HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 09.07.19931 • A) VIA
QLB
�) StAFF sr-srocr
A U4 16 LE 'Tre-
f it VJA V TOM
kP►v£TFEt t
ZOw' k SVC•rp «inj4
�) PUc.A lo4
BOCC 9/07/93
F)',i L o1Z5i'1 F
fr J LJ(t2
L.r-ra i
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: Christeleit Views Subdivision Preliminary
Plan
OWNER: Peter and Linda Christeleit
LOCATION: A tract of land situated in Section 30, T6S,
R88W, 6th P.M.; located approximately 2.5
miles east of Highway 82 off County Road
119.
SITE DATA: 39.511 acres.
WATER: Domestic well with water system
SEWER: Individual sewage disposal systems
(I.S.D.S.)
ACCESS:
Access from C.R. 119 to lots via existing
private road.
EXISTING ZONING£: A/R/RD
ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The subject property is located in District D, Rural Areas with Moderate
Environmental Constraints on the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Management
Districts Map.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The subject property is located at the northwest end of Spring
Valley in,an area of single family residences and ranches. The property consists
primarily of hill slopes, a portion of a basaltic ridge which forms the west side
of the valley. A portion of the property is non -irrigated cropland. Vegetation
consists of oak, sagebrush and grasses. A vicinity map is include on the enclosed
preliminary plan map.
•
• •
B. Project Description: The applicants are proposing to subdivide the 39.511 acre
parcel into seven parcels, ranging in size from 2.275 acres to 7.891 acres. It is
proposed to develop a central water system using a domestic well as the source.
Each lot will have an ISDS system. Lot configurations are shown on the
enclosed preliminary plan map.
III. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS
A. Colorado State Forest Service: Sketch Plan comments noted that wildfire
hazard is low to moderate. Concerns about a single access to the development
and distance to the nearest fire protection were noted, and the Forest Service has
made recommendations for fire protection (See letter on pages 7 ). No
comments have been received regarding the Preliminary Plan submittal.
B. Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District: Dee Blue recommended that any cuts
be revegetated, and recommended a reclamation plan to address soil
disturbance. In addition, the District recommended that animal control
regulations be adopted and enforced through covenants (see letter on page
C. Colorado Geologic Survey: Staff conducted fieldwork on August 10, 1993, and
had the following comments:
• "Excavation difficulties are apt to make home construction more difficult
and expensive on these lots..."than other lots in the Spring Valley area;
• Driveways on the lots should be planned to minimize erosion;
• High levels of radon could accumulate in enclosed spaces, and mitigation
may be necessary.
A copy of James Soule's August 17, 1993 letter is attached on pages 991/0
No other agencies that received the application have commented at the time of
writing.
D. Office of the State Engineer: The State Engineer's Office has reviewed the
project, and approved the project based on a Basalt Water Conservancy
Contract. A copy of the well permit (#042574) is attached on page - / / - .
The well allows for twelve (12) dwelling units, which could serve as a back-up for
i the existing adjacent subdivision. Condition #5 of the well permit requires that
a plan for augmentation must be submitted and approved by Division 5 Water
Court. This would be a prerequisite to Final Plat.
IV. STAFF COMMENTS
A. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: A review of the Comprehensive Plan
indicates that the proposal is generally consistent with the exception of issues
surrounding Red Canyon Road. Objective 2 states that development should
"ensure that roads that are considered inadequate to serve additional
development are upgraded as development occurs." Policy 2B states that "a road
which is already at or above its design capacity and due to terrain or geology of
•
B.
C.
D.
S r�
i •
the area, cannot be further improved to safely accommodate additional traffic
volumes may be a basis for denial of a development proposal". Red Canyon
Road, due to topography and roadway width, is considered to be in need of
significant improvements to accommodate future development.
Soils/Topography. The 39.551 acre tract subject to this subdivision application
was originally included in the original Christeleit subdivision, but was removed
prior to approval by the Board of County Commissioners in 1991. The original
geologic report for the 1991 subdivision included an analysis of geologic and soil
conditions for the 39+ tract.
The geologic report, conducted by Nicholas Lampiris, Phd., is included in the
applicant's submittal package. Mr. Lampiris identified several constraints on
the property, including limitations imposed by the soils on the property for home
foundations and conventional septic systems based on SCS soils information for
the site. Dr. Lampiris noted that engineered foundations and ISDS may be
necessary. Some of the proposed parcels have portions too steep to develop,
however a building site can be found on each parcel. Areas of particular concern
include areas of significant slope on lots 1, 5, and 6. These areas are shown on
the preliminary plan.
Road Design: No road plans or profiles have been submitted with the
application. Primary access is via an extension of the existing roadway from the
previously approved subdivision from County Road 119 (Red Canyon Road).
The access easement graduates from a 60 foot right-of-way through lots 1 and
2, and then is reduced to a 40 foot right-of-way providing access to the
remaining parcels. This is consistent with a previous approval (Wooden Deer
Subdivision), where the applicant was allowed to reduce the right-of-way as the
access road provides access to a reduced number of parcels. Current standards
allow a 40 foot right-of-way when accessing 2 to 10 lots. No road profiles have
been submitted with the application to determine if the roadway stays below the
10 percent required grade standard, although a review of the topographic data
on the preliminary plan does not appear to present a problem.
An additional issue surrounds the extension of the previously approved
subdivision road to access this project. The previous subdivision created only
five (5) lots, which, under current roadway standards, would require only a 40'
right-of-way. With this proposal, the portion of the roadway extending through
the previous subdivision actually serves a total of 12 lots, which would require
a 50' right-of-way and a chip and seal or gravel surface. The previously
approved road is a 60' gravel roadway with 12 foot lane width, which exceeds
current County requirements.
Water: The applicants have applied to the Basalt Water Conservancy District
for water for the proposed 7 lots. The application has been approved. No site
specific yvell tests have been performed to date. The geologic report states that
"water will be obtained via wells...with a projected depth of 180 to 300 feet,
although it could be less." Information from existing wells in the vicinity of the
project, including the adjacent subdivision indicate that sufficient groundwater
appears to be available to serve the subdivision.
• •
E. Wastewater. Sewage disposal will be by ISDS. Percolation tests were conducted
at two locations within the project area, and indicated that the average perc rate
was 18 minutes/inch. This rate is acceptable and consistent with Garfield
County standards.
F. Fire Protection: Fire Water storage may need to be increased for fire protection
purposes. As was the case with the adjacent subdivision, the subject property is
not located within the boundaries of a fire protection district. Therefore, no
response is guaranteed in event of an emergency by either Carbondale or
Glenwood Springs rural districts. Section 9.73 states that "where there is no
central water system, a centrally located fire protection tank shall be designed
to meet the fire protection needs of the subdivision." Condition #9(E), approved
by the Planning Commission, would require cisterns to be in place on each lot
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
G. Zoning: All of the proposed lots conform with the minimum parcel size and
development requirements of the Zoning Resolution.
H. Homeowner's Association: Given the common access needs of the two
subdivisions, staff suggests that the existing and proposed HOA be combined for
road maintenance purposes. The Christeleit View homeowners will need a
separate homeowners association to deal with the ownership, maintenance and
use of the water system (See proposed Condition #10).
IV. Recommendation
Staff recommended approval of the application to the Planning Commission.
The Commission, on a vote of 8-0, recommended approval by the Board, with
the following conditions:
1. All representations of the applicant, either within the application or
stated at the public hearing before the Planning Commission and the
Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of
appro val.
2. The applicants shall establish a Homeowners Association and shall be
incorporated in accordance with the requirements of Colorado Revised
Statutes. The Homeowner's Association shall be responsible for the
Basalt Water Conservation District water contract and for road
maintenance and snow removal. The articles of incorporation and
restrictive covenants shall be reviewed by County Staff prior to the
approval of a Final Plat. The applicant shall modify the existing
Homeowner's Association to include a joint roadway maintenance
agreement.
3. The applicants shall prepare and submit a Subdivision Improvements
Agreement, addressing all improvements, prior to recording a final plat.
4. The applicants shall submit improvement plans for all road, drainage and
utility improvements prior to the approval of a final plat.
5. All utilities shall be placed underground.
PP it
S7.
�n�UG
5tt1vp
• •
6. All cut slopes created during construction shall be revegetated with native
grasses using certified weed -free seed. C0.4rrt-o� o fx ^A.214,), k.,"-T;O'
o E" lit: 1'e_a
7. The applicants shall pay $200 per lot in school impact fees prior to
approval of the final plat.
8. All roadways shall be designed and constructed in conformance with
design standards set forth in the Subdivision Regulations and in place at
the time of final plat.
9. The following plat notes shall be included on the final plat:
A) USFS and State Forestry wildfire prevention guidelines, per Kelly
Roger's leiter dated April 20, 1993, shall be incorporated into
residential site planning and design.
B)
C)
D This subdivision son is not located within a fire protection district.
((�'ED 13u I Li Nigi rtTn, 4E.D
E) A 1,500 gallongcistern, consistent with Fire District
recommendations, will be installed on each lot prior to Valk
isAmoietuta Ding permit.
WostiL �O� a*s.' 1 Y ►�lK C I
10. �,� : . �, , ►_ Ft., ; ; ,The applicant, 'shall submit an
approved augmentation plan providing for a legal water supply for the
Christeleit Views Subdivision. Said augmentation plan, together with the
Basalt Water Conservancy District Allotment Contract and the water
rights associated with the wells, together with well permits, shall be
transferred by the developer, to a Homeowners Association which shall
have the power and the duty to enforce compliance by lot owners with
the terms and conditions of the augmentation plan. Appropriate
Protective Covenants shall further require compliance with the terms and
conditions of the augmentation plan.
+`v'2 TO Fl NAL PLAT
COIAVAJN � warms r N ►�(t t_ /��P2o„L: 1A)sir s-re.)NiN
) If aoNe-xa.-n04 oCw✓� pLAf
i Nogg `1 C wijek.dL IDeLarcb.
A site specific soils report shall be conducted for each residence
prepared by a registered professional engineer.
Engineered foundations and wastewater systems may be required
by the Building Official.
13
CZ
l y� tWts, ` aGvPtt w\�� Pvb-t r`eoPk r�wuko F
\c3
-
•
s-
hLI [,t1 it ': ; r,.,...,/ i i
1
APR 2 1 1993 ii
Cl-b-WI LU CiJu ,1-I y
April 20, 1993
Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Planning Dept.
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
81601
Re: Christeleit Views Subdivision
FOREST
SERVICE
State Services Building
222.5. 6th Street, Room 416
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
Telephone (303) 248-7325
Wildfire Hazard Review
Dear Mr. Michaelson,
I have reviewed the Sketch Plan Report for the Christeleit Views
Subdivision, submitted by Peter and Linda Christeleit, and
visited the site on April 16th. I have the following comments in
regard to wildfire hazard for this proposal.
Vegetation in the proposed subdivision is primarily sagebrush and
non -irrigated cropland. There are some scattered patches of
oakbrush, the most extensive patch being in the southwest corner
of the subdivision in parcel one. Slopes are 10 to 20%.
Overall risk of wildfire in the area covered by this proposal is
low to moderate. Sagebrush fires are of relatively low intensity,
and are usually controlled easily. The cultivated fields in and
surrounding this parcel would act as effective firebreaks. Of
primary concern are the small areas covered with oakbrush, mostly
on parcel one.
In regards to access, it was noted that the proposal does not
provide for dual ingress/egress to the subdivision as recommended
in CSFS standards. In addition, the area is presently about five
miles from the nearest fire station, and response time would
likely be lengthy due to the winding gravel roads involved.
Several measures are being taken to help mitigate the potential
fire danger in this proposal. The applicant has stated that a
1500 gallon cistern will be provided for water storage, and will
be accessible to fire trucks. In addition, the covenants for this
subdivision will specify non-flammable roofing materials. Ron
Leach of the Carbondale Fire Protection District has examined and
approved the proposed road system, which is being built to county
specifications.
My specific recommendations to further mitigate wildfire hazard
for this proposed subdivision are:
-Remove all vegetation within ten feet of structures. This
area should be maintained in the future as low groundcover
such as mowed grass.
-Brush or trees within 30 feet of homes should be thinned,
if necessary, so that remaining clumps are no more than 10
feet wide. This may be necessary on parcel 2, depending on
exact location of the building envelope.
The above recommendations are covered in more detail in the CSFS
publication "Wildfire Protection in the Wildland Urban Interface"
which was given to Mr. Christeleit at the time of my site visit.
Thanks for the opportunity to review this proposal. Should you
have any questions regarding the above comments, please call me
at 248-7325.
Sincerely,
Kelly Rogers
Asst. District Forester
cc: Carbondale FPD
Peter Christeleit
MOUNT SOPRIS SOSCONSERVATION DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 1302
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
JULY 22, 1993
Mark Bean, Planner
Garfield Cty. Planning Department
109 8th St. Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Sir,
A1 rI91
r
,3U1.2 7 1993.1
Lir�R ILLU C0EJIWI1
At the regular monthly meeting of the Mount Sopris Soil
Conservation District, the Board reviewed the application
and plan for the Christeleit Views Subdivision and have the
following comments and concerns about the project.
Any cuts for roads or construction should be revegetated to
prevent erosion. Weed free seed and mulch should be used
for any reseeding of the area. Monitoring of all seeding
should be done to see if the grass is establishing or if
weeds are becoming a problem. Reseeding or weed control
practices should be implemented if a problem is noticed.
Perhaps a reclamation plan should be proposed for any soil
disturbance.
The board is always concerned about animal control in all
areas where there is the potential for conflict between
wildlife or domestic livestock and dogs from the
subdivision. Dogs running in packs of two or more can maim
or kill domestic livestock and wildlife. The District
recommends animal control regulations be adopted in the
covenants for the subdivision and that they be enforced.
Of prime concern to the Board is the proper maintenance and
protection of any irrigation ditch which is on the site.
New landowner should be informed the ditch owners have right
of way easement to maintain the irrigation system. And that
they will be cleaning and working on the ditch and that this
work may be in their yards.
The district would like to know what the impact will be on
the Wetlands in this area? All Wetlands should be
protected and remain in as pristine condition as possible.
Sincerely,
Dee Blue, President
Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District
•
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Division of Minerals and Geology
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Rm. 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-2611
FAX (303) 866-2461
August 17, 1993
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
rri .1.1t41.11)19..Oil-re
`231993 ,11
°At-47 ELD CUUffl
Re: Proposed Christeleit Views Subdivision --
Vic. Intersection of C.R. 119 and C.R. 115, Garfield County
Dear Mr. Michaelson:
Roy Romer
Governor
Ken Salazar
Executive Director
Michael B. Long
Division Director
Vicki Cowart
State Geologist
and Director
GA -94-0002
At your request and in accordance with S.B. 35, 1993, we have reviewed the materials
submitted for and made a field inspection on August 10, 1993, of the site of the proposed
residential subdivision referenced above. As I indicated to you on the 'phone August 10, the
geology -related constraints to development of this parcel as planned are not especially
serious. The following comments summarize our findings.
(1) Depending on exactly where on the individual lots buildings are to be placed and
whether basements are planned, excavation difficulties are apt to make home construction
more difficult and expensive on these lots than is typically the case in the general vicinity
of Spring Valley. Considering the sizes of the lots, these extra costs can be reduced
considerably if basements are not used and carefully planned grading, both for driveways
and drainage control, and excavations for utilities is done. Individual lot purchasers will be
well advised to have their architect(s) and engineer(s) consult with a geotechnical
professional prior to final building -site selection.
(2) Locations of driveways on the lots should be planned to minimize water -erosion. This
will necessitate aligning them so that diversion of the natural surface drainage is kept to a
minimum. In places where steeper slopes are crossed, water bars or other drainage -
deflection measures should be installed.
Mr. Dave Michaelson
August 17, 1993
Page 2
(3) Considering the kinds of soil and bedrock present, it is likely that high levels of
radioactive soil gas (radon) could accumulate in enclosed building spaces such as basements.
Each building site should be evaluated by a qualified professional for this possibility and,
if deemed necessary, appropriate mitigation measures incorporated into building designs.
If these recommendations and those made in the submitted Lampiris report, including
avoidance of the "no build" zones shown on the proposed plat, are followed and made
conditions of approval of this subdivision, then we have no geology -related objection to it.
Si erely,
1/ 6(
mes M. Soule
ngineering Geologist
40!' il:1
•
STATE of COLORADO
OFFICE OF TI -IE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866.3581
FAX (303) 866-3589
Mr. Dave Michaelson, Planner
Garfield County Planning Dept.
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Mr. McGregor:
May 4, 1993
Roy Ropier
Governor
Ken Salazar
Executive Director
I lal 1). Simpson
State Engineer
Re: Christeleit Views Subdivision, Sketch Plan
Sec. 30, T6S, R88W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a 39.511 acre parcel into 7
single family dwelling lots. No information was given on proposed water requirements. The source
of water supply is indicated to be "Domestic Shared Well Agreement" on the application form.
However submittal materials indicate that the source will be individual on lot wells operating under
a Basalt Water Conservancy District contract.
Because Basalt contracts are available, we have no objection to this proposal at this sketch
plan stage, if individual wells operating under a Basalt contract are to be the supply. Prior to any
subsequent approvals we recommend that the applicant provide details of the anticipated water use
including the amount of lawn irrigation for each lot and any watering of domestic animals that
might be anticipated. Based on these uses a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District
should be provided. Plat notes should be included to specify the Iimitations on well use and to
indicate the homeowners association's responsibilities in maintaining the Basalt contract.
If you have any questions in this matter, please contact John Schurer of this office.
PD/JS/cluisty
Sincer 1
;)
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner
Bruce DeBrine
Purus e ttam Dass, P.E.
Supervising Water Resource Engineer
Arnold Mackley
4031 County Road 320
Rifle, Colo 81650
RE: Crystallite Subdivisions
Dear Arnold Mackley,
•
Augu
SEP 0 7 1993
GARFIELD COUNTY
0
, 1993
Two years ago you approved the Crystallite Subdivision in west
Spring Valley off County Road 119. Crystallite divided 89 acres into 6 plots.
As neighbors we raised the concern of traffic, and most importantly of the
impact on our existing well. ( Our well puts out only 10 gallons per minute and
there are three homes sharing it. The output has decreased over the last 7 yrs.)
Now two years later, Crystallite is applying to double the size of
that same subdivision - so within the original 89 acres there will be 12 homes.
There are three major concerns that we have with it:
1. Increase in traffic -concern of upkeep to county rd due to additional
traffic.Maintenance is currently poor.
2. Dramatic impact on our well
3. Precedent set, that is, there are many 40 acre parcels surrounding
us - does this mean these can also be subdivided? There is not
enough water up here to support these developments. We have one
neighbor with no water.
P & Z recommended approval on August 10th for this subdivision. Please
remember our concerns when you consider this proposal.
Thank you from adjoining and neighboring land owners to the Crstallite
Subdivisions.
Walt and JoLIcusrc,,____ Ic2(
�Z+,.epfer
0410.7 .)411
Tom and Susan Henderson
Forf'S No. . OFFICE OF THE ST j ENGINEER
GW COLORADO DIVISIC:r - OF WATER RESOURCES
818 Centennial Bldg., 1313 Sherman SL, Denver, Colorado 00203
(303) 866-3581
APPLICANT
LIC
WELL PERMIT NUMBER 0' -25 A'
DIV. 5 CNTY. 23 WD 38 DES. BASIN MD
Lot: B Block: Filing: Subdir: CHRISTELEIT
APPROVED WELL LOCATION
GARFIELD COUNTY
NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 30
CHRISTELEIT HOMEOWNERS ASSOC
% 4954 214 ROAD
NEW CASTLE CO 81647
( 303)984-2265
PERMIT TO USE AN EXISTING WELL
Twp 6 S
RANGE 88 W 6th P.M.
DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES
4300 Ft. from South Section Line
2100 Ft. `rain East Section Lino
ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RICHT
CONr)ITIO.'IS OF APPf tQVAL
This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of the permit does
not assure the applicant that no injury wi!I occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right
from seeking relief in a civil court action.
The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the 4Vutcr Well Construction and Pump Installation Rules 2 CCR 402-2,
unless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water V./ell Construction and Pump
Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 17.
Approved pursuant to CRS 37-00-137(2) for the use of an existing .von, constructed under permit no. 41375-F (MI i-13217),
appropriating ground water tributary to the Rearing Fork River, as an alternate point of diversion to the Basalt Conduit on the
condition that the well shall be operated only when a water ._elntmc•nt contract between tIto well owner and the Basalt 111a1er
Conservancy District for the release of replacement water from Ruedi Reservoir is in elect, or under an Ipproved plan for
augmentation.
4) The use of ground water from this well, combined with all ether wells operating under (",as,lt Viater Conservancy Districw✓a;er
allotment contract nos. 3.3.5.127 and 3.3.5.205, is limited to fire protection, ordinary household purposes inside 12 singe family
dwellings, the irrigation of not more than 34,000 square feet of home lawns and g.rrions, and the wafering of domestic animals.
AH use of this well will be curtailed unless the water allotment contract or a t5an for augmentation is in effect.
5) This well must be included in a pian for augmentation submitted by the Basalt \Vater Conservancy District and approved by the
Division 5 Water Court.
6) The maximum pumping rate shall not exceed 25 GPM.
7) The combined average annual amount of ground water to be appropriated by this weal and all other wells operating under Basalt
Water Conservancy District water allotment contract nos. 3.3.5. 127 and 3.3.5.205, shall not exceed 6.6 acre-feet.
8) A totalizing flow meter must be installed on this well and maintained in good working order. Permanent records of all diversions
must be maintained by the well owner (recorded at least annually) and submitted to the Division Engineer upon request.
9) The well must be located not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this permit.
10) The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with well permit number(s), name of the aquifer, and court case number(s)
as appropriate. The owner shall take nec0300ry means and precautions t0 preserve these markings.
APPROVED
JD2
Siaie Engineer
Receipt No. 0350791
DATE ISSUED J U L 2:3 1993
EXPIRATION DATE
•
0/ \11\
ft
1)11/
,
Dear County Commissioners,
(717-7-7117,77,'
%! u
GAiiF![LD
COUNTY CG.I:iM SSIONERS
Recently I purchased property along county road 119 in Spring
Valley. On Sunday August 22, I was traveling on road 119 to my
property from road 115 on the C.M.C. side, where I am building a
home. Shortly after I turned onto road 119 I realized that I was in
trouble. It had rained that evening and the road was muddy and very
slippery. There was no place to turn around so I proceeded very slowly
(between 5 and 10 mph). I was driving a 1975 Ford 1 ton with dual rear
wheels (which are brand new). I had considerable difficulty staying in
any type of a lane, well needless to say the road won and I slipped off
the road and came to rest against the sod farm's fence, bending it over
slightly. I walked 2 miles, called for assistance and I was towed out by a
four wheel drive. This time the only loss was time and money (mine!).
Next time it could be worse. It is my understanding that this road was
on a list of roads in need of repair that was given to you by the Road
and Bridge Department apparently the funding was denied. I wish you
would reconsider. Paul at the sod farm says he has noticed an increase
in traffic this summer, possibly twice as much as in the past. I have two
children and I will be traveling this road (when it is passable) every
day. I realize that you have bigger fish to fry but some improvements
would be appreciated, not only by myself but by several other area
residents as well.
thank you,
Mitch Heuer
Pp, /ja/& i'ii2
6 -/-Pct wed