HomeMy WebLinkAboutMONTAVA - PHASE D CORE AND IRRIGATION POND - BDR240006 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - Responses (3)
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 3
Responses to Staff Comments for Round Number 2
September 18, 2024
August 20, 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 2
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 via phone at
970-221-6695 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
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.
Additionally, kindly ensure there is sufficient space between the signature line
and the title line to accommodate the digital signature.
Response: Signature blocks have 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.
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: Jill Baty jbaty@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 16
08/05/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: CIVIC SPACE TYPES:
There are still several open spaces in the proposal that do not have a Civic
Space type associated with them. They are highlighted on the Site Plan.
Response: The MUDDS Civic Space regulations were originally designed to ensure a well
distributed and diverse variety of park/open spaces throughout the community but do not
necessarily require the assignment of a civic space type to every open space tract. In keeping
however with the structure of the regulations, we are proposing some minor changes to MUDDS,
through a minor amendment process, to clarify that spaces greater than 0.2 acres in size must be
assigned a type, and to adjust some specific type requirements to enable all the spaces in question
to be assigned either an existing civic space type (Passage) or a new space type (Common). Having
reviewed these changes with Staff, the Civic Space Diagram on Sheet S6 now includes a civic
space type designation for all spaces, and proposed minor amendments to MUDDS Sec. 10.2 have
been submitted for Staff review.
Comment Number: 17
08/05/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: CIVIC SPACE TYPES:
Thank you for adding the pedestrian connections to the alley spaces. There is a
possibility for adding one more, which is identified on the Site Plan. Please
consider identifying these spaces as "Passages."
Response: The additional pedestrian connection was intentionally omitted due to limited lot/alley
depth at that location. Pedestrian access is better provided via the alley due west which aligns
better with the alley to the north and does not require an easement over private property.
Comment Number: 18
08/05/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: CIVIC SPACE TYPES:
The green only fronts on one street. Two frontages are required by MUDDS,
Table 10.2-2. Please submit a Modification of Standards request for this or
consider making it a Compact Green instead.
Response: We agree with Staff that Frontages should include streets, bicycle and pedestrian ways
to support innovation and creative design. A minor amendment to MUDDS thas been submitted to
Staff for review. With the amendment, the Green would be adjacent to two Frontages, and a
modification of standards would not be necessary.
Comment Number: 19
08/05/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: CIVIC SPAC. TYPES:
Pocket Parks require at least one street frontage, per MUDDS Table 10.2-2.
Please submit a Modification of Standards request for Pocket Park A and
Pocket Park B which do not front on any streets. Please consider whether a
new Civic Space type should be added to MUDDS for this type of semi-private
common yard space.
Response: Please see the response to Comment Number 18 above. With the proposed minor
amendment, Pocket Parks A and B would be adjacent to one Frontage, and a modification of
standards would not be necessary.
Comment Number: 20
08/05/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: CIVIC SPACE TYPES:
The Square and Pocket Park B are listed in the table on the Site Plan as
containing a playground. Please indicate a playground on the Landscape Plan somehow.
Response: The linework and notes for these play features have been added to the Landscape Plan.
Comment Number: 21
08/05/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: CIVIC SPACE TYPES:
Pocket Park A needs to provide seating, per MUDDS Table 10.2-3.
Response: Seating has been added.
Comment Number: 22
08/05/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: CIVIC SPACE TYPES:
Compact Greens are not indicated in MUDDS Table 10.2-3 as being able to
host stormwater features. Please submit a request for a Modification of
Standards to place the underground detention here.
Response: We have discussed the colocation of stormwater features in civic space with Staff and
agree that it is reasonable to allow such facilities as long as the design and program requirements
for such spaces are met. Proposed minor amendments to the text and tables in MUDDS 10.2 have
been submitted for Staff review. With the amendments, a modification of standards would not be
necessary.
Comment Number: 23
08/05/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: CIVIC SPACE TYPES:
The table on the Site Plan lists the Square as having two street frontages. It
really functionally has 3 street frontages. Please update this.
Response: The table on the Site Plan has been revised to indicate the correct number of Frontages
for the Square.
Comment Number: 24
08/05/2024: FOR NEXT ROUND: LIGHTING PLANS:
The information provided here does not speak to several of the MUDDS
standards that we need for the review. Please provide information showing
compliance with MUDDS Section 5.12, Exterior Lighting, including:
o Timers and dimming, per 5.12.1(c) and (d)
o 5.12.4, Residential Lighting Limits, including Table 5.12-3: Please note as
well that “Fully Shielded Luminaire” is defined in the Land Use Code as one that
is “shielded or constructed so that no light rays are emitted by the installed
outdoor light fixtures at angles above the horizontal plane, as certified by a
photometric test report.” If the proposed fixtures emit light at angles above the
horizontal plane (i.e., a non-zero uplight rating), they do not meet the definition of
fully-shielded. Please either choose a fixture that does not reflect or project light
upwards or lower the lumens on these luminaires to meet Table 5.12-3 of MUDDS.
Response: Based on our subsequent discussions with staff, we have provided additional
information on the fixtures to ensure that they indicate timers/dimming, are dark-sky compliant, are
fully shielded, and have lowered light levels compatible with a residential neighborhood setting.
Drawings have been revised based on our discussions with Planning Staff.
Comment Number: 25
08/05/2024: INFORMATION: ARCHITECTURE & LOTS:
We have included some notes on the Architecture Set that the ultimate
builders/designers will just need to note and comply with with respect to these concepts.
Response: We have replaced the Architecture Notes on Sheet A6 with a set of notes that (i) clarify
the conceptual nature of the figures on Sheets A1 through A6, (ii) direct builders/designers to a full
review of the architectural standards and (iii) generally describe the Montava Architectural Review
Committee process that will provide builders with a letter of compliance prior to building permit.
Montava is committed to a collaborative process with builders/designers to ensure compliance with
the architectural standards.
Comment Number: 26
08/05/2024: INFORMATION: ARCHITECTURE & LOTS:
Each of these lots will be assigned a Frontage Type and a Yard Type. These
choices will affect things like the required depth of the front yard, ratios of
paved-to-non-paved area within the yard, tree density, tree species selection.
We have some concerns about the sequencing of when these choices will be
made. For example, on the Architecture Concepts for T3.2, the setbacks are ok,
but the only yard type permitted in T3.2 is a Continuous Yard, which requires
frontage that is 16-feet or greater in depth (MUDDS 5.8.4(a)(iii)), with a
minimum of 70% planted surfaces (MUDDS Table 5.8-3). What is shown in the
submittal is a 12-foot setback and a yard is largely covered by a porch and it is
unclear how the required trees will physically fit into the spaces proposed here.
We would like assurances that the information presented to potential builders
accurately portrays what will be required of these properties and propose that
these Architecture Concepts should be updated to accurately convey all
MUDDS requirements. We might suggest lot typicals in T3.2 for local streets
and non-local streets. Utilities will likely require a 9-foot utility easement with no
projections on local streets; it would be good to see a lot typical that complies with this.
Response: See the Response to Comment Number 25 above and the new notes on the Architecture
Set. We acknowledge that the items identified by Staff may require further coordination and, as
discussed with Staff, the Montava team is committed to work with Planning Services to ensure that
the MUDDS regulations do not contradict one another or common sense design principles; we will
initiate a discussion regarding further MUDDS amendments following the approval of the Phase D
Core.
In addition, because it does affect the Phase D Core, we are proposing, through the proposed minor
amendment, to eliminate the minimum lot width in T5 and T4 to allow construction feasibility and
the market to determine appropriate lot widths. Please see the proposed minor amendment to
Tables 5.2-1, 5.2-2 and 5.3-1 that has been submitted for review.
Comment Number: 27
08/05/2024: FOR NEXT ROUND: LANDSCAPING:
Thank you for the conversation on the salt tolerance of the proposed plant
species. Our main concerns are around communicating choices around salt
tolerance to anyone who needs to refer to these plans in the future/documenting
the decisions we are making today. Environmental Planning has some
suggestions regarding grass seed mixes and an opportunity to treat this Phase
as an experiment- either planting the standard Low-grow seed mix in some
places and a customized lower-growing salt-tolerant seed mix in others, or simply planting
the low-grow seed mix and pairing it with a monitoring program. Either of these would be a
great way to inform the Montava project as it gets built through the coming years.
Response: Thank you. Please note that Environmental Planning made specific comments on this
subject matter below and in Round 1 of its review of the Infrastructure plans. At Scott Benton’s
request, we have duplicated his Round 1 Infrastructure plan comments into this response letter.
Please see our responses in the Environmental Planning section below.
Comment Number: 28
08/06/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please submit a Public Benefits Summary. This is something it would be great o have with the submittal in
each phase. It could be on the site plan or in the
narrative or as a stand-alone document. It could be as simple as:
"i) Large-scale comprehensive master planning: completed with the adoption of MUDDS,
ii) New urbanism: this phase provides walkable streets and trails that connect
to meaningful destinations, and traffic that is distributed through a network of connected streets
iii) Agri-urban development: farm property will be conveyed to the farmer as
part of this first phase of the development.
iv) Zero energy ready homes: this phase will provide zero energy ready homes
and this qualification will be reviewed as part of the building permit review.
v) Non-potable water system: this phase will provides the pond which will store
non-potable water for irrigation throughout the PUD.
vi) Affordable/workforce housing: this phase does not provide this public benefit."
Response: The updated version of the Narrative dated September 18, 2024 has been revised to
include a summary of the current status of the required public benefits.
Contact: Kim Meyer kimeyer@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
08/06/2024: INFORMATION (UPDATED):
Response: Please advise if additional information is needed from the Developer team.
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.
Comment Number: 2
05/28/2024: INFORMATION:
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. Responses to the redline comments are submitted with Round 3.
Comment Number: 3
05/28/2024: INFORMATION:
Update narrative to include any changes that may occur due to this round of
comments to ensure it remains relevant.
Response: Please see the updated version of the Narrative submitted with Round 3.
Comment Number: 8
08/05/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL/ BUILDING PERMIT:
We look forward to seeing the Irrigation Plans.
Response: Thank you for the informal review. Preliminary irrigation plans and hydrozone plans
have been included with this submittal.
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.
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: The initial draft of the Development Agreement was submitted on July 17, 2024; we are
awaiting Staff’s comments.
Comment Number: 15
08/05/2024: INFORMATION: PREVIOUS COMMENT RESOLVED:
Staff’s intent was to preserve 3.5.2(D) from the original LUC and called this out
in our AIS that went to Council for the approval of the PUD. However, Section 4
of the MUDDS indicates that each subsequent section of the MUDDS replaces
all relevant portions of Article 3 and 4 of the LUC, including 3.5.2(D). Since the
MUDDS states that it replaces 3.5.2(D), this is what stands and the LUC
standard for the length of a connecting walkway does not apply in Montava. As a
pedestrian-friendly community, Montava would rarely not meet this standard to
begin with, and in cases like this where the standard wouldn’t have been met,
what Montava is providing is in the form of a highly walkable space and would
probably meet the “equal to or better than” standard for a Modification anyway.
Response: Thank you.
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.
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.
Comment Number: 2
05/20/2024: INFORMATION: Please note for presubmittal 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.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Tim Dinger tdinger@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
07/30/2024: FOR APPROVAL - UPDATED:
15-foot utility easements are required on both sides of Giddings Road, not just the west side.
Response: Understood. A 15’ utility easement on the east side of Giddings Road will be dedicated
by separate document. Once the excess Giddings Road ROW is vacated, this utility easement will
be vacated and a new utility easement along the east side of Giddings Road will be dedicated.
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.
Comment Number: 7
07/25/2024: FOR APPROVAL - UPDATED:
Please address the markups on the roadway variance. If the roadway variance
is also intended to be the variance for non-compliant utility easements for local
streets, you must show the easements on the arterial and collector cross
sections, since those street types require LCUASS compliant easements.
Response: Markups have been addressed and easements have been added to the Arterial and
Collector Cross Sections.
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.
Comment Number: 10
07/25/2024: FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - UPDATED:
We received the first draft of the DA with the round 2 BDR submittal. We will
begin reviewing and provide a second draft once all departments are ready.
Response: Thank you.
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.
Comment Number: 12
07/30/2024: INFORMATION:
Ultimate design is required for Giddings Road and Mountain Vista Drive, per LCUASS 7.4.1.A.8
and LCUASS 7.4.1.B.8. The ultimate condition must be designed for 1000 feet beyond the end of
the proposed development. This can be deferred to the "Infrastructure" portion of Montava Phase D.
Response: Per discussions with Engineering Staff on 8/21/24 and follow up memo dated 8/23/24,
there are no off-site design requirements under these LCUASS sections for the Phase D Core; the
Phase D Infrastructure plans will include off-site roadway design per LCUASS 7.4.1.A.8 and
LCUASS 7.4.1.B.8. for Giddings Road including horizontal and vertical information for flowlines,
centerlines, and cross sections every 50’, for 1000’ feet beyond the north extent of roadway
construction and from the south extent of roadway construction to Mountain Vista Drive.
Comment Number: 13
07/30/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
Grade breaks must be spaced at least 25 feet apart, and no single point grade break shall
exceed 0.50%, except for the flow line in sag curves where the maximum grade break is 1.0%.
Revise roadway profiles and redlines on the profiles where you are not meeting LCUASS standards.
Note: the redlines are not all-encompassing: there are many areas with grade breaks spaced at less
than 25 feet, and many places with grade breaks of more than 0.5%.
Response: Per our discussions with Tim Dinger on August 28, 2024 we have agreed to the
following, which are reflected on the plans in this submittal:
-In locations where there are bump outs on a centerline crest curve, flowline grades are maximized
to as close to 0.5% as possible, recognizing that due to the nature of crest curves, some slopes are
less than 0.5%.
-The 0.5% max grade break criteria and 25’ grade break spacing in bump out locations does not
apply since it is not along the main travel path.
-Where there are not bump outs, the plans show vertical crest curves instead of grade brakes at the
flowlines.
-Where there are cross pans, the flowline grade around the curb return can be less than 0.5% as
long as the actual flowline within the pan meets the 0.50% criteria.
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.
Comment Number: 3
08/05/2024: FOR APPROVAL UPDATED: The traffic volumes for the
southbound right turn on Giddings at Mountain Vista would require the
installation of a separated right turn lane. Would like to discuss further.
Response: Please see the September 2024 update to the TIS provided with this resubmittal and
note that a separate left and right turn lane have been recommended along the southbound
approach of the Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road intersection for the short-term horizon.
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.
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 will send Tim Bilobran the current TIS.
Comment Number: 9
08/05/2024: FOR APPROVAL UPDATED: See additional redlines. Of note
the requirement of any raised crossing to have advance signage. Need type III
barricades at ends of sidewalks where they terminate, even if just temporarily.
Response: Type III barricades have been added where missing even on temporary walks. The
Bluebeam redlines have been addressed. Please see Bluebeam redline responses to all other
comments.
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.
Comment Number: 19
08/05/2024: FOR APPROVAL: The plans now show raised crossings
throughout the project. The City of Fort Collins uses a 22 foot wide crossing,
details on page 216. Please remove references to LCUASS detail 1613. In
addition all raised crossing will need Ped Crossing signs with arrows (W11-2,
W16-7P) at the crossing, and Ped Advance signs with "Raised Crossing
Ahead" plaques. (W11-2, and custom detail on Signing and Striping sheet.)
A few raised crosswalk fall on the proposed/future build lines. Please indicate it
the raised crossing will be built with the Core, or Infrastructure project.
Appropriate signs will be needed for these crossings.
Response: All raised walks have been updated to the Fort Collins detail provided on page 216, and
all LCUASS references have been removed. Appropriate signage and striping as specified above
has been added to the plans. Refer to Bluebeam redline responses for all other comments.
Callouts have been added to the plans clarifying what raised walks will be installed as part of the
Core Set.
Comment Number: 20
08/06/2024: FOR APPROVAL: The sidewalk that runs along Maple Hill on the
boundary of this phase identifies 3 raised crossings in close proximity to the
intersections. Is there any way to incorporate these crossing into the
intersections. In particular the Timberline and Maple Hill roundabout is showing
a raised crossing within 20-30 feet of the raised crossing. We will need to look
closer at these crossings. Will these raised crossings be installed with this
phase since they are directly on the boundary?
Response: The raised crossing at Timberline and Maple Hill will be combined into the Dutch
roundabout crossing. The midblock ramp has been removed. Notes have been added to the
plans specifying what phase these raised walks will be installed.
For the other raised walks, we would prefer to keep them in the locations shown to maintain
consistency throughout the site where we have midblock pedestrian crossings. This helps with
traffic calming though the subdivision, and we believe these to be a better fit / location than placing
them at the intersections.
Comment Number: 21
08/06/2024: FOR APPROVAL: On Flint Hill Drive/Tealbrook are the raised
crossings actually raised intersections? If they are supposed to be two raised
crossings, then they are too close and will need to be combined into one crossing.
Response: The raised crossings where we have two separate walks are intended to function more
like a raised intersection, or like a larger merged raised crossing, not 2 separate raised
crossings. This will provide better pedestrian connectivity to the dual path systems that enter the
civic spaces.
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
08/02/2024: 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. Although SWMPS are acceptable we strongly
encourage an Erosion Control Report as a stand alone document since it fulfills
different requirements for different criteria from separate regulatory agencies.
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: Because the City would prefer to see an Erosion Control Report instead of a SWMP, we
have replaced our SWMP with an Erosion Control Report. We have gone though and addressed all
redline comments. We have thoroughly vetted the requirements and believe that we have met all
code requirements. If there is anything still missing, please be specific and let us know.
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: Erosion Control Escrow Calculations are provided with this resubmittal.
Comment Number: 16
08/02/2024: For Final Approval:
Please review the redlines provided on BDR Round 2 SWMP and Erosion Plan
within the Utility Plans. Please note these comments may not encompass all
items that need attention and it is strongly advised the Plans and ESC Report
are thoroughly vetted using the Erosion Submittal Checklist which can be found at
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-f
orms-guidelines-regulations/erosion/
Please provide an erosion control plan for 'Final Plan or Approval Submittal'.
This project disturbs 5 or more acres so erosion control phasing materials will
need to be provided in the erosion control plans, reports and escrow. Please
ensure that the Erosion Control Plans, Escrows, and Reports include phasing
requirements (FCSCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.3, 6.1.4, & 6.1.5)
Response: As discussed, the project is planned to be constructed in one construction phase.
Notes have been added to the plans to further define appropriate sequencing. Sequencing plans
have been updated per the Bluebeam redline comments.
Topic: Fees
Comment Number: 5
08/02/2024: 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. Based on the proposed site construction associated with this project we
are assuming 329 lots, 39.48 acres of disturbance, 3 years from demo through
build out of construction and an additional 3.00 years till full vegetative
stabilization due to seeding. Which results in an Erosion Control Fee estimate of $12,234.10 .
Please note that as the plans and any subsequent review modifications of the
above-mentioned values change the fees may need to be modified. I have
provided a copy of the spreadsheet used to arrive at these estimates for you to
review. Please respond to this comment with any changes to these assumed
estimates and why, so that we may have a final fee estimate ready for this
project. The fee will need to be provided at the time of erosion control escrow.
The Stormwater Inspection Fees are based on the number of LID/WQ Features
that are designed for on this project. Based on the plans we identified 0 number
of porous pavers, 0 number of bioretention/level spreaders, 3 number of
extended detention basins, and 5 number of underground treatments, results in
an estimate of the Stormwater LID/WQ Inspection fee to be $ $2,825.00 .
Please note that as the plans and any subsequent review modifications of the
above-mentioned values change the fees may need to be modified. I have
provided a copy of the spreadsheet used to arrive at these estimates for you to review.
Please respond to this comment with any changes to these assumed estimates
and why, so that we may have a final fee estimate ready for this project. The fee
will need to be provided at the time of erosion control escrow."
Response: We are good with the above estimates.
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.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque wlamarque@fcgov.com 970-416-2418
Topic: General
Comment Number: 6
08/19/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
This item is still unresolved. Developed drainage also increases the volume of
flows that leave the site. Although the flow rate is reduced due to quantity
detention, the volume of storm water always increases with development due to
the addition of impervious area. This increased volume mandates that a legal
drainage outfall is obtained to the nearest natural drainage way, existing
engineered drainage outfall, or irrigation ditch when allowed.
Response: The engineered outfall for Phase D of Montava is southeast of the intersection of
Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road. The proposed storm sewer will discharge to the historic
drainage path at this location, limited to historic 2-year rate (approximately 11 cfs). We agree that
there is an increase in stormwater volume, and the AB agreement specifically states that only the
rate of flow must be held to historic conditions. The maximum 11 cfs discharge will not adversely
impact the historic drainage path or the existing 24”x12” box culvert under the BNSF railroad.
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.
Comment Number: 7
08/19/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
This section of the proposed drainage outfall mentioned below needs to be
planned for and engineered for Phase D, unless another outfall is proposed.
The existing infrastructure underneath the railroad does not meet City Criteria
and will require improvements along with permission/easements from the
Railroad to do these improvements.
Response: Per City Stormwater Manual Code Section 1.3 we have provided a gravity drainage
system that releases from our detention pond (final outfall of our site) back into the historic
“Natural Drainage Way.” However, per the meeting with City Stormwater Staff on 9-12-2024, we
have agreed to provide the offsite channel from our outfall across the field following the natural
drainage pathway. We plan to utilize the existing BNSF culvert and existing downstream culvert
that discharges into the LWIC. We believe there are prescriptive drainage rights in place allowing
us to utilize this existing infrastructure, and therefore are not required to get permission from the
BNSF or LWIC. If we need to provide a variance to utilize the existing infrastructure, we will be
happy to do so. We area also planning to work with BNSF in parallel with the construction of Phase
D to design and implement the ultimate crossing design under the BNSF lines, as described in our
approved Montava Master Drainage Study.
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
included in the drainage report.
Response: This existing infrastructure is offsite from our development and we are drastically
reducing runoff rates, therefore, this should not be required. And as stated above we have met the
outfall requirements of Section 1.3.
Comment Number: 9
08/19/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
More discussion is needed regarding this comment. There are sub-basins
where drainage is not being treated for water quality before entering the
irrigation pond. All drainage needs to be treated for water quality before
entering this pond.
Response: Pond D (aka Irrigation pond) has always been shown in the Montava Master Drainage
Study. The Montava Master Drainage Study which has been approved by the City has always shown
utilizing this pond for both detention and water quality. There are future basins north of Phase D
which will be required to tie into the stormwater infrastructure designed with Phase D which will
make it impossible to avoid routing treated water from upstream basins around this pond as the
approved Master Drainage Study describes. This request will completely change the Master
Drainage Study as we will no longer be able to utilize this as a detention pond. In an effort to meet
some of the water quality requirements being requested we have created LID for the basins
draining to the pond which will fully infiltrate into the ground and not through the pond.
Additionally, we have coordinated directly with Missy Nelson; per an e-mail from Missy on
09-05-2024, we will address this issue in a separate water agreement for the shared use of the
irrigation pond that will serve the future community park.
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.
Comment Number: 11
08/19/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
The SWMM model will be reviewed in late August.
Response: Below are the comments received from Wes via e-mail on 09-05-2024 and our
responses.
1) The “Storage Volume Summary” table output shows a discharge from Pond 427 of 21.89 cfs, yet the
report states the release rate from this pond is required to be 11 cfs per City Criteria. Please explain.
The release rate of the pond has been updated to 11 cfs to match the release rate stated in the
report.
2) The “Node Flooding Summary” shows 1.048 million gallons overflows a node, which is roughly 1/10th of
the entire flow volume. Please explain this scenario and how this water is accounted for. We have
updated the pond stage storage and the release rate of the swale pond and made it so there is
no flooding in the 100-year.
3) Please include the “input file”. Input file sent via e-mail directly to Wes on 09-05-2024.
4) Please submit an electronic file of the model for review. SWMM Model sent via e-mail directly to Wes
on 09-05-2024.
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.
Comment Number: 14
08/19/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
Labels identifying "public" or "private" were not found for the storm sewers.
Response: All storm sewer systems have been labeled as private or public on the P&P sheets.
05/29/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
All storm sewers need to be identified as public or private on the storm sewer profile sheets.
Comment Number: 15
08/19/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
This comment still applies.
06/07/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Pertaining to the 1986 AB-L&W Agreement, utilizing this outfall requires that all
parties interest are protected and the drainage design meets current City
Criteria, the Larimer & Weld Irrigation Company's design parameters of
drainage flows entering the ditch, and all necessary permits from the BNSF
railroad are obtained to perform improvements on the existing culvert under the
railroad and for any future maintenance.
Response: This comment was not included in the Round 1 comments, but has been answered in
our legal counsel’s Memorandum to the City dated 9-11-24, and included with this submittal,
regarding Montava’s position on its ability to discharge into the LWC. Montava’s team also met with
City Stormwater staff on 9-12-24 and are exploring a parallel path of working with BNSF on the
ultimate crossing design and interim solution.
Comment Number: 17
08/19/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
It is unclear how standard water quality is being met for the sub-basins not being
treated for LID. These sub-basins need to be treated for water quality, most
commonly by extended detention. If standard water quality is being proposed in
the temporary detention ponds, than a permanent solution for water quality
needs to be identified in the drainage report for the ultimate condition. The
"green" area on the LID exhibit is the area in question.
Response: All subbasins not being treated with an LID method will be treated using standard
methods in the interim detention pond. When this interim detention pond is removed, all water
quality will be handled in the downstream permanent Pond 426 located adjacent to the BNSF and
shown on the Master Drainage Study. A paragraph describing this has been added to the drainage
report narrative.
Comment Number: 18
08/19/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Some of the sub-basin lines do not match the proposed grading on the
drainage plan. This will also adjust and slightly reduce the areas draining to the
various LID basins. Specifically, LID basins 4 & 5 will be affected. Please revise.
Response: Sub-basins have been updated to reflect the updated grading design. LID calculations
have been updated as needed.
Comment Number: 19
08/19/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
It is unclear how the Pond D outlet will function. Please add more detail and
explain in the drainage report.
Response: Additional detail describing the Pond D outlet has been added to the report. The intent
is to keep the irrigation pond full so that any storm water that comes into the pond will go directly
to the outlet structure where it is ultimately discharged via a pipe into the proposed swale. The
pond can be kept full using ditch water and wells that service the pond. In a scenario where the
pond is low, stormwater will be pumped out and into the proposed swale / storm system utilizing
the non-potable distribution system.
Comment Number: 20
08/19/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
All Stormtech rows need to be isolator rows to count towards LID. This is
shown on the utility plan, but the Stormtech details do not reflect this. Please revise.
Response: Stormtech details have been updated and all rows are now isolator rows.
Comment Number: 21
08/19/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
For all storm manholes where the HGL is within 1 foot of finished grade, locking
lids are required. Please revise.
Response: Specific call outs have been added to the plans specifying where storm manholes will
need locking lids.
Comment Number: 22
08/19/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Water quality weirs are needed on the downstream end of all the Stormtech
systems. Please revise.
Response: Water quality weirs have been added on all Stormtech systems.
Comment Number: 23
08/19/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
It appears the plat needs to be updated to show the tract where LID 4 is
proposed. Please revise.
Response: Plat has been updated as needed.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Austin Kreager akreager@fcgov.com 970-224-6152
Topic: General
Comment Number: 9
08/05/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
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. Please provide a 9'x12' "pocket" easement for all pad mounted
transformers located behind the sidewalk.
Response: Easements have been added to the transformer locations and are reflected on the plat.
Comment Number: 10
08/05/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
Please ensure that all proposed secondary boxes are located outside of the
proposed sidewalk and other hardscape. Where homes are fronting
greenspace, please locate the secondary box on the opposite side of the
sidewalk.
Response: Secondary boxes have been relocated as stated above.
Contact: Tyler Siegmund tsiegmund@fcgov.com 970-416-2772
Topic: General
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.
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-f
orms-guidelines-regulations
Response: C-1 forms will be provided at time of building permits.
Comment Number: 4
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: Meter locations have been added to the single family attached units. This is reflected
on the updated utility plans.
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.
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
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.
Comment Number: 8
05/28/2024: INFORMATION:
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.
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 greater in size and of an enhanced quality compared to the low-quality
wetlands that will be disturbed with the development of Phase D. Based on our prior discussions
and subsequent comments for the Phase D Infrastructure (Comment 1 below) this mitigation
approach is acceptable.
(NOTE: The following comment has been added from Phase D Infrastructure Round 1 comment
letter as per Scott’s request)
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
08/05/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Environmental Planning is satisfied with
the proposed wetland mitigation approach, even if the mitigation is riparian/mesic habitat
instead of wetland. However, a dedicated NHBZ is still required on the plan sets. Why not display
the NHBZ on both the Phase D Core and Infrastructure plans?
Include the following table as well, same as with Phase G:
- amount of buffer area that would be required by a 50' buffer from the feature its current condition
- amount of buffer area provided on these plans
- minimum buffer distance
- maximum buffer distance
- average buffer distance
Response: As done in Phase G, we have added a table to the Phase D Core Landscape Plans (see
Sheet L37) indicating:
-the area of wetlands impacted with Phase D,
-the total area of these wetlands plus a 50’ buffer, and
-the total area of the riparian/wet meadow area identified in the channel in Phase D, which is
greater than the wetland + a 50’ buffer.
Note, however, that in prior discussions, it was agreed that replacement of the small fringe wetland
with the larger enhanced wet meadow/riparian areas in the channel would mitigate the loss of the
wetland and satisfy the requirements of LUC 3.4.1. We also discussed, as was the case in Phase G,
that designation of the new mitigation area as a NHBZ is not required per the LUC, however,
Montava has committed to a Stepwise Approach to installation and maintenance (See Landscape
Plan Sheet L38) to ensure that the benefits of the mitigation area are realized long term.
(NOTE: The following comment has been added from Phase D Infrastructure Round 1 comment
letter as per Scott’s request)
Comment Number: 2
08/05/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Change the seeding rate of 'Native
Seed - Type 1' to at least 1/5 of the specified rate. The current rate of 5
lbs/1000 square feet is a heavy turf rate and won't be sustainable without
irrigation over that of the specified hydrozone rate, and will reduce cost for as
much as this particular seed mix is prescribed over Montava's area generally.
This will likely need to happen on all Montava phases.
Response: After discussing further with Pawnee Buttes Seed, they recommend this higher rate for
this seed given the planned locations within park and greenbelt area use. Since these are bunch
grasses, they recommend a higher application rate to help result in greater seed coverage with
establishment. Once established, the water need for these seed varieties are still low.
(NOTE: The following comment has been added from Phase D Infrastructure Round 1 comment
letter as per Scott’s request)
Comment Number: 3
08/05/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: 'Native Seed - Type 1' has low to moderately-low salt tolerance.
This lends weight to the importance of monitoring salt levels in both the soils and irrigation water over time
to understand what the baseline conditions are and what the trend is over time. Several salt-related
plant/landscaping issues can be addressed before they become big problems with monitoring, but not
without monitoring. Please contact me to discuss further offline.
Response: Thank you for sharing the draft set of monitoring recommendations you’ve been
working on for internal City use. We also want to achieve success with the landscape and irrigation
planned for our neighborhood. Since however the draft recommendations have not yet been
adopted by the City, Phase D is still governed by the existing Land Use Code regulations.
Nevertheless, to the degree that certain of the draft provisions are feasible and can benefit the
project, we have voluntarily implemented them as follows:
Seed Mixes: We appreciate the suggestion from you and Jill to plant a very salt-tolerant mix as an
‘experiment’ so we can see how it performs. Since many of these high-alkali species are not only
taller but more ‘clump-forming,’ so that they have a more prairie-like appearance, we have so far
only used this mix in areas of future development (temporary seed areas). Note, however, that we
have revised the plans to include this mix in other select locations, including the areas around the
non-pot pond, since this is a more naturally programmed space which is appropriate for this mix.
As for the planned ‘Native Seed – Type 1’, based on input from Pawnee Buttes Seed, the Low Grow
Mix and Native Low Grow Mix are considered moderately salt tolerant and they recommend either
of these for our conditions and planned use. As is standard practice, we will monitor the progress
of all landscape elements and will be responsible for replacement if not successful.
Monitoring: Montava has water quality testing, modeling and monitoring already planned to ensure
the success of all of our landscape plantings. We appreciate the opportunity to continue to share
knowledge between Montava, our contractors, the City of Fort Collins and Colorado State
University, but ultimately it is the Land Use Code currently in effect that governs Phase D. Our
plans comply with the current regulations including those that require us to replace any landscape
element that dies. These means and methods for ongoing testing and monitoring will be the
responsibility of the Montava development team, consistent with standard practice, so additional
language from the draft monitoring recommendations is not needed.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Freddie Haberecht fhaberecht@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
08/05/2024: FOR INFORMATION
Please refer to redlines for minor comments regarding species selection and utility separation.
Response: Revisions have been made based on redlines.
Department: Park Planning
Contact: Missy Nelson mnelson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 6
08/09/2024: FOR APPROVAL: The separate Water Agreement needs to be
executed which holds all details of the proposed shared use irrigation pond.
Response: Per discussions with Staff, the Water Agreement is not required for the approval of
Phase D because the City and Montava have not yet negotiated the terms of the City’s purchase of
the Park.
Comment Number: 7
08/20/2024: FOR APPROVAL: After Wes L's delayed review, more discussion
is needed on water treatment upstream of irrigation pond. After our internal
discussion, we'll set up a separate meeting with you if you'd like.
Response: Per an e-mail from Missy on 09-05-2024, we will address this issue in a separate water
agreement for the shared use of the irrigation pond that will serve the future community park.
Department: PFA
Contact: Marcus Glasgow marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org 970-416-2869
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
7/31/2024: UPDATED
Thank you for providing the turning exhibit. The corners still seem a bit tight. If
you resubmit the turning exhibit to show actual Tower 1 specs that have been
provided via email, this may help.
Response: All turning movements have been updated with the new Tower 1 specs that you have
provided. You will see on these new turning movements that we no longer have an issue with the
tight corners and we are able to make all movements withing the alley and throughout the site
much easier.
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.
Comment Number: 4
7/31/2024: UPDATED
Thank you for providing fire lane signage. The Assistant Fire Marshal has
authorized to increase the spacing between fire lane signs in the alleys to 150
feet. Please revise plans to show revised distance. 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: Thank you for working with us on reducing the number of fire signs required for this
project. The plans have been updated to reflect the new spacing requirements and we have added
the LCUASS sign detail to the plans.
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: Each building / unit will have a roadway and or alley access that meets the minimum 26’
unobstructed access width and distance to the structures as stated above to allow for aerial
apparatus. With the new Tower 1 truck specification, we were able to make all turning movements
work for all alleys and roadways throughout the site, and therefore aerial apparatus access should
no longer be an issue.
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):
• 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 multi-famliy 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 multi-family 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.
• Building Permit Pre-Submittal Meeting:
Please schedule a pre-submittal meeting for any new commercial or multi-family
building with Building Services for this project. Pre-Submittal meetings assist
the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new projects
are on track to complying with all of the adopted City codes and Standards.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County jcounty@fcgov.com 970-221-6588
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 8
08/06/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED:
This has not been addressed.
Response: All round 1 comments have been addressed and are reflected with this submittal.
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’.
Comment Number: 9
08/06/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED:
This has not been addressed.
Response: Benchmark statement has been updated to match the exact format above.
05/28/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are inconsistencies with the title in the title blocks. See markups.
Response: All title blocks have been updated.
Comment Number: 11
08/06/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED:
This has not been addressed.
Response: All round 1 comments have been addressed and are reflected with this submittal.
05/28/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
NON-POT PUMP STATION: Please revise the sub-title as marked. See redlines.
Comment Number: 12
08/06/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas.
Response: Text masks have been added to the labels.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1
08/06/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED:
The Round 2 Subdivision Plat does not look like it has been revised. Please
see the 5/28/24 markups. 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: All round 1 comments have been addressed and are reflected with this submittal. As
discussed, moving forward our surveyor will review the plat prior to any submittal to the City.
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
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.
2) Add curb distance for sanitary sewer lines.
3) Terminate service lines in sanitary sewer manhole where possible.
4) Drawings show parallel sewer lines entering from Maple Hill. Edit drawing to
reflect that the southern line is abandoned.
5) District codes and regulations require sanitary sewer manholes to be
installed every 400 feet. Ensure that sanitary sewer lines meet District
standards.
6) The planned sanitary sewer line crossing Giddings Rd. will need to be inside
a casing. Edit drawings to reflect this requirement.
7) Are there plans for an underdrain system for this phase? Space limitations
within the easement will need to be considered.
Response: The above comments are from Round 1. These have already been responded to or
addressed. Round 2 comments from Boxelder on 8-7-24 and our responses are provided below.
1) Standalone easement will be required for all sewers that are not located in the
public R.O.W. 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. Easements that meet this criterion will need an easement agreement
submitted to the District and recorded by Larimer County. District Easement
template is attached. Response: Per discussions with Boxelder, we will dedicate on the plat all of the
sanitary sewer easements that are not located in dedicated alleys or public ROW and also enter into
a separate easement agreement with Boxelder. A draft of the easement agreement, utilizing
Boxelder’s template, has been provided to Boxelder for review.
2) Plan and profile sheets do not have curb distances for sanitary sewer lines. Add
curb distance for sanitary sewer lines. Response: Curb distances have been added to the P&P sheets.
3) There was an error in the general comments during the previous review. Avoid
terminating sanitary sewer service lines in sanitary sewer manholes. Response: Per discussions with
Daniel R. on 08-30-24, we are ok to terminate sewer services into the most upstream manholes.
This criteria was intended to be applied to manholes with lots of sewage flow going through them.
4) Review space required for tap connections and ensure that service connections
adjacent to manholes have adequate space. Response: Per discussions with Daniel R. on 08/30/2024,
providing 2’ from outside edge of manhole is acceptable.
5) Utility plan shows non-linear service connections (pg. 67 Lot 18, Pg. 69 Lot 1 & Lot
39, pg. 73 Lot 8). The District does not allow non-linear service connections.
Remove connections of this type and replace with linear connections Response: All non-linear services
have been removed from the plans.
Contact: Cheryl Smith, Larimer County, smithcl@co.larimer.co.us
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4
07/24/2024:
No concerns.
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: These easements will be created and dedicated once we have final approval of the
plans. Please see provided Bluebeam comment responses for all other comments that were
addressed.
Contact: Lawrence Custer Grasmick Jones & Donovan, LLP, Ryan Donovan,
ryan@lcwaterlaw.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
8/15/2024:
Comments and Attachments for Round 2 provided separately.
Response: Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company provided separate written comments from Ryan
Donovan and W.W. Wheeler dated August 7, 2024. Please see our separate responses provided
with this submittal.
5/31/2024:
Please see attachments provided in Round 1 Comments Package.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Emma Pett epett@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
08/06/2024: INFORMATION: Preliminary irrigation plans are due at FDP
should include a landscape plan, a water budget and hydrozone map. Your
water budget must be under 15 gallons/square foot for the property annually.
Final irrigation plans are due at building permit application, but we encourage
you to submit them earlier in case changes need to be made. Detailed irrigation
submittal requirements can be found here:
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities//img/site_specific/uploads/irrigation-plan-submitt
al-reqs.pdf?1649260267
Response: Thank you for the informal review. Preliminary irrigation plans and hydrozone plans
have been included with this submittal.