Laserfiche WebLink
«2484 WoodhillCC <br />May 5, 1999 <br />Page 15 <br />7. Alternate Solutions <br />a. Police traffic personnel or a semaphore at Woodhill Road / Co 15 arc not feasible <br />b. Turn lanes on 1S at Woodhill Road do not solve high speed, limited sight distance, <br />or "critical gap" problems <br />c. There ore no other locations where the Club o\%t.s land that abuts a public street that <br />could be used as an access. <br />Neighborhood Comments <br />The City has received letters from a number of property owners in tlie neighborhood. Tliosc letters <br />arc included as Exlubits U. They include a petition oprosing the CluKs request Please review these <br />submittals. <br />Malkerson I.etter and Benshoof Traffic Study <br />Also included in Ute attachments are a traffic study by Benshoof & Associates, Inc. and a letter from <br />Bruce Malkerson on behalf certain homeowners in lltc neighborhood. Please rcMcw these <br />documents included within Exliibits U. <br />Issues for Discussion <br />Council should consider the following questions in determining a course of action on tlic Woodhill <br />request: <br />1. Has Woodhill CC provided sufficient justification to warrant consideration of a second <br />access to the property? <br />2. Has Woodhill CC adequately demonstrated that otlier secondary access options are cither not <br />feasible or arc inferior to the proposed Woodhill avenue access? <br />3. Do public health, safety and welfare concerns suggest that the benefits of allowing <br />Woodhill CC an access to Woodhill Avenue outweigh the potential negative impacts to the <br />neighborhood? <br />4. Are the Club-proposed limitations on use of the access sufficent to alleviate most or all of <br />the concerns expressed by the neighborhood? If not, what additional limitations should be <br />attached to City approval of the access?