Hi. I am still concerned about the access to my driveway. It has changed to "C" instead of closed but from what I understand it is conditional and could still be closed. As I expressed at the in person meeting in October, this is the only entrance you can use to access the garage. The garage doors face Patterson. If this access is closed it extremely devalues our house. If this proceeds as it currently is we will need to speak to the city ROW agent about compensation for the tens of thousands of dollars that we will lose. What good is a garage if you can't park in it. We also currently have a drive-thru drive way, again we will lose value when we resell, if we no longer have that. My house is the corner house on Patterson and Partee. The suggested entrance to be closed is east of Partee. My address is 2918 Patterson Road. I also disagree with the right in/right out. We currently have so much traffic that comes out of Safeway (right only) that crosses two lanes of traffic in a short distance that then turns onto our street (Partee) and then does a U-turn on our property so that they can turn right and head west on Patterson. I point this out because the roads you do not make right in/right out will have the same issues I now face. The traffic is a mess and it is tearing up my property. To recap, I strongly oppose closing my Patterson Road driveway and the right in/right out proposal.

I have looked carefully at this plan and beyond the scope of what you see on the pages via the GIS maps. I am concerned about point 64 being conditional. The homeowners off of Meander need guaranteed access. Planned Access 34 is concerning. There is potential for a significant cost to the property or future property owner to make this happen. Construct the final leg at 27 1/2 road (North East Christian). Close the existing NECC access. Route properties to west of NECC to Wellington, do not force the proposed access at #138. Make 149 RI/RO, 150 - No, instead route access to the existing ROW that connects El Corona to Santa Fe Dr. The reroute Santa Fe Dr to Camino Del Ray and reroute Camino Del Ray across 115 Camino Del Ray (Boundary Adj) to connect cleanly to Rio Grande. Make 196 RI/RO. I have a concern about 195, 197 & 198. Instead continue Cascade Av to the East and South to connect into 29 Rd. #234 Broken Spoke collects alot of traffic to north and east, and connects to F 1/2. Should be a 3/4 access. #244 RI/RO - why is it Conditional Safety. Look beyond your detail area to see what is already happening there. #252 - RI/RO Re: pts 25-34 - Access to Flat Top Ln should be mandatory and Flat Top Ln widened on the south side to accommodate traffic flow. Pt 33 Should remain open as there is not space to allow parking lot traffic flow to the two properties to the south. Personally, I feel that 70-80% of the plan will meet your stated safety goals for the future. However, the plan will create frustrated drivers if 3/4 turn options are not used appropriately.

Leave Patterson alone until the City does something with the whole of North Ave. In a quote from this evening comes this example of local-attitude when it comes to doing anything before plans are made. "The City "gods," are not going to do anything with North Ave until hell freezes over. The Name change from North to University was going to cost the businesses on North in excessive over 500K over all. when that was proven to the City gods of GJ, they put in a U-Haul command center, that utterly ruined North Ave. (the city gods of GJ) ain't gonna do _____!" This is the sentiment of many locals and it has been for years. Look at "Reverse-Parking," how well did that go over? If we have the money to repair our roads and walkways, let's look at the whole of the city/county, fix what needs it the most, then gradually move up to Patterson Ave. which needs more traffic cops on duty then it does street lights. Issues with Patterson is like trying to fix mistakes of the past. If actual repairs are going to be made on that streatch of road, someone is going to loose their property along the way. Think carefully of what you are planning on doing to Patterson. Ave.

What is the current status of the I-70/29 Road Interchange? If and when that exit is created, how much traffic is expected to use 29 Road South to Orchard & North Avenues and points south instead of using Patterson Road between St. Mary's and Clifton/BL-70? That should be taken into consideration for the Patterson Road plans as that will reduce the reliance of Patterson Road for many.

Hi, I am not in favor of medians. I think sometimes you cannot turn where you need to. Also there are few places which allow you to make a U Turn when not being able to cross the road. I think that medians help with bicycle traffic if there is not a way to go left. Please get on a bicycle and ride this portion of Patterson and see if you think it is hard to turn left. How many times have you gone through the exit at a store or restaurant on Patterson and discovered that you can't cross. There are other ways (rounabouts for example which will be better.

If you are thinking of putting in raised medians, then that is a HORRIBLE idea for Patterson Rd. A lot of people need to be able to access the middle lane in order to cross traffic (ie: when trying to turn left onto Patterson when it's busy from 28 Rd or any of the other streets). Raised medians will be a waste of time and money, especially with a smaller budget and when other streets in this town need more funding to improve potholes, etc. If this is put forth, then more traffic lights will also be needed along Patterson, so it will be more accessible. Research other towns that have put in the raised medians along major roadways against their town's majority wishes and still have more problems with them (ie: Cortez). Also, try accessing Patterson from a road that doesn't have a traffic light, without using the middle lane, on a busy day. It's almost impossible. Leave Patterson alone.

On behalf of Northeast Christian Church, I would like to address the proposed Patterson Road Access Control Plan. We understand and agree with the safety concerns and need to better control traffic entering and exiting Patterson Road. However, due to the proposed restriction/loss of "left-hand turns" exiting our property onto Patterson Road, I would like to formally speak against the plan in that regard. It is our understanding entering our property at 2751 Patterson Road will also be restricted to only eastbound traffic. This will make it unreasonably difficult to both enter and exit our property... We are in favor of opening the 27 1/2 RD intersection on the south side of Patterson, which would be a signaled intersection and the safest option. However, due to utility company XCel Energy owning a gas regulator station at that location it is cost prohibitive. We would respectfully ask the city to leverage any influence they have to working a better solution with XCel to open that intersection. We would be favorable to vacating land necessary for the relocation of the gas regulator to the west of the current location if that would help with the situation. So, again, we understand and agree with the safety concern, and want to find a workable solution, however, losing both the ability to enter our property while westbound and not being able to exit our property westbound will greatly restrict access. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

I would like to see the Patterson corridor median to be better than the ones on North Avenue and Horizon Drive and the Riverside Parkway. We need to address lighting for the nighttime also zero-maintenance vegetation and any sound reduction for the area.