Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/21/2021 - Planning And Zoning Board - Supplemental Documents - Regular Meeting1 Katharine Claypool 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 ITEM 2, INQUIRY 1 Materials Updated 1.21.21 Packet pg. 1 281 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 ITEM 2, RESPONSE TO INQUIRY 1 Materials Updated 1.21.21 Packet pg. 2 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 ITEM 2, RESPONSE TO INQUIRY 1 Materials Updated 1.21.21 Packet pg. 3 ©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 ft2 Project Type Catalog No. GreenCobra™ Midsize LED Street Light GCM H-Series Specification Data Sheet Product LED Code Voltage Color Temperature Distribution Finish1 30H Drive Current Code2 Options GCM2 GCM2 30H 40H MV HV 120-277V 347-480V WW NW 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 ITEM 2, RESPONSE TO INQUIRY 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Materials Updated 1.21.21 Packet pg. 4 ©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 # Pantone Equivalent 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 *Calculation based on IES position statement on Lumen Maintenance Life Projections ITEM 2, RESPONSE TO INQUIRY 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Materials Updated 1.21.21 Packet pg. 5 ©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 Drive Current Code System Wattage (W) Delivered Lumens (Lm) 1 Efficacy (Lm/W) 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 Drive Current Code System Wattage (W) Delivered Lumens (Lm) 1 Efficacy (Lm/W) 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) All data nominal. IES files for all CCTs available at leotek.com. ITEM 2, RESPONSE TO INQUIRY 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Materials Updated 1.21.21 Packet pg. 6 ©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 LED Code Drive Current Code BUG Rating BUG Rating BUG Rating BUG Rating BUG Rating 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 LED Code Drive Current Code BUG Rating BUG Rating BUG Rating BUG Rating BUG Rating 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 LED Code Drive Current Code BUG Rating BUG Rating BUG Rating BUG Rating BUG Rating 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) ITEM 2, RESPONSE TO INQUIRY 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Materials Updated 1.21.21 Packet pg. 7 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 ITEM 2, RESPONSE TO INQUIRY 1, ATTACHMENT 2 Materials Updated 1.21.21 Packet pg. 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-1.2 T. BABCOCK B. NELSON Scale: Date: Checked: Drawn: Checked: Drawn: 1/16"=1'-0" 2021-01-06 ITEM 2, RESPONSE TO INQUIRY 1, ATTACHMENT 2 Materials Updated 1.21.21 Packet pg. 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-1.3 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 **ILLUMINANCE WHEN INSPECTION AREA LIGHTS ON ITEM 2, RESPONSE TO INQUIRY 1, ATTACHMENT 2 Materials Updated 1.21.21 Packet pg. 10 1 Katharine Claypool 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. ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT 1 Materials Updated 1.21.21 Packet pg. 11 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. ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT 1 Materials Updated 1.21.21 Packet pg. 12 Date: January 16th, 2021 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 19th, 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, Mike Feldhousen ITEM 4, PUBLIC COMMENT 1 Materials Updated 1.21.21 Packet pg. 13