Meeting Time: August 06, 2020 at 6:00pm CDT
The online Comment window has expired

Agenda Item

7.c) DD20-039 – Oakwood, Phase 2 – Request review and comments for a Sketch Plat for a 7-lot residential subdivision on 4.50 acres located at 262 and 276 East Poplar Avenue. Applicant: Ashworth Engineering, PLLC (Wes Ashworth, P.E.) Property Owners: Rob Smith and Dr. Steven Creasy Project Planner: Jaime W. Groce, AICP

  • Default_avatar
    Scot Addis over 4 years ago

    A valuable aspect of the current Oakwood development is the safety and privacy afforded residents. Added traffic will adversely affect safety, especially for the many children in the neighborhood. Clearing trees erodes privacy and quality of life. Any exemptions to safety related matters will be at the detriment of current Oakwood residents.

  • Default_avatar
    Daniel Elrod over 4 years ago

    There are many properties that would be negatively affected by this development, ranging from loss of backyard privacy to greatly increased traffic and increased risk to our 10+ children that are used to playing in the cul-de-sac. Also, we are concerned that allowing a zoning exception to R-2A instead of matching the existing zoning opens the door later to even higher density development later. It seems the only reason to allow the zoning exception is to allow the developer to maximize profits.

  • Default_avatar
    Greg Cobb over 4 years ago

    Being a newcomer to the Oakwood neighborhood (moved-in March 2020), our young family (two kids under 4) have enjoyed playing in the quiet cove at Great Falls Rd and Ellawood Lane. We respectfully oppose the developer’s plans to add 48 addt’l car trips per day through our cove with safety risks to our children. Further, we respectfully ask the Town Planner to deny the exception request of R-2A zoning vs. existing R-2 zoning for concerns of lot sizes not matching original Oakwood zoning.

  • Default_avatar
    Kevin Sholl over 4 years ago

    We respect the right of land owners to develop. But not at undo expense and disruption to the current neighborhood. These lots should have been developed when Oakwood was established due to the single point of access. This, and the awkwardness of proposed back-to-back cul-de-sacs should be reason enough to deny this project. In addition, the request to for an R-2A exception in an R-2 neighborhood by citing lot sizes and DUA's misses the most critical issue of 5 feet less between homes.