06/26/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Loop had become an arterial in the last three years. He implored - Council to give serious consideration to the appeal and delay develop- ment until a definitive traffic study could be made. Arnie Pluid, 265 Fairway Loop, noted he and several neighbors had to back out of their driveways onto Fairway Loop, with a resulting hazardous condition. He recognized the very serious problem in that area. Dan O'Neil, 2157 Eastwood Lane, said during the peak hours of traffic it was difficult to get onto Oakway Road. The intersection of Country Club Road created a large backup of traffic. He said this was a situation that is already clustered and there is no answer. He thought before the development were approved, there should be some careful consideration given to finding a traffic pattern that will work. He entered a petition into the record signed by the neighbor- hood people. Speaking against the appeal was: Peter Thompson, 2440 Oak Grove Drive, representing the applicant, Robert Bennett. He fel t there had been an equitable solution to the traffic problem, worked out by City staff and the developers, that would create minimal impact, and traffic would be moved expeditiously. Access off Eastwood Lane would be as close as possible to Reed & Cross and the other access down Fairway Loop. He said there would be only 58 units in the development, noting it would be 8.4 units per acre, which was consi- derably under the 10 units per acre allowed under current zoning. e With the 8 units, 350 to 450 trips per day would be generated, and he felt this would not impact traffic. It was noted that unimproved roads can handle 10,000 trips per day. It was felt that the develop- ment plans would minimize the impact of traffic on the area. Robert Bennett, applicant, said he had met several times with the neighborhood groups, and worked with the Planning and Traffic staff. Given the constraints of the plan, the basic zoning was less than 10 units per acre, limited access, that it will be basically an adult proj ec 1:e, he said he could not think of anything else he could do to make it a better proj ect for the area. He felt it would be a quality project that would not encroach on the area or be an incompatible use. Rather, it would be an asset and not a liability to the community. Brandy Uhrbrand, 2181 Eastwood Lane, felt the impact of the develop- ment would very minimal. She said the traffic problem was not created by the residents, but rather by through traffic. She would like to see owner-occupi ed units developed, and hoped these owners mi ght j o;n the other residents in finding a better traffic solution. Mr. Saul said the change in traffic flow on that portion of Fairway Loop as proposed would have to be formally approved by both Planning Commission and City Council. He said conditions were established for specifically minimizing traffic impact and by offering direct and alternate access without using Eastwood Lane. Also, he said if the e condition were not established, Eastwood would have to bear all the 6/26/78--9 tf'3