Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAMPUS WEST THEATRE REDEVELOPMENT - PDP - 23-04B - CORRESPONDENCE - PHOTOMETRIC PLANthat we will have all issues handled and communicated to you prior to the hearing. Could we have this hearing on March 30, 2006 (Thursday)? I know that you require 2 weeks plus 2 days for the scheduling of the meeting. This gives us this week and next week to complete any open tasks associated with the hearing. Let me know if that works. We will also have all issues addressed to you prior to the hearing. We will attend the hearing and then submit our final PDP once we incorporate all comments and issues including any that arise in the hearing. Is that acceptable? Thanks, Scott "Setting.your Project on the Course for Success" Scott M. Addington PO Box 1789 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970-222-5141 (Cell) 970-224-2403(Fax) saddington@ tradewindprojectsolutions.com www.tradewindDroiectsolutions.com No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1 /279 - Release Date: 3/10/2006 From: Susan Joy To: Anne Aspen; Scott Addington Date: 03/13/2006 10:40:13 AM Subject: Re: Electrical Lighting Issues on Campus West Redevelopment and Type 1 Hearing schedule Hi Scott, All variances must be reviewed and approved before scheduling a hearing and I believe you were planning on submitting a variance to the drive aisle width requirement from the emails that went around last week.. If you submit a variance and that variance is then denied, then the plans need to be resubmitted showing the site designed to standard before Engineering will allow scheduling a hearing. Also, as discussed in staff review on the 8th, all engineering comments not specially marked for Final Compliance need to be addressed before scheduling a hearing (see comment letter from the last round of review). So, short answer, this project is not ready to schedule the hearing at this time and I'll have to see the next submittal before I can say that all the issues have been addressed. Please call if you have any questions (221-6605), Susan >>> Anne Aspen 3/13/200610:16:22 AM >>> Hi Scott, I am the reviewer for lighting. The meeting would need to be with me. But I will say exactly what I've said in the last two rounds of review. The plans are NOT to code as shown. I think it would be a better use of time to have the lighting contractor revise the plans first. If there are any questions about my comments, they can call me or we can have a meeting if necessary. As far as scheduling the hearing, I need an ok from Susan that she is ready, as I told you in the comment letter. Once I have that, we can schedule. The two weeks is needed for public notification. If issues aren't resolved prior to that two weeks plus one day, we don't schedule because if there is some problem in getting resolution and we can't go to hearing, we must continue the hearing (postpone it to another day) which is a huge incovenience for anyone that shows up for the hearing as notified. It is also a big cost that the City must absorb to renotify the hearing. Let me know if you have further questions. Anne >>> "Scott Addington" <saddinoton(&frii.com> 03/13 10:05 AM >>> Anne, I am not sure who needs to be involved, but I would like to have a brief meeting with the City team and my Electrical Design Engineer on the lighting issues that seem to be continuing in the PDP submittal. According to the Engineer all parameters are per the City requirements and the equipment is well suited for the installation. I read over the comments and it appears there are some problems with height and the brightness etc. First who would we meet to seek resolution and coordination to these issues and coordinate a meeting? Second when could we possibly meet with your team? I just want to clear up any concerns prior to the final submittal and hearing. I would also like to schedule a type 1 hearing, as you requested, knowing