Laserfiche WebLink
«484 WoodhillCC <br />May 5, 1999 <br />Page 12 <br />3. Odors . The proposed low level of traffic and prohibition on service and <br />delivery vehicles will likely result in no significant odors generated due to this access. <br />4. Lights. Theie is cuncmly no streetlight at the mtersccuon of Wojdhill <br />Avenue and the A'^oodlull Ridge private road, and none is proposed. Headlights from <br />vehicles entering and exiting at the new access will not sliinc directly at any <br />neighboring homes Tlie 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 cv’cning, will also result in minimal headlight impact in the neighborhood Any <br />existing or proposed lighting at or near the maintenance building who*;c source may <br />be more visible when tlie access is in place, would liavc to be redirected or siiicldcd. <br />5. Visual Impacts. Opening of the access to Woodhill Avenue results in lire <br />loss of some vegetation which in the past acted to screen the maintenance building <br />from users of Woudliill Avenue. Tlie maintenance building will be somewhat more <br />visible in the winter months with the road being open. Tire additional projxised traffic <br />signage aixl the proposed level of traffic will result in minimal if any negative visual <br />impact on the neighborhood. <br />6. Security. The Cl S does not propose to install a gatehouse, but docs propose <br />to Itavc a gate or chain that would have to be opened at 7 a.m. and closed at 8 p.m. <br />The Club closed tliis access in 19S0 due to security issues, i c unwanted traffic, etc <br />At least one neighborhood resident has expressed concerns regarding security. The <br />lack of a gatehouse or other monitoring at thi.> access location is a topic for further <br />discussion. <br />City Engineer's Coinnunis re: Proposed Driveway Design <br />The comments of the City Engineer appear in Exhibit W and arc summarized as follows; <br />1. Proposed driveway 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 />3. Recommending typical street section for a private road; if remaining as gravel surface, dust <br />control measures may be needed. <br />4. Drainage calt ilations acceptable. Could divert nutofl from upper driveway to small exi..ting <br />pond north of driveway. <br />5. Need a retaining w all design for area near NW comer of maintenance building.