Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />r <br />#2484 Woodhill CC <br />May 5, 1999 <br />Page 15 <br />7.Alternate Solutions <br />a. Police traffic personnel or a semaphore at Woodhill Road / Co. 15 are not feasible <br />b. Turn lanes on 15 at Woodhill Road do not solve high speed, limited sight distance, <br />or "critical gap" problems <br />c. There are no other locations where the Club owns 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 the neighborhood. Those letters <br />are included as Exhibits U. They include a petition opposing the Club's request. Please review these <br />submittals. <br />Malkerson Letter and Benshoof Traffic Study <br />Also included in the attachments are a traffic study by Benshoof & Associates, Inc. and a letter from <br />Bruce Malkerson on behalf certain homeowners in the neighborhood. Please review these <br />documents included within Exhibits U. <br />» • <br />♦ • <br />♦ • <br />Lssues for Discussion <br />Council should consider the following questions in determining a course of action on the Woodhill <br />request: <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />Has Woodhill CC provided sufficient justification to warrant consideration of a second <br />access to the property? <br />Has Woodhill CC adequately demonstrated that other secondary access options are either not <br />feasible or are inferior to the proposed Woodhill avenue access? <br />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 />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?