Laserfiche WebLink
F <br />#2484 WoodhillCC <br />May 5, 1999 <br />Page 12 <br />3. Odors. The proposed low level of traffic and prohibition on service a id <br />delivery vehicles will likely result in no significant odors generated due to this access. <br />4. Lights. There is currently no streetlight at the intersection of Woodhill <br />Avenue and the Woodhill Ridge private road, and none is proposed. Headlights from <br />vehicles entering and exiting at the new access will not shine directly at any <br />neighboring homes. The proposed limitation on hours of access availability of 7:00 <br />a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and the limited usage during months where darkness occurs earlier <br />in the evening, will also result in minimal headlight impact in the neighborhood. Any <br />existing or proposed lighting at cr near the maintenance building whose source may <br />be more visible when the access is in place, would have to be redirected or shielded. <br />5. Visual Impacts. Opening of the access to Woodhill Avenue results in the <br />loss of some vegetation w hich in the past acted to screen the maintenance building <br />from users of Woodhill Avenue. The maintenance building will be somewhat more <br />visible in the winter months with the road being open. The additional proposed traffic <br />signage and the proposed level of traffic w ill result in minimal if any negative visual <br />impact on the neighborhood. <br />6. Seeuritv. iTic Club does not propose to install a gaiehouse, but does propose <br />to have a gate or chain that would have to be opened at 7 a.m. and closed at 8 p.m. <br />The Club closed this access in 1980 due to security issues, i.e. unwanted traffic, etc. <br />At least one neighborhood resident has expressed concerns regarding security. The <br />lack of a gatehouse or other monitoring at this access location is a topic for further <br />discussion. <br />City Engineer’s Comments re: Proposed Driveway Design <br />file comments of the City Lngineer appear in Exhibit W and are summarized as follow s: <br />1. Proposed drixeway slope in some locations is 14%, slightly exceeding recommended <br />driveway maximum of 10%; private road maximum slope by code is 12%. <br />2. Erosion is a concern, needs erosion controls during/aftcr construction. Need vegetation <br />established in ditches. <br />Reeommending typical street section for a private road; if remaining as gravel surface, dust <br />control measures may be needed. <br />Drainage calculations acceptable. Could di\ ert mnoff from upper driveway to small existing <br />pond north of dri\eway. <br />Need a retaining wall design for area near N W comer of maintenance building. <br />3. <br />4. <br />5.