The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.0 Staff ReportREQUEST: APPLICANT: LOCATION: SITE DATA: SEWER: WATER: ACCESS: EXISTING ZOMNG: ADJACENT ZONING: PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS BOCC 3t9t92 An Exemption from the Definition of Subdivision. Jeffery Wisch A tract of land located in the NETr NW7c, Section 17, T65, R92W of the 6th P.M.; located on C.R. 130 in West Glenwood. The site consists of .8 acres (37,912 square feet) West Glenwood Sanitation District City of Glenwood Springs C.R. 130 (Donegan Road) R/L/UD C/L (South), R/L/UD (east and west), R/L/SD (north), PUD (north) I. il. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The subject property is located in District B - Subdivision/Rural Serviceable AreaVzto I mile radius - Central water and Sewer/Moderate Environmental Constraints as identified on the Garflreld County Comprehensive Plan Management Districts map. nESCRIPTTON OF THE PROPOSAL Site Irescrifrtion: The subject property is a rectangular parcel located on the south side of Donegan Road. At the front, or north end of the parcel, is a single family residence, a detached garageand a barn. The north portion is treed with mature cottonwoods. The south half ofthe property consists of level lawn area. The parcel slopes gradually from north to south, with the exception of the northeast corner of the property which consists of a former channel of Mitchell Creek. A twenty (20) foot access easement, providing access to a parcel to the south, parallels the east property line. Single family residences surround the subject property. On the north side of Donegan Road is a pasture and the Mitchell Creek floodplain. Project Description: The applicant is requesting an exemption from the dehnition of subdivision to allow a .8 acre parcel to be split into three (3) smaller A. B. m. parcels of 12,772 (.29 acres), 10,350 (.23 acres) arrd 14,790 (.33 acres) square feet in size. The purpose of the request is to create three (3) single family homesites. MAJOR TSSUES AND CONCERNS 1.The subject property has been in its current configuration since 1950. Based on this information, the property would appear to meet the date of establishment requirement and qualify for the requested splits. Section 8:10 (Applicability) states that the Board has discretionary authority to except a division of land from the dehnition of subdivision. Following a review of the facts of each application. the Board may approve conditionally or deny an exemption request. The Board may not grant an exemption unless the applicant can demonstrate compliance with zoning, legal acc€ss, adequate water and sewer, state environmental health standards, necessary road and drainage improvements, hre protection, adequate easements and school impact fecs. Water service is supplied to the existing residence by the City of Glenwood Springs. Additional connections will require payment oltap fees. Any required extension ofmainswill betheresponsibility of thedeveloper (seeenclosed letter). Sewer service to the existing residence is supplied by the West Glenwood Sanitation District. The District has indicated that connection for the two (2) additional lots would be available. Access to the existing residence is from a driveway off Donegan Road. The applicant has indicated that proposed Lot #2 would obtain access either directly offDonegan Road with a new driveway or via the existing ac@ss easement. Lot #3 would utilize the existing access easement. The purpose of the existing driveway is to provide access to the adjacent lot to the rear or the south of the subject property. One (l) residence is located on the property. This party currently maintains the easement, which is a gravel driveway approximately ten (10) feet in width. A residence abuts the easement on the east side with virtually no setback. Any increase in vehicular traffrc will affect this residence. Access to Lot #2 could be obtained directly offof Donegan Road. This would put three (3) driveways in a 180 foot section of Donegan Road. The existing access easement has poor site distance due to the grade change and trees. Road and Bridge has indicated that access to Lot #2 should be obtained from the easement. The northeast corner of the subject property, a portion of proposed Lot #2, consists of a former channel of Mitchell Creek. Due to modifications of the hydrology for Donegan Road, this channel is no longer subject to inundation. In I 99 1, a map amendment was approved by FEMA removing this channel from the regulated floodplain of Mitchell Creek. Lot#2as proposed has some development limitations due to the shape, setback areas, existing building and the existing ac@ss easement. The proposed lot is approximately 10,350 square f€et in area. Minus the existing easement e,560 square feet), the proposed lot has only 7,790 square feet. Due to the "L" shape, the front portion of the lot is not usable. Minus the required setbacks, this 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. leaves only 3,900 square feet of building envelope. Inclucled in this hgure is a existing barn. With separation requirements addressed in the UBC, the actual area of the building envelope is considerably smaller. In staffs opinion, it appears unlikely that a residence could be constructed with these constraints. 8' The proposed division into three (3) lots as shown does not conforrn to the requirements of the Zoning Resolution. Section 3.04.05 (maximum lot coverage - R/L/UD zone district) limits lot coverage to 35o/". Lot coverage is defined as "the portion of a lot which is covered or occupied by buildings, structures, parking and drives. With pre-existing lot coverage already at 28o/oL (2,920 square feet) very little area remains for the development of a residence and any additional structures. Section 3.04.06(3) (minimum setbacks - R/I"/UD zone district) specilies a ten (10) foot side yard setback. The existing garage on proposed Lot #1 extends to within five (5) feet of the lot line with Lot #2. This proposed setback is inadequate. IV.SUGGFSTFD FINNINGS 1.Theproposal isin general compliance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and the Garfield County Zorung Regulations. The proposed land use would be consistent and compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. If the noted access concerns can be adequately addressed, the proposal is in best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garlield County. RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL, subject to the deletion of Lot #2 and the following conditions: l- All representations of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval unless otherwise stated by the applicant. 2- The applicant shall have 120 days to complete the required conditions of approval. Extensions of 120 days may be granted by the Board for a period of up to one (l) year. 3. The applicant shall submit $200 in School Impact Fees. ) 3. V. 4. 5. Lot#2shall be deleted from the exemption plat. for Lot #2 should be incorporated into Lot #1. All requirements of the hre department shall approval. The square footage proposed be considered conditions o[ 6. A road maintenance agreement with the adjacent landowner to the south shall be developed to address the use and upkeep of the access easement. DrplnrMENT or EUERGENcy SBRvTcES EMS.FIRE.RESCUE February 13, L992 GAIIF,ELD COUNTY Andrew C. McGregorGarfield County Regulatory Offices109 8th Street, Suite 303Glenwood Springs, Colorado RE:Wisch Subdivision Exemption Andrew: I[e have reviewed the information you sent regarding the proposedsubdivision exemption by Mr. Wisclr. Fire protection water.supply for this project is adequate andcurrent hydrant locations are within acceptable linits. Theproposed access easement is also within alceptable linits. It should be noted that this easement will need to remain clearand unobstructed for proper fire department access. The surfaceof this access will need- to be able to sustain the loads of fireapparatus and have an all weather surface. we can accept acompacted gravel base. Should you require additional information, please feel free tocontact our office. Sincerely, C)"-,*-ltrz/r--^rJames S. Mason, Director Department of Emergency Services Glenwood springs, colorado 81601 . (303) 94s-2s7s . FAx (303) 94s-2597 ii lEEfiNffi FEB I B 1992 806 Cooper Avenue . Garfield County Regulatory Offices and attt: Andrew c. McGregor, Planning l-09 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood SPrings, CO 81"60L March 4, L992 Wisch Subdivision ExemPtion 2. AlI utilities will require service. Easements shall Glenwood SPrings MuniciPal 3. Individual water taPs for t-. Dear Andrew: Thank you for the opportunity !o revi-ew and ="rai.ri=ion exempti;; applicition for Jeff as follows: We would Prefer that Lots 2 and ft. easement to access Donegan cuts along that road. 3 both use the existing 20 Road in order to reduce curb easements as necessary to Provide be ir, .""otdance with the CitY of Code. comment on the Wisch. our comments are be required. waterline each house will 4. No structure may be built on the existing easement. Just as a note, Lot 3 | due to its lower elevation' may pump for the sewer service but of course' that would be i^1"=L Glenwood Sanitation District' require a up to the If possible, we would like the chance to review the pIat. SincerelY, /.?;4lr:-l a'/ ,Eoe=4 tJanet Nt. Buck ,/ cii^"nity Development rechnician subdivision Personnel 806 CO0PER AVENUF lir'.\)o(: 94i5-2597 ROY ROMER Governor TIAROLD (I{AL) D. SIMPSON Acting State Engineer o ",19,',, 3,5 JIfi ;IIIESJIEIIS' * ^'o'n9o *#:ry Purushottam Dass, P'E' Supervising Water Resource Engineer PD/JD cc: OrlYn Bell, Division Engineer Bruce DeBrine 1313 Sherman Street-Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 FAX [303] 866-358e April 7, 1992 Mr. Andrew C. McGregor Garfield County Planning Department 1Og 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood SPrings, CO 81601 Re: Wisch Subdivision ExemPtion Sec. 6, TwP' 6 S', Rng' 89 W'' 6'th P'M' Dear Mr. McGregor: Wehavereviewedtheabovereferencedproposaltodividea0.Sacreparcelintothree residentiar rots ot approximatery 0.2g ""r". """n. The city of Grenwood springs has been identified as the source of water ano tne narrative materials indicate a letter of commitment for service was incruded in the submittarto in" county. rh" citv of Grenwood !nr!-nos has indicated thattheyhavesutficientwaterr.rorr...toserve'thisdevelopment'Basedonthis'wehaveno oOl""tion to the proposal and recommend approval' Feel free to call if you have any questions' --r----- RHCE'r\/HD IAn 0 gt* q'nar*\^k-"^ -q*^^ oo 30 CI-.*{g,* R d { *rn"tttniuriiS,o,ue,*- &ru-,^,^-U ..1\^,'*,".o, ( o Etool h\""'\- 9r\eQ\ \ ,U^"U&Je-*J^"k ShNld &-^fC"*IU,.^-"{ $i"-^,-"J .8p-^^1fl Co \'rtcl U U\"^"^ J< *^.-hC*^^o^,*, \*^ .++I;-"-J t)"^ o- ,^^I- "U*,*;e ,.r"i.\^\ ^r.hh^ .\ Ld.t- =\r -N .o n-m *Ce u"i.\r.t-\ ^"i^hr\ [x^4 t".Lq t&rw...'."n o)ry/Yu,.Nr-t*}ffiq P.0. Box 1198 Idaho Springs, Colorado February 27, L992 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County c/0 Planning Department suire 303 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Sirs: I have received by certified mail a copy of the Public Notice with regard to the request of Jeffery Wisch asking for a subdivision exemption to a1low the petitioner to divide a.8 acre tract into three (3) tracts of approximately .28 acres each in size. I ornm the single family residence and large property that is to the east and which is contiguous to the requested exemption parcel. I urge and request that you not a1low this exemption as is requested. The exempti-on would create too high a density for the tract itself as well as for the immediate adjacent neighbors and neighborhood. Granting of the exempti-on will devalue my property and seriously alter the character and distinctive special environment and atmosphere of our part of West Glenwood Springs. I work in community planning and in economic development and know very well what impact such a request can have both on the other property owners and the community as we1l. It is with regret that I will not be able to attend the meeting and to express my views in person; however, I use this means to call to your attention my feelings and objections. It would be nice to retain the property in its present status. If the tract is to be exempted it should not be more than two mandating proper design and development so that such would not negatively affect adjoining properti-es. I thank you for your taking my request in consideratj-on. 804s2 RFM/bh 0212 County Roao t1O,, Glenwood Springs, CO. 8160l March ), 1992 Garfield County Planning Department Garfield CountY Courthouse 1@ Eighth Street 'Glenwood Springs, CO. Br6Ot RE: Wisch Exemption Dear Sirsl I have read the public notice and particufars concerning the application by Jeffrey Wisch for a subdivision exemption for his property on-County Road 1]O ( Donegan Road ) in lr,lest Glenwood Springs. As a neighbor and a property owner, I am very much opposed to Mr. Wischrs request, and ask that you deny it. I feel very strongly that such a division of property is NOT in the best interests of the neighborhood, the County, or the environment, and will decrease both the quality of l-ife and the value of this area tremendous- 1y. Granting a subdivision exemption for an individual wishing to profit by creating a subdivision of such tiny proportions would be defeating the entire purpose of zoning and planning, and would also set a dangerous precedent for the future. Garfield County has reasonable rules and regulations concerni-ng the division of residential property, so please make no excepti-ons to them. A subdivision is a subdivision, and all those persons wishing to create one must be required to abide by the laws regulating them- Therefore, I STRONGLY urge you to deny Mr. Wischrs request for a subdivision exemption on the property he wons on County Road 1JO ( Donegan Road ).I shal1 be present at the hearing on March ninth. Sincerely,6tult/ B,itt ^ny--.,s/ cting^ O212 County Road 1f{ Glenwood Springs, CO 8t5Ot BJC:ms CC: File RHCFI\/Hr_) mn 0 g leet " {"\a" \^t{-"^ f*^q oo3e C.^"IS* Rd t *r*rttiniiirli,rrr*. ,-kru*-,^*,( "&\^,.^^a, ( o Etoo; $-^ual c-,*.Lk [tft"""\ 9 " \rs \ JI^\XM(trffi Su^^r*".n "o) e,Ne"^^^1q Co t(6cl :^ tn\*^"^ .)= -"*-\C-n^^^o-,.^, \*^ *p+-Q.)**0 t+^ o- ..^J-ffid^ ULX*L-""^ A q^*"\^\ -r.-*f^k^ r\^{ (*Lq $[^*-..^ o\^1j,&\ U q^^^* .lru,* M 3dL UJ I sd-r+6x6Mprro,^\, Lno + I /L /5C?3q =r,J-,* fuf, ^*o. 4,-*%.T.//, Allo*eo( 6u%.?/ szl €yrsrta/? drnfrt: /{,r7o I /ltqo 3 3 Z 4-u*%, Lor 47 / Zrodo 5, F' /ets jL'do. {aszvvt,^* b x /37 / ,l Oo 5,7- (alh^, fu;2. 18)(137 = zflaa ta xBlt =Z,l 1,t €xa^,1^plt- S;F Dt ; tb? Ma^{ /Q Xao Drtut, 3?D 5. E, z?" v, 4o TZz-stdarutl,l to -Z luoLs /Le"o,r?.ff /rIXo 3,F, + 6%u 760 s.F /€F{5,F/ 7FO >.F /,o 8a >'iz' foi,taSt th-K Drua ,l Lov #3 /s, /, ogo ./ f6ow 5 e8 >,t=. % lilAt.br A/qd-6e S,14 5,F. Zox76'1asa,qa"l-s,F, /Tuai/ab/z SOU'THEAST DENYER/ DOUGLAS COTJNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COI.'NCIL 9605 Maroon Circle, Suitc 210 EnSlcwoo4 CO 801 12 (303) 792-9447 . FAX (3$)7n-9452 P.O. Box 1198 Idaho SprLngs, Colorado 80452 February 27, L992 Board of County Commissioners GarfieLd County c/0 Plannlng Department Sulte 303 109 8th Street Glenwood Sprlngs, Colorado 81601 Dear Sirs: I have received by certified mail- a copy of the Public Notice with regard to the request of Jeffe::v lJisch asking for a subdivislon exemptlon to al-low the petitioner to dl-vide a .8 acre tract into three (3) tracts of approxlmately .28 acres each in slze. I or^m the slngle famlly resldence and large property that Ls to the east and which is contiguous to the requested exemption parcel. I urge and request that you not allow this exemptlon as is requested. The exemption would create too htgh a density for the tract itself as well as for the immedlate adjacent neighbors and neighborhood. Granting of the exemptlon wLll devalue my property and seriously alter the character and distl-nctLve special environment and atmosphere of our part of West Glenwood Sprlngs. I work ln corrnunity planning and in economic devel-opment and know very well what impact such a request can have both on the other property ordners and the conmunity as well. It is wlth regret that I will not be able to attend the neeting and to express my views in persong however, I use this means to calL to your attentlon my feellngs and objectlons. rt would be nlce to retain theproperty ln lts present stat.us. If- the tract l_s to be exeupted it should not be more than two mandating proper design and developnent so that such woul-d not negarively affect adjoining properties. r thank you for your taking my request Ln consideration. ,/,4- n &r_4#fup,v Wffi ' *rR e ree2 llj Gnnrtrlo couNw Sincerely, MAR 9 1992 !,:llr l ',1',, ii :i,li i,'| , 'ii ;...:; tr ii 'l i P.O. Box 1198 Idaho Sprlngs, Colorado 80452 February 27, L992 i .'. t Board of County Commlssloners Garfleld County c/0 Plannlng Department, Sulte 303 109 8th Street Glenwood Sprlngs, Colorado 81601- Dear Sirs: I have received by certified mail a copy of the Public NotLce wlth regard to the request of Jeffcrv Wlsch asking for a subdivlslon exempt.ion to a11ow the petitioner to dlvlde a.8 acre tract lnto three (3) tracts of approxlmately .28 acres each in sLze. I own the slngle family resldence and large property that ls to the east and whlch is contiguous to the requested exemption parcel. I urge and request that you not a1low this exemptlon as ls requested. The exemption woul-d create too hlgh a denslty for the tract itself as well as for the Lmmedlate adjacent neighbors and neighborhood. Grantlng of the exemptlon w111 devalue my property and serlousl-y alter the character and dlstlnctive specl-aI envLronment and atmosphere of our part of West Glenwood Sprlngs. I work ln communlty pI-annlng and in economlc development and know very wel-l what lmpact such a request can have both on the other property oldners and the communlty as well. It ls with regret that I w111 not be able to attend the meetlng and to express my vlews in person; however, I use this means to call to your attentlon rny feellngs and obJectlons. It would be nlce to retain the property ln lts present status. If the tract is to be exempted lt should not be more than two mandating proper deslgn and development so that such would not negatl-vely affect adJoining propertles. I thank you for your taking my request in consideratl-on. '-Y,rff' ilAR 6 pn Sl-ncerely, RFM/Utr 0212 County Roao .tO, Glenwood Springs, CO. Bt5Ot March l, 1992 Garfield County Planning Department Garfield County Courthouse 109 Eighth Street, Glenwood Springs, CO. 8t6Of RE: !'Jisch Exemption Dear Sirsl I have read the public notice and particulars concerning the application by Jeffrey Wisch for a subdivision exemption for his property on County Road 1JO ( Donegan Road ) in West Glenwood Springs. As a neighbor and a property owner, I am very much opposed to Mr. Wischrs request, and ask that you deny it. I feel very strongly that such a division of property is NOT in the best intereets of the neighborhood, the County, or the environment, and will decrease both the quality of life and the value of this area tremendous- Iy. Granting a subdivision exemption for an individual wishing to profit by creating a subdivision of such tiny proportions would be defeating the entire purpose of zoning and planning, and would also set a dangerous precedent for the future. Garfield County has reasonable rules and regulations concerning the division of residential propertyr so please make no exceptions to them. A subdivision is a subdiviaion, and alI those peraons wishing to create one must be required to abide by the laws regulating them. Therefore, I STRONGLY urge you to deny Mr. Wischrs request for a subdivision exemption on the property he wons on County Road 1JO ( Donegan Road ). I shalI be present at the hearing on March ninth. Sincerely,6tu,/ B"itt", yj'/ cti O212 County Road 1ffr Glenwood Springs, CO BlSOl BJC:ms CC: File *rua,Le,r q/ /qqd ,\f, hr,-b=-^hr? C*&,,-,: iZr/-. &1-., tua-ffi77,r March 9, 1992 Dear Board of Count.y Commissioners: I, We, Larry E. and Gale L. Spencer,003B Donegan Road, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601, (SOS) 945-7890, do strongly object Lo the proposed subdivision exemption. Located in Lot 3, Section 6, Township 6 South, Range 89 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, see Public Notice for more particularly described. I/We feel that we are very hard working individuals, and because of this we are proud to say we are homeowners in Garfield CounLy. A11 the lots in this area have already been established, and have been for many years. I/We do not feel it would be right for an i-nvestor to come in here and change what i-s all ready here. I/Iile also feel that this could be a hazard in an emergency situation. I/We oppose Jeffery Wischts requesL to divide a.B acre tract into three (3) tracts of approximately .28 acres each in size. Sincerely, l"lt-/ Arr"a'rL Gale L. Spencer d.,rly . O*;oa.L tvt:rL"{) tlYr/"\.t-rt f {., /c)to",rt 5*_r-,rrr:/.on ,. 8d /{L)u &,\t- ilaw /r/ n / r ,r^' Bu_. lr_/r_r / 00 ,/ q co Q t ""l 1yrsn, t, A.- 9:'.i ,,' P. ,r'p, tlrl o/)r, t'c/r,1-r, " v.,u pr'pno*/ ^.Q-+t.t o-'/r.i y r 0 r t tlfir. a, /ru (-t- lD t ul Ad*'atJo clor,, + *-L V-tu- Fr;;r;r;1i_r,lr/b- Qplr-/ , Ll{J t ,,*r.-r,-,, y', \lncy_av{rn, p)_c-t ,rtAnd- LL+- 7rt-tlL p./r{'u JL*X,f,X f.(,i,:;o :': u/''^ *'M'HL;-,.tx-'^*'','511, rv;-u+.;' ,",],f-'f;.''T ff o w,_u. Gt .r U.R- A'r* '7Lt-v-/' ,L*rhbUi:> ar)l d fu, eV t LJv-c''-e-- u cL .#uE p'duu ,"rt{[ti-' tu_#L,, -.'- ,40,. E-a-y- ,Lq ?z March 6, 1-992 Board of Garfield County CommissionersGarfield County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, CO Bl-GOl- RE: Application of Jeffrey WischPublic Hearing: March 9, tggz Dear Commissioners: we live at otfil county Road 130 and regret we cannot bepresent for the meeting due to our work schedulLs. please acceptthis letter containing our comments. we strongly oppose the appfication for subdivision of this1ot into three .zB acre tracts tor the following reasons: l-. The location is in an established residential neigh-borhood, and we understand that the immediate area has beenstable for some time. This part of Glenwood. springs is one ofthe nicest residential areas in the va11ey, and we triint< it wouldbe a mistake to a11ow an existing resiaeritial- Iot with a home tobe subdivided into three much smiller 1ots. rt would be bad forour.neighborhood and., in our opinion, drr exampre of poor planningpolicy to alIow this change. To approve such a change woutdpromote real estate speculation over the interests of a niceresidential nej_ghborhood. 2. we feel strongly that the resj-dents who l-ive in cl-oseproximity to this Iot are entitled to have the 1ot remain thesame sj-ze and as it, has been for some time. As we said previ-ously, this is a stable nei.ghborhood, and we feel they aie en-titled to continuity in their neighborhood. rt woul_d be a dif-ferent situation if this was a rol that had been empty for sometirne. 3. we also have concerns about this proposar as ittend to i-ncrease traffic on Donegan Road. rneie are manychildren in the neighborhood, arid the road is narrow withvisibility in the area of this proposed change. woul-d small- poor Garfield County Board of Commissioners Page 2 March 6, 1992 We and our neighbors have resisted efforts to be annexed lnt_o the. city of Glenwood springs because we like our neigh-borhood in the county and have always felt that we get more con-sideration from the county in mattLrs such as this. There are,q.y other good-sized lots in our neighborhood and in other areasof the county. Think of the chlos that would result ifdevelopers were alrowed to subdivide in this fashion. We strongly urge you to reject this proposal. ruly James Conway '4*,^h/i March 9, L992 Board of County Commissioners 1O9 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81501 Dear Comrnissioners: The Pli tche I I Creek Horneowners directly across County Rd. Subdivision. Association 130 from owns land located the proposed Wisch The Board of Directors of said Homeowners Associationr oD behalf of the 22 property owners of The Mitchell Creek Project, Filing No. 1, wish to take a stance in opposition to the proposed subdivision exemption. The nature of the neighborhood has long been established and property owners have invested in the area based on the quantity and quality of existing neighborhood improvements. Increasing the density of this lot threefold will serve to rninimize the quality of the probable f uture improvernents: ds wel l aE irnpact the privacy of the residents whose properties are contiguous to the subject property. The effect would be to lower property values in the area. Since d/q- Conway, Secretary I I Ereek Homeowners AsEociationMi tche March 9, L992 Board of County Commisioners Garfield County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, CO 8l-601 Dear Sirs; As residents of Donegan Rd.(0136), we are concerned over theproposed subdivision in our neighborhood. We feel that any increase in the density of dwellings would devalue ourproperty and that increased traffic in the area would pose a danger to our children. We recommend that this request be denied. Thank you. Sincerel-y;D"-lU@ Don and Sue Hakanson