Hello Grand Junction Planning Commission, My name is Robert Lueck and I Live at 619 Pioneer Road. I'm a Colorado registered professional engineer working for Bighorn Consulting Engineers. I have lived in Grand Junction for 24 years. While I am not outright against the Human service group home project being proposed, I do have several concerns my neighbors share that we believe are not being taken seriously. Most of the adjacent neighbors seem accepting of the proposed group home, but are against the proposed road changes, which we believe degrade the currently safe road conditions. Also, the concerns we have raised regarding the redesign of the road ways seem to have "fell on def ears". Additionally, Jurisdiction of the proposed road way is unclear (County vs City. We were told it will be a county road residing on city land). Storm Drainage concerns were also left unaddressed. Finally (and probably the most disconcerting), the required notifications have not been properly distributed on multiple occasions and thus affected residences are not being given the opportunity to voice their concerns (I have yet to receive a notification. I am only aware of the project through conversations with neighbors and the newspaper). Items of concern regarding future development of Pioneer Road: 1). Project as currently configured will lower the safety of two residential roadways: Currently the project proposes connecting two cul-de-sacs, in which a through street will be created from F-1/2 road to Patterson. The configuration of the connection will create a double blind corner. When residences voiced this concern, We were told by the design professionals the connection is code required for "interconnectivity". Upon further investigation, it was found this is not true. The code study carried out and conveyed to the design team is attached here for reference. It was found there is no "interconnectivity" requirement for the two specific cul-de-sacs. In fact, We believe the proposed roadway will degrade the safety of our neighborhood roads, which goes directly against Grand Junction's Title 29 (Transportation engineering design standards or TEDS) and the adopted Grand Junction Circulation plan (Per executive summary Section D Item 4, "Maintain or improve circulation of vehicles on road system." I believe it is apparent the current safety level will be compromised by the proposed roadway reconfiguration and thus, will not be maintained or improved). It should also be mentioned that the fire department needs two points of access. To our understanding, the architects (Chamberlin) have proposed at one time using removable emergency style bollards/barriers to accommodate two points of entry (as similarly done is other parts of town). As we understand the fire department was accepting of this approach. I personally think this is the best approach as it would allow foot traffic and emergency responders access, but would prevent unsafe/unneeded vehicle traffic. My understanding is the connection between the two roads is being driven by the city traffic engineer. I believe he is over interpreting or miss-understand the interconnectivity goals outlined in our adopted codes. In referencing the Grand Junction Circulation map, it is clear these roadways were never intended to be connected and are not intended to become a "arterial" or "collector" roadway (In fact the current roadway configuration includes bulges at the ends with the sidewalk looping around as seen on most cul-de-sacs). The intent/goal of "interconnectivity" is clearly indicated in the circulation plan executive summary. Section D Item 4 states "Improve interconnectivity between Grand Valley Transit and centers, neighborhoods, and community attractions". I believe it is abundantly clear the proposed road connection/reconfiguration does not help achieve this goal. In fact the reduction in safety would directly go against the goals outlined in our adopted codes. 2). Proper notifications are not being sent and/or received: The lack of notification was brought up at one of the meetings with the design team. They seemed surprised and assured us future notifications would be sent correctly and any issues with the mailing of the notification would be corrected. We were told that we would be directly notified of at least one more meeting with the design team and would would be directly notified of the re-zoning meeting. This did not happen. I have yet to receive a notification for this proposed project. I think this is critical and the re-zoning should be delayed until the residences within the specified distance (I believe it is 1000 feet) are notified as required by law. I was told at the meeting I was able to attend, to send any questions or concerns and there would be another meeting to address the concerns. I did send my concerns, but this additional meeting has not happened yet and I did not receive any reply from the design team. 3). Jurisdiction conflict: We asked who would have jurisdiction over the new roadway. The design team has responded that it is unclear. I think this is a major gap in liability. If there is an issue with the roadway construction who will be liable to correct it (City or County). Also, it should be mentioned the city traffic engineer has stated the county road (which is funded by the county) will have to adhere to city requirements, since it will reside on city property. Seems like a "loop hole" is being created, where the responsible party is not defined. 4). Lack of Storm Drainage mitigation Plans: Several residents located adjacent to the proposed project site voiced concerns with storm drainage. There already exists issues with flooding, due to improper storm drainage. The proposed site layout would likely exasperate the existing issues. The proposed new roadway would be located directly on top of the area currently experiencing flooding issues (which would increase the risk of having future roadway issues in an area where jurisdiction is not clear). Thank you for your time and consideration. I believe Grand Junction is one of the best places to live. Together I believe we can make Grand Junction the most livable city west of the Rockies. Sincerely, Robert Lueck

1. There is NO need for Pioneer Road to be connected to Oxbow Road via North Acre Court to the east, this will create a speedway between both of the subdivisions with increased traffic flow on roads that are too NARROW and were NOT designed for such an increase in traffic. Not to mention the increase in large trucks going up and down the street for deliveries and associated other business. 2. With the Zoning for this development being CHANGED TO SUIT THE NEEDS OF THE STATE/COUNTY/CITY why can't the driveway for the facility be moved to 29 1/2 Road? As you are aware 29 1/2 Road is a major north/south arterial already and an entry via this route would NOT impact a quiet subdivision. We realize purchase from the Valley Bible Church at 646 29 1/2 Road would have to be made, but this is clearly the most logical solution for the entrance. 3. In case no one looked, there is a large empty lot right next to the Mesa County Human Services building on 510 29 1/2 Road. It is connected to a residential area, so they will feel like they are in a residential neighborhood with a more accessible street right there. 4. This facility should be located in an area that currently already has an entrance and exit street. Not two closed-end streets that will need to be opened and connected to allow access. 5. Our neighborhood isn't against the Regional Center Housing Project being built, we are AGAINST our street being opened up into another neighborhood, allowing our street to become a throughfare to another subdivision. 6. We and the rest of the residents on Pioneer Road were told over and over that we would be notified of any and all events for this project BUT once again, nothing was mailed out to us, if we weren't checking the Public Hearing in the newspaper, we would NOT have been informed of this meeting.

According to the building permit applications there is still a plan to connect Northacre ct and pioneer, yet in the plans to move forward it states they will no longer be connected. What is actually going to happen? The only concern across the board with all current residents was connecting those 2 streets. Has the building department and the proposed owners listened? There is absolutely no need to connect the streets and it will devalue all homes on both streets. Right now both streets are dead end streets, taking that away will increase traffic and devalue all homes. I live at 2964 Northacre directly affected by this new build. We have no problems with the future residents or location but we absolutely are against connecting the two streets. That was the common issue among all current residents. The only issue that still stood in place as of last meeting. All homes on northacre plan to hire legal help if the two streets are proposed to connect as final decision. It is an easement of necessity that was going to be used, there is no necessity. I have been in touch with lawyers and they are up to speed and have viewed documentation on all properties involved. I will do everything in my power to stop the streets from connecting. I do have faith that our new neighbors and the building department listened to our pleas. I do have a back up plan and have communicated the option to numerous households and it does have strong support, and according to lawyers there is definitely a case to be made.

I don't believe anyone is in opposition of the actual group homes being built. The underlying problem is the connection of Northacre Court and Pioneer Road. Broken Spoke(main road in off of Patterson) is already extremely congested and windy. Creating a thru way from Northacre and Pioneer would only cause vehicles from the subdivisions north of Northacre Ct to come south on Broken Spoke to use the suggested new thru way to gain access to Patterson. By doing so you would be devaluing several homes that are currently at a dead end road. Group home yes, connecting Pioneer and Northacre no way. Stupid and wasteful idea.

Per the Staff report it states "After additional discussion with neighbors, the Applicant, City Engineering staff and Community Development, the connection requirement has been removed." So does this mean that Northacre Court will not be extended to the GJ Regional Center Group Home? There are information that still shows this happening.