Residents and Town concerned about impact of increased traffic

By Julie TurnerrnOsoyoos Timesrn____________________

Council has put at least a temporary stop to a development permit for a proposed 212-unit condo complex adjacent to Peanut Pond.
At Monday's meeting, council voted to withold a permit from Ron Bartsch, owner of the property for the proposed Desert Lagoon development, until he sorts out traffic concerns with the Ministry of Transportation (MOT).
The development was the subject of an open house in February, the purpose of which was to reveal the results of a traffic impact study.
Bartsch has applied to build the multi-family units in a phased three-building development. Consultant Dave Cullen, hired by Bartsch to do the initial traffic study, downplayed the traffic impacts at last month's open house, saying any traffic increases would be marginal.
But residents along Vedette Drive, along which all the traffic entering and exiting Desert Lagoon would be channelled, disagreed. They voiced a number of safety and access concerns.
Prior to Monday's meeting, Town Planner Alain Cunningham requested assistance from council on how to proceed with the controversial development application. A memo from Cunningham was part of the meeting's agenda.
In the memo, Cunningham stated vehicle access to and from the proposed development was a critical issue.
He further stated that MOT has not supported allowing anything more than emergency access to the site from Highway 3/Main Street. Thus, the only public street access would be via Vedette Drive and Valiant Lane (through the Lakeview Plaza parking lot).
Cunningham noted that three options were proposed in Cullen's final report:rn1) Emergency access only from Highway 3, which would result in 1,900 vehicle trips per day on Vedette;rn2) Addition of a right in/right out access from Highway 3, which would reduce traffic on Vedette to 1,200 vehicle trips per day;rn3) A four-way intersection at the Eagle Court corner on Highway 3 connecting through to Vedette Drive, which the applicant concluded was impractical because it would use up about a third of his site.
However, the three options described were not displayed at the open house, and Cunningham said some residents complained about not getting satisfactory answers to their questions.
Staff advised Bartsch that the development's density would put too much pressure on Vedette Drive and Valiant Lane, and therefore, the best choice would be to obtain a right in/right out access from Highway 3. Staff said it would be up to Bartsch to obtain the necessary approvals from MOT.
Earlier this month, Bartsch met with Mayor John Slater and MOT prior to a meeting with Development Services staff (which was subsequently cancelled) to discuss the possibility of allowing him to move forward with two of his three buildings.
According to the traffic consultant's projections, however, this scenario would place a similar amount of traffic onto Vedette as would the full three phases with the right in/right out Highway 3 access.
Council passed a motion to recommend that Development Services not proceed further with the permit application until a right in/right out Highway 3 access was authorized by MOT. If Bartsch is unsuccessful in obtaining that authorization, staff could recommend council down-zone the property.
In his reasons for choosing this option, Councillor Dick Flintoft noted he did not feel the open house was adequately handled by the developer, and that it was more of a pre-sale event than a public information session.
Council noted the site is great for a high-density development; however, the main access through Vedette Drive is unacceptable.
The only way we're going to get something on the highway is to force MOT to sit down with the developer and work out a deal. This development has to have the highway access, said Councillor Allan Carswell.
Councillor Stu Wells agreed, adding that 1,900 or even 1,200 cars travelling through Vedette per day is hard to imagine. Mayor Slater pointed out that years ago MOT had approved the high-density zoning designation for the property.
Highways did agree to have a potential of 239 condo units on that property. They sign off on all our zoning bylaws adjacent to highways, and for them to come along and say they're denying access because they've changed their policy is not adequate, Slater said.[b][/b][b][/b][b][/b]