06/26/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

l . I traffic from the development. He said under the traffic diverter policy, staff had worked at length with neighbors in the area to " establish the best possible diverter. The proposal would not modify the essential aspects of that solution as being the best available and was done in cooperation with the neighborhood as a whole and in particular with the residents in that area. He said while there would be some increase in traffic on Eastwood, the actual amount would be minimal and less than capacity standards under the City Code. Mr. Hamel noted the traffic problem had existed for some time, and he hoped that staff would address the overall traffic problem in the area, or perhaps temporarily stop construction of homes in that area until the traffic problem was solved. Jack O'Neil, 485 Fair Oaks Drive, in rebuttal, said there is only one exit onto Oakway Road for the whole area. The new development will be faced with the same crowded traffic problems and will add to that problem. He did not feel the traffic diverter would do that much good. However, he did note he was in favor of the development as being a good use of the land. However, he felt before the develop- ment went ahead, there should be a traffic study done of the entire neighborhood. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Lieuallen felt the m~or problem was through traffic on Fairway e Loop. He suggested perhaps there should be a diverter system to eliminate through traffic and leave access only for residents. Mr. Hanks noted there had been such a diverter, with serious objections from the neighborhood people; thus, the change to the present diverter system. Subsequent discussion centered around conducting another traffic study in the area, and getting response from neighborhood as to how they feel about eliminating through traffic in the area. It was noted for Council that that option is open; however, a thorough study had just been completed resulting in the present diverter which was favored by a m~ ority of the residents. Council felt the PUD should be approved, but the traffic problem needed to be addressed. Mr. Allen pointed out the problem of further study in the area, noting the just-completed T-2000 Plan. He said there was no immediate answer or solution for arterials in the area, and staff is limited in what it can do there. In response to a question from Mr. Haws, Mr. Saul said options open for Council at this time were: 1) sustain the appeal in its entirety; 2) deny the appeal in total; 3) approve the development and modify the conditions. Mr. Haws felt the street should be blocked at point A (on map distributed by Mr. Saul), and the PUD should take access off Fairway Loop. - 6/26/78--10 1f4l1