The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTHE DISTRICT AT CAMPUS WEST - FDP - FDP120021 - CORRESPONDENCE -Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 12/31/2012: The 20" water main does not have cathodic protection; therefore, the three details on the bottom of Sht C702 are not needed. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416.2313, nbeals fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: The landscaping plan has a note under the specie table that all trees are upsized for mitigation. An upsized Evergreen is at minimum 8ft, the proposed size for the Evergreen trees is less then this. On the same sheet and table the total specie quantities for Evergreen and Ornamental grasses is incorrect. On the same sheet and table the percentage for the trees should be from the total trees both Evergreen and Deciduous. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: The site plan does not need to include the old ROW please remove them. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: On the Elevations it appears the CABANA extends the full length of the courtyard, however on the site plan the CABANA is separated by a fence and gate on both sides. Which is correct? Building permits are not normally issued for structures in Drainage easements (cabana, parking garage). Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: On the elevations there is a note that all utility equipment shall be painted this note should also include mechanical equipment. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: The Shadow analysis and Lighting plan are a part of the Final Plan if they were submitted zoning did not receive a copy of them, please include them. 12/23/2012: Did not receive revised UP's to determine if this item was addressed. 03/26/2012: Looking at another staff members UP's, please remove all crosswalk striping. 12/23/2012: Did not receive revised UP's to determine if this item was addressed. 03/26/2012: Please revise Bluebell to have parking on both sides of the roadway. 12/23/2012: Did not receive revised UP's to determine if this item was addressed. 03/26/2012: Please remove all roadway striping in the bus bay on Plum as well as the "Right Turn Do Not Pass Bus" sign. 12/23/2012: Did not receive revised UP's to determine if this item was addressed. 03/26/2012: Please remove the "No Parking" signage by this developments buildings on Plum and on Bluebell. We'll wait and see if parking on Plum becomes a problem first. 12/23/2012: Did not receive revised UP's to determine if this item was addressed. 03/26/2012: Construction Notes, C. 6 & 14 (sht C001): Revise statements to state the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer where it currently states City of Fort Collins Engineer. Please provide the Utility Plan sheets the above comments refer to so the comments can be Resolved. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, . 970-221-6854, rbuffington(-fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 12/31/2012: There appears to be very little clearance between the east sewer service from Bldg 1 and the 20" water main. Schedule meeting to review options. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 12/31/2012: The City does not use 3" valves in the distribution system. Revise the water service connection for Bldg 2 to utilize a 4" tapping sleeve and valve followed by a 4" x 3" reducer. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 12/31/2012: Bldg 2 is noted as a mixed -use. Are there other uses besides parking and residential? Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 12/31/2012: Correct Utility Key Note 8 on Sht C301. The fire hydrant referred to does not connect to the 20" water main. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 12/31/2012: Can the fire line crossing Blue Bell be installed to avoid lowering the 6" water main? 01/03/2013: Please correct the range in the labels on sheet 2 a 3 for the northeast corner of section 15. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/03/2013 01/03/2013: Please show the bearings in the line tables on sheet 3 to the nearest second. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/03/2013 01/03/2013: Please verify that the line/curve tags are correctly correlated to their label locations. L57, L72 & C1 are shown on easements, but are not in the line/curve tables. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/03/2013 01/03/2013: The symbol marked(#4 rebar no cap) along Plum Street on sheet 3, appears not to be on the boundary. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/03/2013 01/03/2013: There is a problem with the 160.39' distance along Bluebell Street and the 6.5' right of way being dedicated. One of these numbers are wrong. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/03/2013 01/0312013: There is one line over text issue on sheet 3. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/03/2013 01/03/2013: Please make the symbols on the boundary and in the legend the same size. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/03/2013 01/03/2013: Please make the symbols in the legend the same as what is shown for monumentation. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: PDP & Compliance will need to be removed from all sheets prior to filing mylars. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970.221.6820, wstanfordOfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/23/2012 The following are the comments from the PDP review that were not resolved: 12/23/2012: Did not receive revised UP's to determine if this item was addressed. 03/26/2012: Looking at another staff members UP's, please remove all crosswalk striping. 12/23/2012: Did not receive revised UP's to determine if this item was addressed. 02/29/2012: Please revise the following portion of note 11. , part C of the Construction Notes to read, " ...performed by the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer or their designate." This will be a permanent change to that note for future reference. 12/23/2012: Did not receive revised UP's to determine if this item was addressed. 02/29/2012: Please revise Note 6 and Note 14, Part C of the Construction Notes to state the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer where it currently states the City of Fort Collins Engineer. This will be a permanent change to those notes. Department: Technical Sei....es Contact: Jeff County, 970-221.6588, jcounty@fc-gov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: PDP, Compliance & Submittal will need to be removed from all sheets prior to filing mylars. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: There is cutoff text in the cornice detail on sheet 7. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: The "Review Set Not For Construction" note will need to be removed from all sheets prior to filing mylars. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: The index on sheet C000 does not match the title on sheet C407. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: There are line over text issues on sheet C200, C403, C405, C406, C502, C504. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: There is a text over text issue on sheet C502. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: There is cut off text on sheet C504. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: The text in the details on sheet C709 is very small. Can the details be enlarged? Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: PDP & Compliance will need to be removed from all sheets prior to filing mylars. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: No plans were provided to us for review. If plans are to be filed with this project, we will need to review them before filing. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/03/2013 01/03/2013: Please change "men" to "persons" in the Statement Of Ownership And Subdivision. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/03/2013 01/03/2013: Please make sure that all of your plat language is the most current language. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/03/2013 01/03/2013: Do you want to provide newer title commitments? Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/03/2013 12/27/2012: Debcription of the management of contaminated zioils process that will be used on this site. If there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/27/2012 12/27/2012: Please address the following: Loading and Unloading Operations, Dedicated Asphalt or concrete batch plant on the site, Seed Mixes, Soil Amendments, Sequence of land disturbing activity chart. If there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/27/2012 12/27/2012: Please submit Erosion Control Calculations. If there are any questions, please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970.416-2418, wlamargue(a)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/27/2012 12/27/2012: The following comment offered in February this year refers to the parking garage detention system. Stormwater staff requires this design to be completed as normally required during final compliance and before the signing of mylars. This includes all design details. Initial Date: 02/14/20121ssue ID: 3 All of the drainage infrastructure, SOPs, etc. that is being designed by others will.need to be reviewed and accepted during the final compliance stage and before signing of mylars. Comment Number: 2 - Comment Originated: 12/27/2012 12/27/2012: The following comment offered in February this year stated that many design details still needed to be completed during final compliance. The drainage design has since changed considerably with this first round of final compliance. The City has not determined if this new design will be acceptable. There are many factors that make this design challenging at best. A meeting is needed with all parties involved to determine if solutions to this design can be reached or if another design is necessary. Initial Date: 02/16/2012: At final there will be many drainage design details that will need to be designed and reviewed including the outlet works for the detention planters, proportionate area to the detention planters, and the parking garage detention system. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/27/2012 12/27/2012: Reminder comment. Initial Date: 02/16/2012 Drainage easements are required for the planter detention areas. The detention area in the parking garage will be discussed in the development agreement. The City is still deciding what the best options are for securing perpetual compliance for the garage detention. We welcome any suggestions from the applicant. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/27/2012 12/27/2012: The City is concerned that clogging will incur with having the roof drains piped directly into the middle of the media. Clogging at the transition is most likely and some sort of screening is needed before drainage enter the roof drain system. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/27/2012 12/27/2012: A meeting is requested as soon as convenient for the applicant starting the week of January 7th, 2013. Please provide co.—ouction details local to the areas around gni.- kdecking, landscaping, etc.) so as to verify the grills an not adjacent to any combustible surfaces. Comment Number: 03 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: BALCONIES AND DECKS Sprinkler protection shall be provided for exterior balconies, decks, and ground floor patios of dwelling units where the building is of Type V construction. 2006 International Fire Code 903.3.1.2.1 Comment Number: 04 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: ROOF ACCESS New buildings four or more stories in height shall be provided with a stairway to the roof. Stairway access to the roof shall be in accordance with IFC 1009.12. Such stairways shall be marked at street and floor levels with a sign indicating that the stairway continues to the roof. 2006 International Fire Code 504.3 Comment Number: 05 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12128/2012: KEY BOXES REQUIRED Poudre Fire Authority requires at least one key box ("Knox Box") to be mounted in approved location(s) on every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler or fire alarm system. The top shall not be higher than 6 feet above finished floor. 2006 International Fire Code 506.1 and Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Policy 88-20 Comment Number: 06 Comment Originated: 01/03/2013 01/03/2013: ENCLOSED PARKING GARAGES If the proposed parking garage meets the definition of an Enclosed Parking Garage, the following code requirement shall apply. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout buildings classified as enclosed parking garages (Group S-2 occupancy) in accordance with IBC 406.4 OR where located beneath other groups. Exception: Enclosed parking garages located beneath Group R3 occupancies. 2006 International Fire Code 903.2.9 & 903.2.9.1 Floor openings and interior vertical shafts including but not limited to stairways and elevator hoistways shall be enclosed and protected as per IFC Table 704.1. Comment Number: 07 Comment. Originated: 01/03/2013 01/0312013: GARAGE STANDPIPE SYSTEM A standpipe system shall be installed if the floor level of the highest story of the parking garage is more than 30 feet above the level of fire department vehicle access. 2006 International Fire Code 905.3.1 Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, ischiam()fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/27/2012 12/27/2012: Correct ALL Comments in the Erosion Control Report. Contact Jesse Schlam at jschlam@fcgov.com to get the electronic "redlines" Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/27/2012 Department: EnvironmenL.1 Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: No comments. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-63619 tuchanan a()fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: It appears that there may be a utility line, possibly a storm drain line, close to existing trees to be retained #127 and #128. Please review LUC specification 3.2.1 G 7 for inclusion to address boring under root systems of existing trees. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Please review conifer tree sizes for minimum size standard 3.2.1 4 Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartinecDfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 12/11/2012: No comments. Department: Park Planning Contact: Craig Foreman, 970-221-6618, cforeman(a)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 12/06/2012: No comments Comment Originated: 12/11/2012 Comment Originated: 12/06/2012 Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, llynxwilera()poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 01 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: Carryover comment no. 7 from Ron Gonzales dated 02/10/2012: "All fire appurtenances shown in the courtyards, including the bar-b-q area shall be at least 10 feet away from any combustible surfaces." Project response dated 02/29/2012: The barbecue grills are located four feet from a masonry wall. Is this acceptable? Comment Number: u t,umment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Information on the retaining wall around the existing tree at the northwest corner of Bluebell Street and Plum Street was not provided. The construction plans on the grading sheet refers to the landscape plan, however no design information appears on the landscape plan. Depending on the information provided, this may need to be an structural engineered type of design provided in the construction plan set. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: There are drainage easements shown on the plat which lie within building(s), such as the drainage easement shown within the parking garage, along with drainage easement that appears to be situated over two smaller buildings on either side of the cabana. It appears that the drainage easements within these areas need to be defined in terms of airspace, otherwise the ability to obtain building permits for these would appear to be problematic. It seems odd that the pool itself is also in a drainage easement. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Are residents currently occupying the existing homes within the development? What theoretically happens with the lot lines and easements disappearing on existing buildings after approval of the final plan should there still be residents living in the existing houses? Is there any concern with existing homes that would then be in newly dedicated easements? Should for whatever reason, the development not move forward after a final plan approval, it would seem to be awkward in terms of status of the existing homes. Would Comcast, Century Link and other utility providers potentially remove service to the buildings without being in an underlying easement for example? With the Foothills Mall Redevelopment, with the vacation of the underlying easements in existence today, we're retaining a blanket easement that then gets vacated (specific to the blanket easement only) upon completion of the removal of the services; this might be an option to consider if the intention is that the homes are being occupied for the time being after the plans are approved. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Both the access easement and transit easement are identified with the same appearing cross hatching and should be identified to be distinguishable from another. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: There needs to be a note added regarding the transit easement as follows: The Transit Easements dedicated on this Plat are intended for use by the City of Fort Collins for construction, operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of improvements and structures associated with transportation or transit corridors. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: On sheet 2 of the plat the indication that "EXISTING LOT LINES AND EASEMENTS TO BE VACATED WITH THIS PLAT" needs to add an exemption following such as "EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN NOTE #3 OF THIS PLAT." Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: The submitted final plan design has varied the sidewalk/streetscape along Plum Street from the design that obtained PDP approval. Sidewalk along Plum Street is now attachec in three locations with steps encroaching into the public right-of-way which were previously shown outside of right-of-way. As submitted, the steps would not be allowed as designed because of its placement in right-of-way. Rather than contemplating options in which the steps as designed could remain, the consensus reached in coordinating the review of this design change with Current Planning, Zoning, and Transportation Planning is that the steps need to be moved back to the original design as approved in the PDP, which would then allow for the detached sidewalk and parkway design to remain consistent along Plum Street, as was reviewed and approved as part of the PDP. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: The submitted final plan now shows the creation of two parking stalls that weren't on the previous PDP submittal. I'm concerned that the parking stalls are situated in a manner that potentially requires backing up onto Plum Street, short of vehicles backing into the parking garage entrance. With Building 2 seemingly being built fully up to the opening for the parking garage, with just the opening of the parking garage as the view corridor, along with apparently a median separating the in/out movement from the parking garage, the back -in maneuver into the parking garage appears to be quite difficult and perhaps not likely to be performed. These guest parking spots should be removed or evidence provided to demonstrate how back -in maneuvers directly onto Plum Street won't be performed with this redesign. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: The horizontal control plan in the construction plan set as well as the site plan do not illustrate the placement of utility vaults that encroach onto sidewalk. For the electric vaults, is there a constraint that prevents the vaults from being fully in the parkway/landscape area? Ideally these utility facilities are to be fully outside of the sidewalk. If the utilities in coordination with the review from the utility providers, have no other option but to be in sidewalk, pedestrian rated lids would be specified for use, and adjusted to grade. The final plan submittal also now shows storm sewer manholes at the tie in of the underdrain lines out to Plum Street which weren't previously shown in the PDP set. Are these manholes needed? Have options been explored to place them outside of the sidewalk portion that's in right-of-way? Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: The construction plan shows the extension of sidewalk in front of the two (newly) proposed parking stalls off of Plum Street, west of the former Columbine Street right-of-way. The site and landscape plans do not appear to show this and should be coordinated between the plan sets. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: The site and landscape plans do not reflect the continuation of the sidewalk along the east edge of building 1 curving to the east and tying into an entry north of the garage entry of building 2. Comment Number: ., u inment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Is the new storm sewer pipe such that it is a private line under street right-of-way, given that it appears to only handle onsite roof drainage? (Note on the storm drain sheets, note #8 which states that all lines outside of right-of-way are private.) The placement of a potential private line under right-of-way pavement (with cover issues), and running parallel with the right-of-way would need further review and discussion.. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/0212013: In general, with the previous comments on the concerns for the lack of minimum cover over the storm line, along with the storm line potentially being, private, it seems that a potential option exists where inlets and a low point is introduced to take road flows from Bluebell Street that would then provide a public purpose for the line, while then building up the roadway to increase the amount of cover to meet standard. In addition this may allow reworking of flowline grades to meet .5% minimum instead of the flowline grades that are as low as .15%. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: If the storm sewer along Plum Street abutting buildings 1 and 2 is considered private, is there an opportunity to shift it to the north to not straddle the right-of-way line be completely out of right-of-way? Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Understanding that a private cable line is being contemplated to connect to buildings, this may potentially be allowed through an encroachment permitting process similar to the private fire line. The proposed location and design needs to be provided for review. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: The patching shown for Plum Street needs to extend to encompass the radius on the southeast corner of Plum Street and City Park Avenue. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/0212013: Please provide grading information (grading detail) for the receiving access ramp on the south side of Plum Street across Bluebell Street. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Note #9 on the Horizontal Control & Pavement Plan sheets should also indicate that the pavement thickness shall also at least minimum patch requirements in Table 25-1 of LCUASS, with Table 25-1 added to the plan set (can be a detail that's referred to in the note) Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Detail 1 on Sheet 706 should be indicated as being for use in private areas outside of right-of-way only. Paving requirements for the public streets will be per an approved pavement design report. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: After input from the applicant at the staff review meeting, additional internal discussion is foreseen with the overall concerns with lack of cover over Plum Street (previously known) and Bluebell Street (now known with the addition of the new storm pipe). There again may be interest in Engineering of having all the abutting roads be done in concrete (as shown with Aster) in order to address these concerns. Further updating to this comment will be made. urban, walkable .,oighborhoods. The proper design of the pu„,.L; realm is a key ingredient in promoting compact urban development. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 12/31/2012: By reinstating the detached sidewalk along Plum Street, additional street trees can be added back into the parkway. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 12/31/2012: On the architectural sheets, please provide a separate detail that depicts the dimensions of the balconies. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 12/31/2012: Staff is concerned about the lack of details on the architectural elevations for the parking structure, particularly the north elevation. As drawn, there is no clear depiction of the extent on any recesses or projections associated with the building modules. Please provide a corresponding plan view of the north elevation so the extent of any three dimensionality along the wall can be determined. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 12/31/2012: Also concerning the garage, the materials and colors are not specified. The stone veneer should match that which has been selected for the residential structure. This stone veneer should be carried across the entire base of the north elevation. As shown, there are significant gaps. Will the openings be open-air or provided railings? Please specify the balance of the material used and color. Will these areas be fiber cement panel as on the residential structure? Will there be any manufactured stone veneer, smooth limestone, as shown on the south elevation of Building One? Will there be a top feature that clearly defines the top of the wall? In general, the garage lacks the necessary specificity for a Final Plan. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 12/31/2012: On the architectural elevations, please provide additional information as to the quality of the roof shingles. Will the shingles be ordinary three -tab, 30-year, 40-year? Please specify. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mviratao_fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: With the rebuilding of Plum Street, why are bike lanes only shown as being added back on the westbound movement of Plum Street on the signing and striping plan and not on the eastbound movement as well? Bike lanes need to be added back and reflected in both directions. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Anew storm sewer line is being shown under Bluebell Street. The amount of cover over the pipe does not meet cover over pipe requirements. A variance to LCUASS criteria on pipe cover would need to be provided. w. City�of�' Fort Colons Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov. com/developmentre view January 7, 2013 Linda Ripley Ripley Design, Inc. 401 W. Mountain Ave. #100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: The District at Campus West, FDP120021, Round Number 1 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Ted Shepard, at 221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Ted Shepard, 970.221.6343, tshepard fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 12/31/2012: The re -design of the public sidewalk and parkway along Plum Street significantly diminishes the quality of the pedestrian environment. The P.D.P. was approved with four -bedroom units because it was determined by staff and found by the Hearing Officer that the project complied with Section 3.8.16(E)(2) — Occupancy Limits. This standard requires that where multi -family dwellings include more than three unrelated persons, such occupancy may be allowed but subject to the provision of additional open space, recreational areas, parking and public facilities as may be necessary to adequately serve the occupants and to protect the adjacent neighborhood. The Staff Report to the Hearing Officer stated that "...public facilities have been enhanced with construction of a bus pull -in lane, detached public sidewalk that exceeds the minimum required width and accompanied by seat walls, planters and decorative lighting along Plum Street to encourage gathering and social interaction." The proposed re -design of these public facilities now causes the Final Plan to fail to comply with this standard and thus also found to not be in substantial compliance with the P.D.P. The re -design diminishes the public space afforded by the combination of the street, bike lanes, parkway and sidewalk. Public spaces are a key ingredient in promoting quality of life in