• No results found

Katharine Claypool ITEM 2, INQUIRY 1. Hi all,

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Katharine Claypool ITEM 2, INQUIRY 1. Hi all,"

Copied!
13
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

1

From:

Rebecca Everette

Sent:

Tuesday, January 19, 2021 8:52 AM

To:

Ted Shepard

Cc:

Kacee Scheidenhelm; P&Z Board

Subject:

Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: P&Z January 2021 Materials

Categories:

P&Z

Hi all,  

Sorry for the second email. The CDOT Port of Entry SPAR is still on consent, so we will make sure this information is 

available to the board prior to the hearing. 

Thanks, 

Rebecca 

On Jan 19, 2021 8:49 AM, Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> wrote: 

Hi Ted,  

Yes, we will make sure this is in the presentation.  

Thanks, 

Rebecca 

On Jan 19, 2021 8:45 AM, Ted Shepard <tshepard533@gmail.com> wrote: 

Good morning Kacee – hope all is well. 

I can see on the map the location of the Trionfera parcels east of I‐25.  Could you have Pete measure the distance 

between these parcels and the proposed CDOT facility? 

Thanks, Ted 

Sent from 

Mail

 for Windows 10 

From: 

Kacee Scheidenhelm

 

Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 9:58 AM 

To: 

P&Z Board

 

Subject: RE: P&Z January 2021 Materials 

Good morning,  

One public comment has been received for Item 2, CDOT Port of Entry SPAR. That comment is attached individually here 

and has been added into the Hearing packet online as packet page 72.  

Thank you,  

. . . KACEE SCHEIDENHELM

 

(2)

281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580

Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580

970.221.6376

970.224.6134 - fax

Planning, Development &

Transportation

MEMORANDUM

DATE: January 20, 2021

TO:

Planning and Zoning Board

THRU: Paul Sizemore, Interim Deputy Dir, CDNS

FROM: Pete Wray, Senior City Planner

RE: CDOT Port of Entry - Site Plan Advisory Review SPA200003 - Board Member Requested Information

Summary: At the January 15, 2021 Planning and Zoning Board Work Session, Board Members Hansen and

Shepard requested staff provide additional information in response to questions on the CDOT Port of Entry -

Site Plan Advisory Review SPA200003 item.

1. Please confirm lighting fixtures on the inspection station building are down directional and

full cut-off, and lighting illumination levels off-site on the southbound POE (west side) are

reduced to zero within the Running Deer Natural Area?

Staff/Applicant Response:

In the Hearing packet, Preliminary submittal construction plans (Att. 2), overall site lighting layout plans and

fixture specifications are included. The Applicant has provided new information for the southbound POE site,

including photometric plan, and building mount fixture specifications (see attachments 1 and 2). The POE

site and building lighting fixtures are all down directional and full cut-off. The photometric plan shows lighting

illumination levels beyond the west frontage road ROW adjacent to the Running Deer Natural Area are

reduced to zero.

2. Please clarify justification for relocating the POE from current location and distance between

existing and proposed location on I-25. In response to a citizen concern of proposed POE too

close to existing residential (Mr. Louis Trionfera), distance between northbound POE and

existing residential lots to east?

Applicant Response:

The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Colorado State Patrol Port of Entry have studied

a wide variety of alternative locations and configurations for the existing Port of Entry facilities near the

Interstate 25 (I-25) and Prospect Rd Interchange. As part of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

for the North I-25 Corridor and subsequent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents recognized

the need to relocate the existing Port of Entry facilities to improve the safety and operations of the I-25/Prospect

Rd Interchange.

Relocating the facilities north of the I-25 and Colorado State Highway 14 (CO 14) Interchange is not desirable

because of impacts to the enforcement and therefore, operational and safety concerns this might pose the

State’s highway system. Additionally, physical constraints along I-25 between CO 14 and Prospect Rd make

that location less than desirable as well. For these reasons, it was determined that the port facilities must be

along I-25 south of Prospect Rd. The proposed location for the relocated port facilities relocates the facilities

as far south as possible without negatively impacting the I-25 and Harmony Rd Interchange which allows for

the maximization of the operations and safety improvements associated with this scope of work therefore

meeting the goals of the FEIS. For safety reasons, it was deemed necessary for the east and west port facilities

(3)

2

to have line of sight across I-25 for emergency scenarios. This additional safety constraint and CDOT’s desire

to balance impacts on both side of I-25 contributed to the relocated port of entry location.

As requested, below is a summary of measurements from the existing port of entry site location to the proposed

location, the distance from CDOT’s existing right of way limit to CDOT’s future right of way limit along the

northbound (east) port of entry site, and the distance from the proposed northbound port of entry building to

the nearest homes.

Measurement

Distance

Existing port of entry to proposed port of entry

Approximately 2700 ft

Additional Proposed CDOT Right of Way Width

Between 0 and approximately 150 ft

Closest residential building to new port of entry

building

Approximately 600ft

Distance from Louis Trionfera Properties to new

port of entry building

Between approximately 750-960 ft

Attachments:

1. POE Lighting Luminaire Spec-Sheet

2. POE Lighting Photometric Plan

(4)

©2020 Leotek Electronics USA. GCM_H-Series_Specificatio_ Sheet_08-26-20. Specifications subject to change without notice.

Page 1 of 4

Ordering Information

Sample Catalog No. GCM2-30H-MV-NW-2R-GY-700-PCR7-WL

Luminaire Data

Weight 11 lbs [5.0 kg]

EPA

0.44 ft

2 Project Type Catalog No.

GreenCobra™ Midsize LED Street Light

GCM H-Series

Specification Data Sheet

Product Code LED Voltage TemperatureColor Distribution Finish1 30H Drive

Current Code2 Options GCM2 GCM2 30H 40H MV HV 120-277V347-480V WWNW CW 3000K 4000K 5000K 2S 2R 3R 4 5 Type 2 Short Type 2 Medium Type 3 Medium Type 4 Type 5 GY DB BK Gray Dark Bronze Black 530 610 700 850 1A 575 700 850 950 1A FDC3 LPCR PCR74 PCR7-CR5 MSL3 MSL7 LSSP2 WL 4B RWG SWTB BBL DSC CF6

Fixed Drive Current Less Photocontrol Receptacle

ANSI 7-wire Photo-control Receptacle Control Ready 7-wire PC Receptacle Motion Sensor, L3 Lens Motion Sensor, L7 Lens Extreme Surge Protection, Fail-to-off, 20kV/10kA Rating Utility Wattage Label 4-Bolt Mounting Bracket Rubber Wildlife Guard Straight Wire Terminal Block Bubble Level

Door Safety Cable Coastal Paint Finish

Accessories* HSSGCM7 CSSGCM8 FSSGCM9 SPB10 RPB10 PTB10 PTB210 WB10 BSK LLPC11 SC House Side Shield, Snap-On* Cul-De-Sac Side Shield, Snap-On* Front Side Shield, Snap-On* Square Pole Horizontal Arm Bracket Round Pole Horizontal Arm Bracket Pole Top Tenon Horizontal Arm Bracket

Pole Top Tenon Horizontal Arm Bracket (2@180o) Wall Horizontal Arm Bracket Bird Deterrent Spider Kit Long-Life Twist Lock Photocontrol Twist Lock Shorting Cap Notes: 1 Gray, Black, and Dark Bronze standard. Consult factory for other finishes. 2 Specified drive current code is the factory set drive current. Field adjustable current selector enables fixture to be changed in the field to adjust light output for local conditions (not available with Fixed Drive Current (FDC) or PCR7-CR option). Consult factory if wattage limits require a special drive current. 3 Non-field adjustable, fixed drive current. Specify required drive current. Not available with PCR7-CR option. 4 Includes current selector that enables field adjustability of light levels. Includes connectors to allow easy

upgrade of wireless dimming via PCR7. Wireless node by others.

5 Control-ready wired at factory for wireless node dimming (node by others). Current selector not included in the fixture. Not able to adjust above specified drive current. 6 Specify the CF Option for coastal installation. See warranty for details. 7 Flush mounted house side shield. Shield cuts light off at 1/2 mounting height behind luminaire. 8 Flush mounted cul-de-sac shield. Shield cuts light off at 1/2 mounting height behind luminaire and 1-1/2 mounting height on either side of luminaire. 9 Flush mounted front side shield cuts light off at approximately one mounting height in front of luminaire (street side). 10 Specify Color (GY, DB, BK) 11 Specify MV (120-277V) or HV (347V-480V) *Unless specified for field installation, Shields and Shorting Caps are shipped installed. All other options are shipped separately. 40H Drive Current Code2

INSPECTION LUMINAIRE

ROADWAY LUMINAIRE

(5)

©2020 Leotek Electronics USA. GCM_H-Series_Specificatio_ Sheet_08-26-20. Specifications subject to change without notice.

Page 2 of 4

Luminaire Specifications

Housing

Die cast aluminum housing with universal two-bolt slip fitter mounts to 1-1/4” to 2” (1-5/8” to 2-3/8” O.D.) diameter mast arm. One-piece aluminum housing provides passive heat-sinking of the LEDs and has upper surfaces that shed precipitation. Four-bolt mounting bracket is available. Mounting provisions meet 3G vibration per ANSI C136.31-2010 Normal Application, Bridge & Overpass. Mounting has leveling adjustment from ± 5° in 2.5° steps. All hardware is stainless steel. Electrical components are accessed without tools via die cast aluminum door with stainless steel quick-release latches. Provided standard with removable polycarbonate wild life guard. For additional protection, optional rubber wildlife guard (RWG) which conforms snugly to the mast arm is offered.

Light Emitting Diodes

LEDs produce minimun 90% of initial intensity at 60,000 hours hours of life per IES recommended lumen maintenance life projection based on 6 times the duration of the collected LM-80 data. For details on IESNA Position on LED Product Lifetime Prediction, PS-10-18. LEDs have correlated color temperature of 3000K (WW), 4000K (NW), or 5000K (CW) and 70 CRI minimum. LEDs are ROHS compliant, 100% mercury and lead free.

Field Adjustability

LED lumen output can be changed in the field to adjust drive current for local conditions (not available with PCR7-CR option). The specified driver current will be the factory set output. Field adjustments can be made with the output selector included in the fixture. Field adjustable range shown in performance data table.

Quality Control

Every luminaire is performance tested before and after a 2-hour burn-in period. Assembled in the USA. Optical Systems Micro-lens optical systems produce IESNA Type 2, Type 3, Type 4, or Type 5 distributions and are fully sealed to maintain an IP66 rating. Luminaire produces 0% total lumens above 90⁰ (BUG Rating, U=0). Optional house side shield cuts light off at 1/2 mounting height behind luminaire. Front side shield cuts light off at approximately one mounting height in front of the luminaire (street side). Cul-de-sac shield provides back and side light control for end of cul-de-sac applications. All shields are field installable without tools.

Electrical

Rated life of electrical components is 100,000 hours. Uses isolated power supply that is 1-10V dimmable. Power supply is wired with quick-disconnect terminals. Power supply features a minimum power factor of .90 and <20% Total Harmonic Distortion (THD). EMC meets or exceeds FCC CFR Part 15. Terminal block accommodates 6 to 14 gauge wire. Surge protection complies with IEEE/ANSI C62.41 Category C High, 20kV/10kA and ANSI C136.2-2015, 20kV/10kA.

Controls

3-Wire photocontrol receptacle is standard. ANSI C136.41 7-wire (PCR7) photocontrol receptacle is available. All photocontrol receptacles have tool-less rotatable bases. Wireless control module is provided by others.

Finish

Housing receives a durable, fade-resistant polyester powder coat finish with 3.0 mil nominal thickness. Standard finish tested to withstand 5000 hours in salt spray exposure per ASTM B117 and Coastal Finish per ASTM G85. Finish meets scribe creepage rating 8 per ASTM D1654. Finish tested 500 hours in UV exposure per ASTM G154 and meets ASTM D523 gloss retention.

Listings/Ratings/Labels

Luminaires are UL listed for use in wet locations in the United States and Canada. DesignLights Consortium™ qualified product. Consult DLC QPL for Standard and Premium Classification Listings. All electronic components inside of the luminaire are NRTL damp location rated per ANSI 136.37-2011 Ingress Protection standard. International Dark Sky Association listed. Luminaire is qualified to operate at ambient temperatures of -40°C to 40°C. Photometry Luminaires photometrics are tested by certified independent testing laboratories in accordance with IES LM-79 testing procedures. Warranty

10-year limited warranty is standard on luminaire and components. See Leotek.com for warranty details.

Vandal Resistance

Housing and optics rated to IK10 Standards

Luminaire complies with:

ANSI: C136.2, C136.3, C136.10, C136.13, C136.15, C136.22, C136.31, C136.35, C136.37, C136.41, C62.41, C78.377, C82.77

Other: FCC 47 CFR, IEC 60598, ROHS II, UL 1449, UL 1598

GreenCobra™ Midsize LED Street Light

GCM H-Series

Specification Data Sheet

Order Code

Color

RAL #

Equivalent

Pantone

GY

Gray

7040

429C

BK

Black

9004

426C

DB

Dark Bronze

6022

BLACK 2C

Color Specifications

Model Number 60,000 Hours*

80,000 Hours

100,000 Hours

All GCM H

>95%

>94%

>93%

TM21 Lumen Maintenance per IES TM21-11 Calculation

(6)

©2020 Leotek Electronics USA. GCM_H-Series_Specificatio_ Sheet_08-26-20. Specifications subject to change without notice.

Page 3 of 4

GreenCobra™ Midsize LED Street Light

GCM H-Series

Specification Data Sheet

Product

LED Code

Current Code

Drive

Wattage (W)

System

Lumens (Lm)

Delivered

1

(Lm/W)

Efficacy

Field Adjustable

Output Range

GCM2 30H 530 48 5770 120 610 58 6700 116 700 68 7620 112 850 82 8800 107 1A 101 10480 104 40H 575 73 8780 120 700 88 10230 116 850 107 11960 112 950 121 13040 108 1A 135 14080 104 Notes: 1 Nominal lumens. Normal tolerance ± 10% due to factors including distribution type, LED bin variance, and ambient temperatures.

Product

LED Code

Current Code

Drive

Wattage (W)

System

Lumens (Lm)

Delivered

1

(Lm/W)

Efficacy

Field Adjustable

Output Range

GCM2 30H 530 48 6330 132 610 58 7440 128 700 68 8550 126 850 82 9830 120 1A 101 11720 116 40H 575 73 9590 131 700 88 11260 128 850 107 13270 124 950 121 14390 119 1A 135 15430 114 Notes: 1 Nominal lumens. Normal tolerance ± 10% due to factors including distribution type, LED bin variance, and ambient temperatures.

Performance Data: 3000K (WW)

All data nominal. IES files for all CCTs available at leotek.com.

Performance Data: 4000K (NW) and 5000K (CW)

(7)

©2020 Leotek Electronics USA. GCM_H-Series_Specificatio_ Sheet_08-26-20. Specifications subject to change without notice.

Page 4 of 4

GreenCobra™ Midsize LED Street Light

GCM H-Series

Specification Data Sheet

Type 2S

Type 2R

Type 3R

Type 4

Type 5

Product

Code

LED

Current Code

Drive

Rating

BUG

Rating

BUG

Rating

BUG

Rating

BUG

Rating

BUG

GCM2 530 B2 U0 G1 B1 U0 G1 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G1 B3 U0 G1 610 B2 U0 G1 B1 U0 G1 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G1 30H 700 B2 U0 G1 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G1 850 B2 U0 G1 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G2 1A B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G2 575 B2 U0 G1 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G2 700 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G2 40H 850 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G3 B3 U0 G2 B3 U0 G2 950 B3 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G3 B3 U0 G2 B4 U0 G2 1A B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G3 B3 U0 G2 B4 U0 G2

3000K (WW)

BUG Ratings

Type 2S

Type 2R

Type 3R

Type 4

Type 5

Product

Code

LED

Current Code

Drive

Rating

BUG

Rating

BUG

Rating

BUG

Rating

BUG

Rating

BUG

GCM2 530 B2 U0 G1 B1 U0 G1 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G1 B3 U0 G1 610 B2 U0 G1 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G1 30H 700 B2 U0 G1 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G2 850 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G2 1A B3 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G2 B3 U0 G2 575 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G2 700 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G3 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G2 40H 850 B3 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G3 B3 U0 G2 B4 U0 G2 950 B3 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G3 B3 U0 G2 B4 U0 G2 1A B3 U0 G2 B3 U0 G3 B3 U0 G3 B3 U0 G3 B4 U0 G2

4000K (NW)

Type 2S

Type 2R

Type 3R

Type 4

Type 5

Product

Code

LED

Current Code

Drive

Rating

BUG

Rating

BUG

Rating

BUG

Rating

BUG

Rating

BUG

GCM2 530 B2 U0 G1 B1 U0 G1 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G1 B3 U0 G1 610 B2 U0 G1 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G1 30H 700 B2 U0 G1 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G2 850 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G2 1A B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G3 B3 U0 G2 B3 U0 G2 575 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G2 700 B2 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G3 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G2 40H 850 B3 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G3 B3 U0 G2 B4 U0 G2 950 B3 U0 G2 B2 U0 G2 B3 U0 G3 B3 U0 G2 B4 U0 G2 1A B3 U0 G2 B3 U0 G3 B3 U0 G3 B3 U0 G3 B4 U0 G2

5000K (CW)

(8)

1.0 Fc 0.5 Fc 0.2 Fc 0.1 Fc

NEW 40' CDOT LUMINAIRE

NEW 20' INSPECTION AREA LUMINAIRE

lighting design and engineering

Lighting Calculation Summary

North I-25 EXPRESS LANES

LC-1.1

T. BABCOCK B. NELSON Scale: Date: Checked: Drawn: Checked: Drawn: 1/16"=1'-0" 2021-01-06

(9)

1.0 Fc 0.5 Fc 0.2 Fc 0.1 Fc

NEW 40' CDOT LUMINAIRE

NEW 20' INSPECTION AREA LUMINAIRE

lighting design and engineering

Lighting Calculation Summary

North I-25 EXPRESS LANES

LC-1.2

T. BABCOCK B. NELSON Scale: Date: Checked: Drawn: Checked: Drawn: 1/16"=1'-0" 2021-01-06

(10)

1.0 Fc 0.5 Fc 0.2 Fc 0.1 Fc

NEW 40' CDOT LUMINAIRE

NEW 20' INSPECTION AREA LUMINAIRE

lighting design and engineering

Lighting Calculation Summary

North I-25 EXPRESS LANES

LC-1.3

T. BABCOCK B. NELSON Scale: Date: Checked: Drawn: Checked: Drawn: 1/16"=1'-0" 2021-01-06

*ILLUMINANCE WHEN INSPECTION AREA LIGHTS OFF

ISOLINES ARE SHOWN WITH INPECTION

AREA LIGHTS ON

(11)

1

From:

Katharine Claypool

Sent:

Thursday, January 21, 2021 3:21 PM

To:

Katharine Claypool

Subject:

FW: [EXTERNAL] POE I-25 and Prospect

Categories:

P&Z

From: alan hill <

hill@frii.com

>  

Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 3:17 PM 

To: 

corey.stewart@state.co.us

; Pete Wray <

PWRAY@fcgov.com

>; Sharlene Manno <

smanno@fcgov.com

Subject: [EXTERNAL] POE I‐25 and Prospect 

Hi Corey,   

We are property owners of 2856 Arbee Lane, Fort Collins, CO  80525.  

We know our opinion will not make any difference to any plan or decision regarding this project, but we are very 

disappointed that the State of Colorado thinks they have the money and need to spend the money to relocate the two 

existing Port of Entry sites on I‐25 close to Prospect Rd at Fort Collins, CO.    It is a waste of funds when that money is 

desperately needed elsewhere, like for actual road maintenance.   

We would like to know the reason for the relocation of something that is presently working.  It hasn’t been too long ago 

that the south bound west side POE was totally rebuilt.   

We would like to know the cost of the total project, in other words the amount of money that the State of Colorado will 

be wasting.   

Why does the facility need nine parking spaces for employees when stated there will be only two or three manning the 

facility?   

Our concerns and  objections are based on the location and the effect it will have on our property:   

Noise pollution:  Long term noise from vehicle engines slowing and accelerating, idling, air brakes, shifting and  also rain 

and hail on metal roof of buildings.  Shorter term ‐‐‐ construction noise.   

Night sky light pollution:  even using “approved” lighting, the relocated facilities will be approximately 20‐30 feet higher 

than the current grade of the current SE Frontage Road so there will be light  pollution to the properties along Arbee 

Lane.   There is currently light pollution from the existing POE locations from County Road 5, which is across pasture and 

farm land almost a mile away.   

Wildlife habitat:    All wildlife has not received the memo to cross  I‐25 only under the bridge over the railroad.    They 

will be forced to change their patterns as the current crossing will be lighted, noisy, and congested.   Raptors living in the 

large trees close to the relocation site will be forced to relocate nests.  There is wildlife habitat along the SE Frontage 

road that will be destroyed.   The relocation of the POE on both sides will cause stress to wildlife.     

(12)

2

Trash:  There is always trash blowing and caught in the fencing along the SE Frontage Road from the current POE.   Now 

it will be in our front yards along Arbee Lane.   There will also be blowing dirt and construction debris pollution.   

Ground pollution:  With the additional hard surfaces and roadway moving closer to the residences and the site being at 

a higher elevation, there will be more ground pollution from the runoff of polluted water and snow melt from those 

hard surfaces.   Also – are you aware of the high water table at the proposed site?   The homeowners struggle with 

flooding now and the added runoff will only make this worse.     

Questions:  Where will the plowed snow be piled and where is the site of the septic tank and leach field?   

Inconvenience:   Because of this relocation and construction, there will  be major inconvenience to the residents of 

Arbee Lane, the businesses along the SE Frontage Road, and everyone who uses this road for normal travel.   This will 

also be a safety hazard.   

What is the plan for the East/West road to Arbee Lane and the relocation of the mail boxes?  

We were saddened to see that a neighborhood meeting wasn’t necessary because this relocation “would not have 

significant neighborhood impact”.   We disagree.    

We really wish you’d leave the two Port of Entry facilities  at their current locations.  

(13)

To: Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board

Subject: H-25 Multi-Family PDP (#200004)

I want to write and formally thank you for your support of the community with regard to

the review for this project held on November 19

th

, 2020. You have met many of us in

the community during the past couple of years as we have worked with yourselves and

our City Council to promote reasonable and quality development for the Gateway area.

We would have had a presence/comments at the meeting mentioned if not for the

constant distractions of the COVID situation. However; we have worked with Meaghan

Overton directly over the preceding months and feel that she has done a good job of

answering questions regarding our concerns and getting more answers/follow-up where

we felt it was necessary. She has been effective in helping us feel that our voices have

been heard.

One area that has always concerned us, as you well know, has been the architectural

and design aspects of the development. We have always felt that a design similar to

the previous H-23/Wyatt Apartments would not reflect well on our city in a location as

important as the Gateway. And, with the grandfathering of the previous ODP and HCP

zoning for this PDP, we have been concerned that the development would be too much

of a compromise when compared to the new 2020 HCP Update Design Guidelines.

Your collective decision to “Not Approve the PDP” until the Standards for Architectural

Guidelines are fully met is an encouraging sign and shows that you share the same

concerns as many of your citizens. We welcome your continued scrutiny on this aspect

of the project especially given the reduced setbacks being allowed (verses the newer

HCP Update requirements). In addition, as is usual, the renditions of mature

landscaping in the design documents will not become reality for many years, making the

architectural design allowed even more relevant.

I believe that the proposed Entryway changes and the (5) 24-plex buildings Architectural

Design Changes are clearly a step in the right direction for your consideration at your

01/21/21 meeting. If you feel the same, you may also want to consider similar

treatments in design variation changes for the larger 30-plex & 36-plex buildings to

improve their even larger roof visual footprints and the overall look of the entire

development.

Thanks for your continued attention to development in this key Fort Collins entryway.

Regards,

References

Related documents

These paclitaxel resistant ovarian cells demonstrate: (1) Increased IC50 for paclitaxel and docetaxel (10 to 75-fold) and cross-resistance to anthracyclines (2) Reduced cell

While a few clinical studies have shown that antibiotics during PD-1 inhibition are associated with inferior survival, an- other study presented at the Society for Immunotherapy

Similarly, clear increase ( P &lt; 0.001) in cystic and atretic follicles while a decrease in corpus luteum was perceived in PCOS positive group that was upturned by treatment

Given the potential clinical utility of BDX008 for optimization of advanced melanoma treatment, we sought to further validate the test in an independent cohort of pa- tients with

Data collected during Marine Special Operations Command.. 40) Data presented as mean (95% Confidence Interval of the mean) a Data collected during US Army Special Forces Small

In this study, pioglitazone treatment of PCO model rats reduced the total number and rate of atretic follicles, and also reduced their serum AMH and elevated adipo- nectin