HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994.11.16 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES~~
DATE: (111694)
State of Idaho)
County of Madison(
City of Rexburg)
Present were: Mayor:
Councilman:
City Council
11/16/94
7:10 P. M.
Nile Boyle
Glen Pond
Farrell Young
Ray Beck
Bruce Sutherland
Nyle Fullmer
Jim Flamm
Rose Bagley
J. D. Hancock
Joe Laird
City Clerk:
Attorney:
Engineer:
RE: APPLICATION FOR GRANT FOR WATER/WASTEWATER SYSTEMS AT BUSINESS
PARK; ECIPDA - ADMINISTRATION; FORSGRENS - ENGINEERS
TOPIC: (19,57,,,BUSINESS PARK,GRANTS,WASTEWATER,WATER,WATER LINES,
SEWER LINES,FORSGRENS,ECIPDA)
7:10 P. M. Public Hearing considering the submission of an application
to the State of Idaho for an Idaho Community Development Block Grant.
The City may apply for an Economic Development grant of up to $500,000,
to assist in the construction of water and wastewater systems
improvements. The improvements will create additional capacity to
facilitate a Business Park to be constructed on property adjacent to
Artco. The project will include access roads to the Business Park.
Ted Hendricks, E.C.I.P.D.A- This Public Hearing allows the city to
submit a block grant to the State of Idaho for funding assistance. The
$500,000 will provide water and sewer to the location of the Business
Park. The entire amount going into the project is estimated at about 2
1/2 million dollars, about 1.5 million is from private injection from
private sources from building at the site. The application handbook is
here for anyone to view as well as the draft copy of the application.
The final application will be submitted to the state Monday of next
week. It looks favorable at this point. It has been a joint effort.
The mayor explained that we have advertised for Engineering and
Administrative Services. The only applications were from E.C.I.P.D.A.
and Forsgren. Tonight we need to approve the procurement for the
services and we can work out the details later. The mayor asked the
council, if any of them had questions on the applications.
Ted said we are passing around an attendance roll, if everyone would
sign it?
RE: MOTION PASSED TO ACCEPT ECIPDA & FORSGRENS FOR ADMINISTRATION &
ENGINEERING FOR GRANT FOR BUSINESS PARK
TOPIC: (19,57,,,BUSINESS PARK,GRANTS,WASTEWATER,WATER,WATER LINES,
SEWER LINES,FORSGRENS,ECIPDA)
A motion was made by Kay Beck to accept the Engineering &
Administration procurement applications from E.C.I.P.D.A. and
Forsgren. Seconded by Glen Pond. All Aye.
Ted stated they would submit the application, which has to be
postmarked no later than Monday 21. The City and E.C.I.P.D.A. will
have copies of the application for review for anyone that would like to
review it. This project will create jobs for the community by
providing land and infrastructure space available for business
relocation and expansion.
RE: RESOLUTIONS 94.11, 94.12, 94.13, 94.14 PASSED
TOPIC: (19,57,RES,94.11,POLICE,EXCESSIVE FORCE)
TOPIC: (19,57,RES,94.12,FAIR HOUSING)
TOPIC: (19,57,RES,94.13,RESIDENTIAL ANTI-DISPLACEMENT & RELOCATION)
TOPIC: (19,57,RES,94.14,CITIZEN PARTICIPATION)
Included in the Administration the city will have in effect Resolution
94-11 City Excessive Force Policy. Resolution 94-12 Fair Housing
Resolution. Resolution 94-13 Residential Anti-Displacement and
Relocation Assistance Plan. Resolution 94-14 Citizen Participation
Plan and Certification Regarding Lobbying.
The mayor closed the Hearing.
The mayor told the council there will be a Legislative Reception on
November 21 for newly elected officials. It will be a joint
City/County commitment.
RE: CHRISTMAS PARTY, BONUSES AND CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION
TOPIC: (19,58,,,CHRISTMAS,EMPLOYEE'S COMMITTEE,BONUSES)
December 9 will be a City Christmas party. He discussed giving a
certificate to recognize the employees that have been her 15, 20, and
25 years. The council felt it would be a good idea to give the
Christmas bonuses at the party.
Pledge to the flag.
A Motion was made by Bruce Sutherland and seconded by Kay Beck to
approve the minutes. All Aye
RE: TYPE OF STREET LIGHT POLES REQUIRED
TOPIC: (19,58,,,STREET LIGHTS,SUBDIVISIONS,STREETS)
Type of street light poles required. We have never been specific about
what we required in our ordinance. Joe gave a handout with suggestions
(on file) and explained it. The ordinance says the lights should be at
the intersections, but does not say anything about if it needs to be
overhead or underground power or what type of poles. Glen asked if he
were a subdivider and wanted to require yard lights in the front yard
of all the homes, would that be a substitute for the street lights? Joe
told him the way the ordinance is written, there would have to be
street lights at the intersections. In the ordinance, it states that
street lights will be at intersections, only. If you had a long
street, there wouldn't be many street lights. Some areas would have
lights so close together, you would have more than you wanted.
Possibly we might want to put, instead of at intersections, that they
be so many feet apart. Another thing that needs to be addressed is the
size of lamp. (discussion) It was felt by the council they should get
some comparative costs and study it and bring it up at the next
meeting.
RE: ANNEXATION PUBLIC HEARING
TOPIC: (19,58,,,ANNEXATIONS,PUBLIC HEARINGS,WALTERS READY MIX,
CLINGER*ARGUS,HOGLAND,SOUTH INTERCHANGE,COOK)
7:45 P. M. Annexation Public Hearing- The Planning & Zoning held a
public hearing and recommended that the property be annexed except the
Hogland Property Tract #3, which they requested that it would not be
annexed. Tract #1 Walters Ready Mix Property to be zoned Industrial,
Tract #2 South Interchange by Spuds, Piece Goods Store, Thompsons as
H.B.D. Tract #4 the Cook Property zoned LDR#1, Tract #5 Argus Clinger
home zoned LDR. No one was at the meeting to give any testimony. John
Millar was at the meeting and gave a report on the Planning & Zoning
public hearing. Joe told the council they are working on an Annexation
agreement with the Bowen people on the convenient store and car wash.
We will need to get annexation agreements with the other owners. A
motion was made by Bruce Sutherland and seconded by Nyle Fullmer to
proceed with the Annexations for Tract #1, Tract #2, Tract# 4, and
Tract# 5. All Aye
RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR NEW NURSING HOME
TOPIC: (19,58,,,C.U.P.,NURSING HOMES)
At the Planning & Zoning public hearing for a Conditional Use Permit
for the Nursing Home by the Lincoln School, the P & Z voted to grant
O
the Conditional Use Permit. We received a letter of appeal from some
of the neighbors to the City Council. (copy attached) The mayor opened
it up for anyone that wanted to speak on behalf of the Conditional Use
Permit.
Joe Rude- Billings Montana- President of Health & Marketing West the
group that is proposing the Nursing Home project. He wanted to focus
on the issues that came up in the hearing process. There were concerns
about the traffic impact and and impact the project would have on the
resale of homes. He brought copies of documents and handed them out
to the council (copies attached). One is from Laurel Care Center on
their letter head. This care center was built in a similar
neighborhood and shows a lot of similarity to this proposed Nursing
Home. On this document it shows the traffic that is generated by the
care center. (he explained the document) The second document was from
the House of Realty, Inc. regarding the impact the Laurel Care Center
had on real estate. Basically they are saying the Care Center has had
no impact on home values in that neighborhood. They selected the site
in Laurel and the site in Rexburg because they were in residential
areas. A residential area provides to the residents of a nursing home
a more home like environment and makes them feel more like a part of
the community. They are near community activities, which is considered
benefits in the location of nursing homes.
Mr Rude introduced Allen Rapacz, representing Schutz Foss Architects
from Billings, Montana and David Weaver, Landscape Architect from
Idaho, Falls. Mr Rapacz explained that they had presented the 83 bed
facility to the Planning Board and one issue came out that they needed
to provide additional landscaped screening along the west portion of
property adjacent to the parking lot. They also had a condition asking
them to consult with an Idaho Landscape Architect. They had done that
and had a presentation to show the council what their design intent
would be with the planting list and quantities.
Glen questioned about the buffer and lighting in the parking lot, and
moving the parking lot to the other side of the building where it would
not have an affect on the residential area because it would be further
away, because they were not developing the east end of the property.
Mr Rapacz explained essentially on the drive in, you like to drive in
and drop off on the right hand side. If they changed it the approaches
they would be too close along the street. Glen questioned the reason.
Mr Rapacz told him it would put all the traffic in one area. They had
put in extra landscaping that Joe had requested.
David Weaver, Landscape Architect, gave a plant list and plant types.
There would be two types of deciduous trees and two types of deciduous
shrubs and one evergreen shrub in compliance of the city requirement
for screening of the parking lot. He showed a partial planting screen
for the property. As they develope the final plans they would develope
a list of more types of shrubs and trees. There would be ash trees on
the east and honey locust on the west. Bruce questioned him about the
shrubs and trees. Glen questioned if the shrubs and trees would screen
properly instead of being like the ones the motel put in? Bruce felt
it would be adequate. Nyle questioned the lighting? Mr Schutz said
they could have the lighting on the west directing it away from the
residential neighborhood and be sensitive to the neighborhood. Bruce
asked if they could adjust the shifts and coordinate their shifts with
the school. Mr Rude said they would be open to move the shifts to
provide as little impact as possible.
Mr Rude said he understood, sometimes neighborhoods hate to see vacant
lots built on, because the kids have played on the lot for so many
years. Bruce said he had lived behind that vacant lot for years and it
is a mess. Nyle asked when they put down sod and greenery, what is the
attitude about children and people taking advantage of those areas? Mr
Rude said they welcome them onto the site.
Glen asked about the property on the east, the property on Birch? What
is the disposition of that property, are they considering that property
part of the professional overlay? Mr Rude said his understanding if
that the professional overlay included their parking lot and 2/3 of
their building. The east end is residential only. The other side of
/~ ~'
the property will be landscaped. At this time they have no plans to
develope that property. At which time they want to do something with
that part of the site, they would need to come back through the process
and talk to the city and do any project in there that is appropriate to
the zoning.
Glen asked Joe Laird about the information that Joe Laird had sent out
about the traffic generated by residents vs the Nursing Home? He asked
Joe where he got the figures? Joe told him it came from the Trip
Generation Manual put out by Institute of Transportation Engineers
which is a planning guide for all transportation type of work. The
vehicle use for a home comes from overall use they have found through
out the entire United States from area studies of cities and counties.
That being a national figure, our area tends to have more vehicle use
than pedestrian traffic. The ten trips a day would probably be low
rather than high. Glen asked how wide a street needed to be to be
safe. Birch will now have to carry additional traffic and Birch
already carries a lot of traffic, with the facility coming in it is
obvious that Birch will have more traffic. There is parking on both
sides of the street and sidewalks on one side of the street, The
sidewalk on the east side of Birch only goes down to the corner lot at
Linden. How safe of a street do we have in Birch and how much traffic
can it stand? Joe said he could not give him a quantity on that but it
is a typical residential street. The amount of increase of traffic to
be generated by this facility is about the same as what you would have
with homes, so he did not see how it would be worsened or bettered by
this particular facility. The traffic volume in the area is very low.
Glen questioned if 10 trips per day was high or low then it could be
made look like it is comparable, but he was not sure he was convinced
that a commercial facility doesn't generate more traffic than a series
of residential homes would do. The mayor did not feel the traffic
would be a problem.
Jim stated that what ever traffic is generated by the nursing home will
be more than is generated by any thing else because homes just aren't
going to go in there.
Glen asked if everyone had an opportunity to see the petition that came
in from the residents requesting to have this review by the council?
The mayor told him every councilman was mailed a copy.
Bruce Sutherland declared a conflict because he lives within 300 feet
of the property.
Kay Beck declared a conflict because he lives within 300 feet of the
property.
The mayor told them they could declare a conflict, but still vote.
A motion was made by Farrell Young that we accept Planning & Zoning's
proposal that we allow this to happen. Seconded by Jim Flamm. All
voting aye, with the exception of Glen Pond who voted nay. Motion
approved.
RE: SURVEYING AND MAPPING CONTRACT DISCUSSED
TOPIC: (19,60,,,SURVEY CONTROL SYSTEM,MAPS,FORSGRENS)
Continuing the discussion on the engineering on surveying and mapping.
The mayor asked John Millar if they could do anything this fall? John
told him they could do some surveying. Glen Pond recommended that we
postpone a decision until the next meeting. The mayor stated that we
would get the proposed changes on the agreement and get a copy to the
council. John Millar stated that monumental section corners in the
county, were re-done in 1977 after the flood, a good portion of those
were done, some were not done. About 1/3 to 1/2 of the corners are
established and will be utilized in preparing the overall map. He said
these would be a lot more permanent, but if the county goes out and
reconstructs a road, someone will have to take the responsibility to
re-establish that monument. (discussion on costs) The intersection
mapping would be getting it on the machine, so it can be put on the
computer. (John explained)
~i
Ray asked about talking to Sugar City and how much it could affect it
cost wise? John- it would not affect the cost much, because out in the
outer area they are not doing as much, possibly $5000. Joe and the
Mayor would go talk to Sugar and the County.
RE: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH SUMMERWOOD DISCUSSED
TOPIC: (19,61,,,AGREEMENTS,SUMMERWOOD SUBDIVISIONS,SUBDIVISIONS,
WATER LINES,SUNSET CIRCLE,CLEMENTS*MIKE,SEAL COATING,STREETS)
Joe handed to the council a Development Agreement with Summerwood. Joe
explained the agreement. This covers the conditions that is unique to
this particular development. We are asking them to put in an 8" line,
and we want to extend a 6" line down into the Sunset Circle and connect
up to the existing water line. He explained the costs. The total city
participation would be about $17,700. We are still talking to Mike
Clements, who owns the land adjacent in Sunset Circle, as how we can
get through to Sunset Circle. We had it designed straight through and
he indicated that is not an acceptable location. We will have to come
down the east property line so that will increase that figure going to
Sunset Circle. The mayor explained Mr Clements does not want it down
the center because he might want to sell that lot off to build a house.
Glen stated he had a concern, because we agreed we could have the
easements through to connect that water line. If the city cannot have
any access through there, maybe we should abandon Sunset Circle. Bruce
agreed. Glen said we went through a lot of hearings and a lot of
people were concerned that we didn't have an access through there into
Sunset Circle and if we have difficulty getting an easement, he did not
understand that. Joe explained that he did not want an easement
through the center of his property, because it split his ground, he
would give an easement on his property line which would make it harder
for us to get to coming from Summerwood Addition. Kay stated he
understood that lot was his backyard and was all landscaped and that
was why we went through all the trouble. Glen thought we should look
and see what our additional cost are to change the way we will have to
work the easement through there. He thought we made some concessions
to Sunset Circle by not putting a road through and now we have trouble
getting the easement where it is the most beneficial to the city,
because that was essentially his yard and he was going to plant trees
there. The mayor stated if you put a water line through the property,
you can never build a house on the property. Bruce thought if he wants
us to move the water line, maybe he would pay the difference on the
water line. The council asked Joe to figure up the cost difference.
The special condition #3 indicated the city will remove the top soil
from the right-a-way that is approximately one to one and half feet
deep. This would help the city as well as the developer. The city
needs top soil at the nature park and the sewer treatment plant.
Condition #4, we have a disagreement on and it has been brought to the
city council for their decision. We have discussed seal coating at
some of our meetings that all future subdivisions would have seal
coating. He indicated it to the developer and they have taken
exception to that because it has not been occurring in the past and the
city has not taken any official action on it to indicate it to the
developer that this is the city°s official policy.
Glen Halverson- We have platted the property and certain cost allocated
and fixed and now the city comes back and say you need to seal coat the
streets. In Idaho Falls they build a street and wait a year to seal
coat, because they gouge the streets when they build houses. Then they
go back and seal coat. He did not know if that was the best allocation
of those funds. You can make the street hold up and not crack and you
really don't need the seal coat. The developers feeling is this is
something they really did not know about and now they have already got
the subdivision planned. Now the city comes back and says you have to
add another $12,500. It seems a little unfair. He suggested that
there be a L.I.D. to seal coat the roads in that area. Glen stated
they started the game and then the city came along and changed the
rules, he asked where was the fairness? They are doing a five foot
sidewalk and the ordinance does not say we are required to have a five
foot sidewalk.
l~
Farrell asked if we had passed a regulation on the seal coating in an
ordinance? The mayor said we had not passed an ordinance requiring
seal coating. Glen stated that the church and the developers have set
their budget. Kay mentioned that because of the city council's action,
it brought in another piece of ground into the project, the width of
that whole street was going to go into Sunset Circle and also it saved
the developer the cost of bringing the street over. The mayor
questioned, we want to make the change, but is it fair to make it in
the middle?
(discussion) Glen Pond asked Joe when we decided we would ask for the
seal coating, and why didn't we do it up front on this development?
Nile said we had not discussed it or passed it in an open meeting. Joe
said we discussed it in a budget meeting. Joe had just told the
developer about a month ago that he was required to do seal coating.
The cost would be about $12,500.
Farrell felt we legally could not require it until we have passed it
officially. Nyle stated that in some point in time, even if it is not
by ordinance, we need to say we need to start doing things right.
Farrell felt we need to do it before a project starts, not after it is
started.
Nyle thought we need to follow the engineer's guidelines, even if it is
in the next two or three years. (discussion on street
John Millar- As a midway point. If you are required to go in and seal
coat that small amount of streets, it will cost a very premium price.
It would cost two or three times as much as if you could tie it into a
bigger project. As a possible alternative, would be to allow them to
piggy back that onto a city project, with the developer paying the full
cost of seal coating in the development. You are talking 1/3 to 1/2 the
cost if they have to do it on their own. That would require the seal
coating to be done within the next year or two.
J. D. said other cities put seal coating on an L.I.D. Glen suggested
that would be a big change in policy and we would need a great deal of
discussion before we started doing that. John felt it was important
that the seal coating be done and it should be done by the developer.
Glen Halverson felt the city needs a check list and give it to the
developer up front. The mayor agreed that the developer needs to know
the costs up front.
RE: REPORT ON THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT LANDSCAPING
TOPIC: (19,62,,,WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT,LANDSCAPING,
SUMMERWOOD SUBDIVISION)
Report on the Wastewater Treatment plant and the landscaping. We will
haul the top soil from the roads from Summerwood Subdivision down to
the Wastewater Treatment Plant to be used for landscaping.
A motion was made by Glen Pond and seconded by Nyle Fullmer that the
Mayor and Joe work with the developer and sign the agreement. All Aye
Jim reported that they had their Community meeting and Albert Burton
was there and asked for Rexburg's support on the interchange at Sugar
City.
A motion was made by Nyle Fullmer and seconded by Bruce Sutherland to
pay the bills. All Aye
Meeting adjourned.
~~(
Mayor, Nile L. B le
City Clerk, R Bag
LtiUi~;LL ~:i-tiKf= l:L- hd) Ei
,...,._
FtiuE E12
~~
~ M~~] A HAUS OF REALTY, INC.
P.O. ilox 25 ~ 309 I:;1 Awe.
laurel. M"I' 58084-0025
f'
November 14, 1994
l..~urcl B-lltr,gy I~Ax
(405) 626.7405 (40Fi) 245-3038 ~401i) (i2N•74)11
Laurel Care Center
ATT: Carolyn Cook
820 Third Avenue.
Laurel, MT 59044
Dear Carolyn,
1
The purpose of this letter is to respond to your question
regarding thQ impact that the Laurel Care Center has had
on the property values in tYie neighborhood. It is my
opinion that the values have not been adversely impacted
due to the presence of the Laurel Care Center. The area
that your care center ie located in, has always had a good
resale value. It is a plear>ant neighborhood and the turn
over of homes in the arms is modest. Generally, when a
home does come on the market in the area, it will sell
quickly. Z cannot remember having heard any negative
comments from prospective buyers because of the Laurel
care Center.
The Laurel Care Center is an attractive structure and is
nicely landscaped. It has bean a welcome and needed
addition Go our community.
1.i i U r i 1'~'J4 l i1: FlU uUb- o~+~ -c;t'.i.i l,i=aU(~Ll_ L;/aiE CEN I Efi
F'AGE D2
~ ~ Gi
~~~~
~,c~~~c~ <,'c~~rt`c~j~
1
tlovember 9, 1994
To : .Toe Rude, President
Health and Marketing West
From: Carolyn Cook, Administrator
Laurel Care Center
RE: Delivery truck schedules and employee shift schedulE
ThE~ #olloxing is our xeekly schedule of deliveries:
Food Service - once xeekly (truck over 7.. ton)
Sys,co - once weekly (truck over 2 ton)
Coke - once xeekly
Pepsi - once xeekly
Sea.bert' a ~ once ~+eekly
LyF3tad's - once every 2 wcrekm
Laurel Dairy - txo-three time.a xeekly
Znt.erstate Brands ibread) - txo-three times weekly
UPS; - txo-three timeE xeekly (xhen xE have delivQry)
Automatic Veridine (candy machine) - on oe xeekly
Ame~r~.can Medical Oxygen - once weekly
Humber of employees by arrival times:
6:00 An - 12 employees.
6:.30 A1S - 3 employees
7:4)0 AM - 1 employee
8:690 Ati - 6 employees
8::30 AM - 5 employcrera
1:490 P?I - 2 employees
2:690 PM - 8 employees
3:490 PM ~ 1 employee
10:00 P)1 - 4 Qmployeen '
If there is any information that would be helpful to you, ju,~t let
me know.
:,. ...
1
~~
Estimated Employee
Travel to Work
6:30 a.m'
7:~~ a.Ill
~:~0 1.I11
8 :3 0 a. I11
1:00 p . m ''
Z:~Q .Ill
3:00 p.m'
10.00 h. m
1 "l
3
1
6
5
2
1
4
16
5
1
6
7
3
12
2
5
.;,Y,,
;,;.r;.~Y .,;.
::.{~;
>:.,
}}i;
4.~
?:i
~}yr +?ti
"'~ is
~~~
~...~i»w.««ww~w~~wv'.
......................................................................... ~...... .. :': h is
< > ,
~~ ( e `
Dear Mayor and City Council Members;
We appeal the decision reached by the city's Planning and Zoning Commission
regarding the issuance of the conditional use permit just north of the
Lincoln Elementary School.
We do not want the proposed long term health care facility built in this
location.
In order to obtain a conditional use permit:
Zoning Ordinance 6.13.B(3) "....the proposed use will: Be designed
and constructed in a manner to be harmonious with the existing
character of the neighborhood and the zone in which the property is
located."
We, the undersigned, feel that this building will definitely change the
character of the existing neighborhood. We are concerned that the property
value will decrease as a result of this commercial venture. We are
confident that residences or parks will only enhance property value. Our
sentiments should have been recognized during the public hearing on October
19, 1994, where most of the comments were negative.
Zoning Ordinance 6.13.B(4) "....the proposed use will: Not create a
nuisance or safety hazard for neighboring properties in terms
of...odors, ...solid waste generating and storage, ...excessive
traffic generation, or interference with pedestrian traffic."
It should be obvious that the traffic generated by the 83 bed facility,
with approximately 85 employees, U.S. Mail deliveries, light commercial
truck traffic, and an average of 20 to 30 visitors per day is considerably
more traffic than 20 residential lots {residential is how this property is
primarily zoned) will generate. Pedestrian traffic, children attending
school across the street, children travelling to and from the playground
equipment, children on bikes anytime, will have their safety jeopardized by
the additional traffic. There are no sidewalks on the west side of $irch
Avenue (people must walk in the road).
Zoning Ordinance 6.13.8(6) "....the proposed use will: Not generate
traffic in excess of the capacity of the public streets or access
points serving the proposed use and will assure adequate visibility at
traffic access points."
We would like the applicant to fund a traffic flow study (something the
Planning and Zoning Commission should have requested) to provide
documentation rather than opinions as to what the traffic is right now and
what it will be in the future if the project is built. We would like to
know what the capacity is of our residential roads i.e. 2nd South, 3rd
East, 4th .East, 1st South, Maple Ave., Ash Ave., and Birch Ave. (all roads
surrounding the block of the proposed project). We recognize that Rexburg
is a growing community and traffic will increase, but we don't want to
invite a r_ertain increase in traffic by allowing a business to be built in
a residential neighborhood.
Finally, the approval of this project should not be taken lightly. It is
an infinitely lone; term decision that will affect all of the neighborhood.
If the project is approved, there are no safeguards insuring that it can be
removed if problems arise.
,'
t A
In summary, we don't want the project built across from the Lincoln
Elementary School. We want more influence about what goes on in our
neighborhoad. We want long term safety for children, pedestrians,
ourselves, and our homes in our neighborhood. ,~
J
C :;
1-
• ~~_~.
l~
L
t
~ ~~
r
~.L_
/~= S_
~4
' G ~ ;~
~_~ ~~y~
ao ls3n~3d lv
~ 3w11
~-~- 31va