlet signs may be needed for streets that will temporarily dead end if they
extend over 100 feet, and the end of the road is not visible.
Response: No Outlet signs have been added to all roadways that dead-end and extend over 100’,
even if it’s easily visible, these signs can easily be removed and reused with future development.
Comment Number: 14
05/27/2024: FOR APPROVAL: Engineering Variance
The Engineering Variance for the Centerline Radius that contains two 45
degree angles will need further discussion. The Traffic Operations department
does not support the use of stop signs at these angles as this is not consistent
with the intended use of stops signs to assign right of way.
Response: We have removed the stop signs from both the plans and the variance request. We will
still be requesting a variance for the 45-degree angles.
Comment Number: 15
05/28/2024: FOR APPROVAL: Engineering Variance
The Engineering Variance for the Street Cross Sections recommends the
Giddings cross section utilize 6 foot bike lanes through the intersections. Traffic
recommends a minimum of 8 feet for bike lanes given the high speeds.
Response: The roadway has been expanded to accommodate the 8-foot-wide bike lanes. The
signage and striping plans have been updated per the redlines provided on the Bluebeam markup
documents.
Comment Number: 16
05/28/2024: INFORMATION:
The Utility Plans show the Connector Local street as having 8 foot angled
parking. I would assume this is just parallel parking, and the "angled" can be
removed?
Response: Correct, this note has been updated to reflect parallel parking.
Comment Number: 17
05/28/2024: INFORMATION:
Are the access points onto Giddings being constructed to accommodate future
roadway configurations such as roundabouts. We will need to discuss the
dropping of bike facilities as the roads approach Giddings.
Response: The entrances have been designed for the interim “Core Set” conditions only. For the
entrances we have added temporary on and off ramps for the cyclist. This can be removed once
Page 13 of 26
the ultimate bike facility along Giddings Road is constructed.
Comment Number: 18
05/28/2024: INFORMATION:
Trees should not be planted within 50 on the approach to a stop sign. We want
to make sure they are visible as motorists approach.
Response: Trees have been adjusted to meet this separation requirement.
Department: Erosion Control
Contact: Andrew Crecca acrecca@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1
05/27/2024: "Information Only:
This project is located within the City's MS4 boundaries and is subject to the
erosion control requirements located in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria
Manual (FCSCM), Chapter 2, Section 6.0. A copy of those requirements can be
found at www.fcgov.com/erosion .
This project was evaluated based upon the submittal requirements of FCSCM.
Based upon the provided materials we were able to determine a total disturbed area.
Based upon the area of disturbance or this project is part of a larger common
development, State permits for stormwater will be required should be pulled
before Construction Activities begin.
Comment Number: 2
05/27/2024: FOR FINAL:
Erosion control reports are required on all projects that are larger than 43,560
square feet or are part of a larger common development. SWMP's are
acceptable in lieu of an Erosion Control Reports but must contain all of the
mandatory Development Submittal Requirements called out in the Fort Collins
Stormwater Criteria Manual.
A copy of these requirements can be found at
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-f
orms-guidelines-regulations/erosion/
Please note that the redlines in this round of review may not cover all missing
items and it is recommended that subsequent submittals be thoroughly vetted
against the requirements of the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual Chapter 2 Section 6.
Response: The SWMP and Erosions Control Plans have been updated per the standards and
criteria listed above and should be ready for a more thorough review.
Comment Number: 3
05/27/2024: FOR FINAL:
Erosion Control Plans are missing numerous Mandatory Development
Submittal Requirements and is not ready for adequate review. We
acknowledge these plans are preliminary and are subject to change during
these early staged of review. A detailed Checklist of the Mandatory
Requirements can be found at the City of Fort Collins website under Erosion
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities//img/site_specific/uploads/erosion-control-submit
tal-checklist.pdf?1589408950
Page 14 of 26
Response: The SWMP and Erosions Control Plans have been updated per the standards and
criteria listed above and is ready for a complete review.
Comment Number: 4
05/27/2024: FOR FINAL:
Based upon the supplied materials, an Erosion Control Escrow Calculation will
need to be provided. Please submit an Erosion Control Escrow / Security
Calculation based upon the accepted Erosion Control Plans to meet City
Criteria (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.5) at time of Final Plan or Approval Submittal.
Response: This calculation will be provided as suggested once the Erosion Control Plans have
been approved.
Topic: Fees
Comment Number: 5
05/27/2024: "Information Only":
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.
Erosion Control and Stormwater Quality Feature Inspections will be assessed
closer to Final Plan for accuracy.
Response: Thank you.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque wlamarque@fcgov.com 970-416-2418
Topic: General
Comment Number: 6
05/29/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Per the drainage report, the drainage outfall is proposed to drain into the farm
field at the southeast corner of mountain vista Drive and Giddings Road. For
developed storm water flows, the City requires a defined and engineer
designed drainage outfall. This would include a channel, swale, or pipe to the
Larimer & Weld Ditch which meets City Criteria.
Response: Our proposed outfall for Phase D is situated at the southeast corner of Mountain Vista
and Giddings, over ½ mile northwest of the BNSF crossing and L&W Canal. Considering that our
design adheres to historical drainage patterns and significantly reduces runoff rates from a
100-year developed scenario to a 2-year historical scenario, it is evident that we impose no adverse
impact on the existing downstream infrastructure. Consequently, there should be no requirement
for us to make improvements to these systems. On the contrary, our development is likely to
enhance the existing drainage conditions, and we have fully met our obligations for the Phase D
development, by daylighting where we propose and following historic drainage patterns.
Comment Number: 7
05/29/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The drainage outfall section from west of the BNSF railroad and into the
Larimer & Weld Canal needs to be investigated further to determine what is
needed to be an acceptable outfall. The drainage design needs to show the
outfall is structurally sound, stable, non-erosive, and sized appropriately and be
Page 15 of 26
included in the drainage report.
Response: Please see attached / provided subsequent review / response letters related to the site
visit performed by the City staff.
Comment Number: 8
05/29/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
LID treatment areas Number 4 & 6 can not be located within the No.8 Diversion
Channel and the temporary channel to the south, respectively. Rain gardens
need to be designed outside of main conveyance paths and they must treat all
storm water that drains to it. Please revise.
Response: LID locations have been revised and moved into approved areas. Calculations, details
and sizing of each LID area is provided as part of this resubmittal. Per our meeting with Wes on
06-19-2024, because we are designing single family and townhome products with this development
we will be required to treat 50% of the area using LID methods, and the other 50% can be taken care
of in the pond.
Comment Number: 9
05/29/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The irrigation pond is proposed to treat drainage for water quality in addition to
quantity detention. Per previous comments and discussion regarding the
irrigation pond, all water quality mitigation needs to be treated before the
irrigation pond. Also, water quality flows need to be routed around the irrigation
pond and not through it. Drainage flows greater than the water quality storm can
be routed through the irrigation pond and be detained.
Response: Full infiltration underground detention has been designed to treat LID for the basins
draining to the irrigation pond. Because these will utilize full infiltration, routing of the water
quality around this pond will no longer be necessary. We have been working closely with our
Geotech to determine if the existing soil type would be sufficient to meet these requirements. If
not, we will import the necessary materials to create full infiltration requirements (1” per
hour). The larger storm events will be detained and routed though the irrigation pond.
Comment Number: 10
05/29/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please document all detention basins are 2 feet higher than the groundwater
elevation at that particular area.
Response: A sentence has been added to the drainage report documenting that the detention pond
sits 2’ above groundwater elevations at time of boring.
Comment Number: 11
05/29/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The City does not use MHFD criteria to design detention basins. Please use a
method that is consistent with City Criteria. SWMM should be used for all
detention basins due to the size of the development and the storm water basins.
Response: The drainage report and calculations have been updated using a SWMM Model, and the
appropriate City Criteria.
Comment Number: 12
05/29/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Documentation from the Montava Master Plan Drainage Report needs to be
included in the drainage report for Phase D to verify design parameters and detention volumes.
Response: All necessary references / documentation has been added to the appendices of the
Phase D report.
Page 16 of 26
Comment Number: 13
05/29/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
On the grading plan, the rain gardens need to be shown with detailed grading,
outlet works, underdrains, etc.
Response: All necessary details for the rain gardens including grading, outlet works, and
underdrains have been added to this submittal.
Comment Number: 14
05/29/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
All storm sewers need to be identified as public or private on the storm sewer profile sheets.
Response: Labels have been added to the P&P sheets identifying public vs. private storm sewers.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Tyler Siegmund tsiegmund@fcgov.com 970-416-2772
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
05/28/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
Revisions to the proposed electric routing is needed. Please send your CAD
files to Light and Power to complete an electrical design to feed the site. This
design will include vaults, streetlights, trasnformers, and primary electrical
routing through the site. Please incorporate the revised design into your next submittal.
Response: CAD file was sent to Tyler and Austin on June 03, 2024. The electric design received on
June 22, 2024 was incorporated into these plans. Thereafter, there were revisions made to the
overall lotting and site layout that differ from the concept routing provided by L&P on June 22, 2024
so we have updated the routing, meter, vault, and lighting placement to meet the overall intent of
the original design. We will need to continue to coordinate this layout with L&P; updated CAD files
are included with this resubmittal.
Comment Number: 2
05/28/2024: INFORMATION:
Light and Power infrastructure is to be placed in the parkway location along
public streets(between back of cub and sidewalk). If this area is to be
pavement, it is a Light and Power standard to flowfiill our trench under paved
surfaces. All flowfill needed for the electric install is tracked during construction
and billed back to the project after installation.
Response: Per conversation with Austin, for consistency we have placed the electric line 18”
behind the curb and within the parkway location along all public streets. We acknowledge the
need for flowfill in location under paved surfaces and have done our best to limit these locations.
Comment Number: 3
05/28/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
Multi family buildings and single family attached buildings are treated as
customer owned electric 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-forms-guidelines-regulations
Response: Acknowledged. These forms will be filled out at the appropriate times and left up to the
homebuilder when they pull permits.
Comment Number: 4
Page 17 of 26
05/28/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
Please show the proposed meter locations for all single family attached buildings.
This project will need to comply with our electric metering standards. Electric
meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and Power Engineering.
Residential units will need to be individually metered. For all attached units,
please gang the electric meters on one side of the building, opposite of the gas
meters. Reference Section 8 of our Electric Service Standards for electric
metering standards. A link has been provided here:
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStanda
rds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf
Response: Electric meters were added to the utility plans and placed per the June 22, 2024 CAD file
/ design provided by Tyler and Austin. Thereafter, there were revisions made to the overall lotting
and site layout that differ from the concept routing provided by L&P on June 22, 2024 so we have
updated the routing, meter, vault and lighting placement to meet the overall intent of the original
design. We will need to continue to coordinate this layout with L&P; updated CAD files are
included with this resubmittal. There is no gas proposed with this project.
Comment Number: 5
05/28/2024: INFORMATION:
Light and Power has existing facilities along the west side of Giddings. When
Giddings is improved/widened Light and Power will work with you on any
relocations necessary. All relocations of exisitng electric infrastructure will be a cost to the project.
Response: Per conversations with Austin, the need for these improvements will be dependent upon
load requirements for this development. For the Core Set, a 15’ utility easement will be dedicated
along Giddings, and we will work closely with your team to determine these needs with the
Infrastructure Set.
Comment Number: 6
05/28/2024: INFORMATION:
Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges and any system
modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this development.
Please contact me to discuss development fees or visit the following website for
an estimate of charges and fees related to this project:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investment-development-fees
Response: We will contact you to discuss fees at the appropriate time.
Comment Number: 7
05/28/2024: INFORMATION:
Light and Power is experiencing material shortages and long lead times on
certain materials and unfortunately this is an industry wide issue.
Light and Power typically has stock of our materials, including transformers, and
we work on a first come, first service basis with our inventory stock. We will
assess what we have available when this project gains City approval and
progresses to construction. Light and Power is working hard to secure
materials, transformers, and orders have been placed with our manufactures to replenish inventory.
Response: Thank you for the advance notice; please keep us apprised of the situation.
Comment Number: 8
05/28/2024: INFORMATION:
Page 18 of 26
Please contact Tyler Siegmund 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/electricservicestandards.pdf?1645038437
Reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee
estimator at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers.
Response: Thank you.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Scott Benton sbenton@fcgov.com (970)416-4290
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
05/24/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: By the seeding mix locations, it seems
like you’re trying to do wetland mitigation onsite. What we discussed offline
regarding mitigation was that onsite was preferred but does not have to be
like-for-like, payment in lieu was not an option, and deferred mitigation is
possible but not preferable. Has something changed regarding the expected
stormwater and No. 8 overflow volumes?
Response: The elevation of the bottom of the channel is not expected to be close enough to
permanent groundwater to support like-for-like wetland mitigation. However, the channel
will be designed with a wide bottom and flat slope and planted with riparian seed mix and
plantings. This riparian/wet meadow area is equal to or greater in size as the low-quality
wetlands that will be disturbed with the development of Phase D.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Freddie Haberecht fhaberecht@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
05/28/2024: FOR INFORMATION
Please verify the utility including stop sign separations are correct on this plan.
Please include 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.
10’ from public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines
6’ from water or sewer service lines
4’ from gas lines
10’ from electric vaults
40’ between shade trees and arterial streetlights
15’ between ornamental trees and arterial streetlights
50’ from stop signs
Response: Utilities and signs have been indicated on landscape plans, and required tree
separations will be met.
Comment Number: 2
05/28/2024: FOR INFORMATION
Please provide the tree species on the plan.
Page 19 of 26
Response: Round 2 plans include plant labels and tree species.
Department: Park Planning
Contact: Missy Nelson mnelson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
05/28/2024: INFORMATION: Both Park Planning & Development and Parks
department comments will be provided by Missy Nelson | mnelson@fcgov.com | 970.416.8077
Response: Thank you.
Comment Number: 2
05/28/2024: FOR APPROVAL: Thank you for response to the following:
"04/02/2024: Please make sure there are key connection/s from this phase to
the Paved Recreational/Regional trail planned and coordinated with PPD. All
connections must be approved by PPD.
Response: Phase D includes a key pedestrian connection that will extend west to the planned
Regional Trail along the north boundary of the non-potable irrigation pond.
These future connections will be indicated on the revised Montava Non-Pot Pump Station Plans."
However, I think the connection needs to be more clear. If you include the tract
on the site, landscape and utility plans, that will help. Right now they look
disconnected. Are the 5' gravel paths temporary? There are also some safety
concerns having a gravel path around the pond prior to the Rec. Paved Trail
being installed with other safety measures (such as the fence).
Response: Although we still have a separate utility plan set for the Non-Potable pond plans,
we have moved the landscape plans for the pond to the Phase D Core plans so they can
more easily be reviewed with the adjacent plans. The future planned walk connections to
the future regional trail, future roads and future sidewalks (all planned for future phases) are
indicated conceptually on these plans. The 5’ soft paths are temporary to provide an
amenity for the pond area initially built with Phase D.
Comment Number: 3
05/28/2024: FOR APPROVAL: Since Irrigation Pond, Tract II, is being
developed/constructed with this phase, please add this tract to the all planning
document plan sets, as well as the utility plan set. These plans need to be
reviewed and approved as part of the Final Document Sets.
Response: We have incorporated the pond area into the Site and Landscape Plans for
Phase D Core. For the Utility Plans, we prefer to continue to retain a separate set of plans
for the Non-Potable Pond Infrastructure Utility Plans since this is an infrastructure project
that has continued to be designed alongside Phases G, E, and now D. We understand that
these plans will need to be approved and constructed with the initial phase of development
west of Giddings Road, which based on current schedules will be Phase D. However, we
request to not be required to reformat this set of plans at this time if acceptable.
Comment Number: 4
05/28/2024: FOR APPROVAL: Please add to the landscape plan general notes:
"The Developer, or its successor(s) in interest, shall be responsible for the
ongoing irrigation and maintenance of the landscaping located within the public
right-of-way along the portion of Giddings Road that abuts the Property as
Page 20 of 26
shown on the Final Development Plan Documents. This obligation may be
assigned to a metro district or home owners association duly constituted
pursuant to Colorado state law, however, should such home owners association
be dissolved, the obligation shall become that of the Developer or its successor(s) in interest."
Response: Note has been added.
Comment Number: 5
05/28/2024: FOR APPROVAL: While we understand the conversation of
water-adequacy is ongoing, with the interim Elco potable water being piped into
the irrigation pond, we will need to figure out how to review/approve the ultimate
situation with the well water.
Response: We will work with you to secure the necessary approvals.
Department: PFA
Contact: Marcus Glasgow marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org 970-416-2869
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
05/28/2024: TURNING RADII - IFC 503.2.4 and Local Amendments
The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of
25 feet inside and 50 feet outside.
The submitted turning exhibit shows many corners with body overhang or areas
that are too tight to be considered. Please correct the areas provided in the redlines.
Response: The areas marked in the redlines have been updated and corrected accordingly. All
roadways have been designed to accommodate the 52’ fire truck, however, in select alleys, the 32’
fire truck will be necessary to navigate these areas due to the alley radius restrictions and
overhang requirements. These specific areas have been marked on the turning exhibits. We would
like to arrange a meeting with the PFA team to further discuss the design for Phase D, in addition to
establishing a game plan for all future phases.
Comment Number: 2
05/28/2024: OBSTRUCTION OF FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS - IFC503.4
Fire apparatus access roads shall not be obstructed in any manner, including
the parking of vehicles. The minimum widths and clearances established in
Section 503.2.1 shall be maintained at all times.
Montava Ave does not meet the minimum 20 ft width when including parked
cars in both the median and side street. The variance request for section
T3,T4, T5 and one way also will not provide the required access. This will
need to be reconfigured to meet the requirements.
Response: The one-way thoroughfares in question are designed solely to facilitate access around
the site for fire vehicles and are not intended to be used as primary routes for firefighting
operations. All homes fronting this roadway are accessible from the alleys, which have a width of
26 feet. This exceeds the minimum required width of 20 feet for fire apparatus access roads.
Comment Number: 3
05/30/2024: WATER SUPPLY - Residential
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 residential building and every 800
feet OC as measured along an approved path of vehicle travel. For the
Page 21 of 26
purposes of this code, hydrants on the opposite side of arterial roadways are
not considered accessible to the site. Hydrants are also required every 1,000
feet along roads that do not require structure protection.
Additional hydrants are required on Flint Hill, Nanna and Giddings.
Response: Additional hydrants have been added along Flint Hill, Nanna and Giddings. Please
review the location we proposed for Nanna, as we currently don’t have a waterline running down
this roadway.
Comment Number: 4
05/30/2024: FIRE LANE SIGNS
The limits of the fire lane shall be fully defined and fire lane sign locations should
be indicated on future plan sets. Refer to LCUASS detail #1418 & #1419 for
sign type, placement, and spacing. Appropriate directional arrows required on
all signs. Posting of additional fire lane signage may be determined at time of
fire inspection. Code language provided below.
Pleaser add the LCUASS sign details to the construction details sheets in the utility plans.
Response: We would like to discuss these sign requirements further, specifically those located
within the alleys. Based on the spacing criteria we have created an environment of sign pollution
within the alleys, which honestly looks terrible and adds unnecessary cost to the project. Is there
any reason we can’t post signage at the entrance and exits of all alleys that states something like
“No Parking Within Alleys at All Times, Violators Will be Towed at Owner’s Expense”, and then
maybe just add a handful of the no parking signs at strategic locations within the alleys. I honestly
think we could eliminate 80% of these signs.
Comment Number: 5
05/30/2024: Address
PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: ADDRESS POSTING & WAYFINDING – IFC section 505.1.1 amendment
Where possible, the naming of private drives is usually recommended to aid in
wayfinding. New and existing buildings shall be provided with approved
address identification. The address identification shall be legible and placed in
a position that is visible from the street or road fronting the property. Address
identification characters shall contrast with their background. Address numbers
shall be arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall not be spelled
out. The address numerals for any commercial or industrial buildings shall be
placed at a height to be clearly visible from the street. They shall be a minimum
of 8 inches in height unless distance from the street or other factors dictate
larger numbers. Refer to Table 505.1.3 of the 2021 IFC as amended. The
address numbers for one- and two-family dwellings shall be a minimum of 4” in
height with a minimum ½” stroke and shall be posted on a contrasting
background. If bronze or brass numerals are used, they shall only be posted on
a black background for visibility. Monument signs may be used in lieu of
address numerals on the building as approved by the fire code official.
Buildings, either individually or part of a multi- building complex, that have
emergency access lanes on sides other than on the addressed street side, shall
have the address numbers and street name on each side that fronts the fire lane.
Site plan note 17 indicates six inch numerals. This should be corrected to
reflect code minimum of 8. Single family homes can be 4 inch.
Page 22 of 26
Response: Private drives or alleys will not be named at this time. There are a number of recent
precedent developments, such as Mosaic, where private drives are not named. Sign details have
been added to the utility sheets.
Comment Number: 6
05/30/2024: AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS – IFC Appendix D105 Amendment
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. Parapet
heights greater than 4' in height do not support ladder truck operations.
Building elevations show 1 building over 30 feet in height. In order to verify
aerial access is being met, I will need to know which lots will have this specific
unit and what the building footprint is.
Response: All roadways and most alleys have been designed to accommodate the larger fire truck.
The handful of alleys where the smaller fire engine will need to be used has been marked up on the
truck turning exhibit. These units will be restricted to meet the necessary fire requirements. It is
our understanding that if there is an accessible roof area that is less than 30’ that allows ground
ladder access to the 2nd floor, that the ladder truck isn’t necessary.
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Russell Hovland rhovland@fcgov.com 970-416-2341
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 1
05/14/2024: Construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended.
Current adopted codes are:
2021 International Building Code (IBC) with local amendments
2021 International Residential Code (IRC) with local amendments
2021 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) with local amendments
2021 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) with local amendments
2021 International Mechanical Code (IMC) with local amendments
2021 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) with local amendments
2021 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC) with local amendments
Colorado Plumbing Code (Currently the 2021 International Plumbing Code adopted by State of Colorado)
2020 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado
Projects shall comply with the current adopted building codes, local
amendments and structural design criteria can be found here: https://www.fcgov.com/building/codes
New 2024 building codes will be adopted in 2025.
Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2017.
Ground Snow Load 35 PSF.
Frost Depth: 30 inches.
Wind Loads: Risk Category II (most structures):
Page 23 of 26
• 140mph (Ultimate) exposure B or Front Range Gust Map published by SEAC.
Seismic Design: Category B.
Climate Zone: Zone 5
Energy Code: 2021 IECC and local amendments.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
• Electric vehicle charging parking spaces are required, see local amendment.
• This building is located within 250ft of a 4 lane road or 1000 ft of an active
railway, must provide exterior composite sound transmission of 39 STC min.
• Buildings must provide 10ft to 30ft of fire separation from property line and 20
feet between other buildings or provide fire rated walls and openings per chapter 6 and 7 of the IBC.
• All multifamily buildings must be fire sprinkled. City of Fort Collins
amendments to the 2021 International Fire Code limit what areas can avoid fire
sprinklers with a NFPA 13R, see local IFC 903 amendment.
• If using electric systems to heat or cool the building, ground source heat pump
or cold climate heat pump technology is required.
• A City licensed commercial general contractor is required to construct any new multi-family structure.
• 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.
• City of Fort Collins amendments to the 2021 IFC require a full NFPA-13
sprinkler system in multifamily units with an exception to allow NFPA 13R
systems in buildings with no more than 6 dwelling units (or no more than 12
dwelling units where the building is divided by a 2 hour fire barrier with no more
than 6 dwelling units on each side).
• A City licensed commercial general contractor is required to construct any new multiamily structure.
• Attached single-family provide 3ft setback to property line or provide fire rated
walls & openings per chap 3 of the IRC.
• 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.
• New homes must provide EV/PV ready conduit, see local amendment.
• Electric vehicle charging parking spaces are required, see local amendment.
• Provide site-wide accessibility plan in accordance with CRS 9-5. This
requires accessible units per that state standard. This requirement includes
single family attached homes if more than 6 units.
Response: Thank you.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County jcounty@fcgov.com 970-221-6588
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 6
05/28/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are line over text issues. See markups.
Response: Line over text issues have been corrected.
Comment Number: 7
05/28/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are text over text issues. See markups.
Response: Line over text issues have been corrected.
Page 24 of 26
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 8
05/28/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The Benchmark Statement has been revised. The City has moved to the
NAVD88 vertical datum, and as of January 1, 2015, all projects are required to
be on NAVD88 datum. 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’.
Response: Benchmark statement has been updated per the above language.
Comment Number: 9
05/28/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are inconsistencies with the title in the title blocks. See markups.
Response: Title blocks have been corrected.
Comment Number: 10
05/28/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are text over text issues. See markups.
Response: Line over text issues have been corrected.
Comment Number: 11
05/28/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
NON-POT PUMP STATION: Please revise the sub-title as marked. See
redlines.
Response: Sub-title has been updated per redlines.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 4
05/28/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See
markups.
Response: We believe we have corrected/masked text in all hatched areas with revised plans.
Comment Number: 5
05/28/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Page 25 of 26
There are line over text issues. See markups.
Response: Plans have been revised/corrected.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1
05/28/2024: 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 markups, please contact
John Von Nieda at 970-221-6565 or jvonnieda@fcgov.com
Response: Please see responses provided on the redlined sheets. Changes required by the
markups have been made.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 2
05/28/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the
noted sheets. See markups.
Response: Corrections have been made.
Comment Number: 3
05/28/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are line over text issues. See markups.
Response: Plans have been revised/corrected.
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Boxelder Sanitation District, Daniel Richardson, PE,
drichardson@boxeldersanitation.org.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
05/31/2024:
Responses required for comments below (actual letter included with package):
1) Standalone easement will be required for all sewers that are not located in
the public Right-of-Way and in alley tracts. The easements are necessary to
address access and maintenance issues that are not included on the plat.
Standard easement width for Boxelder is 30-feet. District Easement template is attached.
Response: 30’ easements have been provided in locations outside of ROW and alley tracts.
2) Add curb distance for sanitary sewer lines.
Response: Curb distance labels have been added to the P&P sheets.
3) Terminate service lines in sanitary sewer manhole where possible.
Response: Service lines where possible have been relocated to terminate into manholes.
4) Drawings show parallel sewer lines entering from Maple Hill. Edit drawing to
reflect that the southern line is abandoned.
Response: The Demo Plan has been updated with a call out showing the southern line as
abandoned.
5) District codes and regulations require sanitary sewer manholes to be
installed every 400 feet. Ensure that sanitary sewer lines meet District standards.
Response: Manhole spacing has been doubled checked. Additional manholes have been added
Page 26 of 26
where needed.
6) The planned sanitary sewer line crossing Giddings Rd. will need to be inside
a casing. Edit drawings to reflect this requirement.
Response: A casing has been called out on the Sanitary P&P sheets for this sewer line crossing.
7) Are there plans for an underdrain system for this phase? Space limitations
within the easement will need to be considered.
Response: No underdrain is planned for this project.
Contact: East Larimer County Water District, Randy Siddens,
randys@elcowater.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
05/31/2024:
Please see attachments for ELCO comments on the drawings submitted.
For all alleys or roads that are private (not public Right-of Ways), we will need to
have 30-foot wide easements dedicated to ELCO for all our water lines that are
in those non-public roads/alleys.
Response: We will prepare all necessary easements once the drawings / layouts have been
preliminarily approved. Given the fact that these alleys will have a blanket easement in addition to
the 30’ ELCO easement shown, plus the fact that they are owned and maintained by the Metro
District which is a public entity, do we still need to do these?
Contact: Lawrence Custer Grasmick Jones & Donovan, LLP, Ryan Donovan,
ryan@lcwaterlaw.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
5/31/2024:
Please see attachments provided in Round 1 Comments Package.
Response: Please see our responses which are embedded in a copy of the letter from the LWIC’s
engineer, W.W. Wheeler & Associates.