Council approves first amendment to Montava PUD master plan and related development-agreement benefits

Fort Collins City Council voted 7-0 to approve an amendment extending the timeline for the Montava planned unit development and to adopt a related development-agreement amendment securing public benefits.

The measures — an amendment to the Montava PUD master plan (ordinance No. 005) and a companion resolution approving the first amendment to the development agreement — together extend required completion deadlines and preserve the city’s previously negotiated public-benefit commitments tied to the project.

Council took public comment before the vote. Max Moss, a Windsor resident who described himself as a longtime champion of the Montava project, told council the extension was needed because the development has faced “complications, the challenges, the infrastructure issues, the multiple . . . entities that are in the area” and that the developer had been forced into litigation with a ditch company. “This extension is required because of all the complexities of this project that we did not anticipate,” Moss said. Another speaker, Rich Stave, urged caution and asked whether public funds or bonds had been used to support parts of the project, saying repeated postponements lengthen the time before homes are built.

City planning staff told council the Montava PUD master plan was approved in February 2020, shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic, and that pandemic-related delays and negotiations over stormwater and railroad coordination contributed to the request for more time. Staff also noted that a decision letter for the first phase of Montava (Phase D) had been issued on Jan. 8, indicating some elements of the project are moving forward.

Council discussion focused on context and timing; Councilmember Pat Yandy asked staff for more detail about the reasons for the extension and about ongoing coordination with ditch companies and railroad interests. After the presentations and public comments, council adopted the ordinance and the resolution on roll calls that recorded unanimous support.

The amendments keep in place the developer’s obligations to deliver the public benefits negotiated under the original development agreement; the motion and supporting materials did not specify new monetary commitments. Council did not amend the public-benefit terms during the January vote.

Both approvals were recorded as 7-0 votes. Council did not set new specific milestone dates beyond the amended timeline language in the ordinances approved at first reading.

The city clerk’s roll calls and staff decision letter provide the administrative record for the approvals; further project-level permits and phased approvals will proceed under standard planning review.