Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Beaver Creek to halt Shakertown Road widening, citing safety and property impacts
Summary
Dozens of residents told council the Shakertown Road widening would harm front yards, remove mature trees, worsen safety for neighbors and is unjustified by traffic counts; speakers urged canceling the grant-funded project or pursuing alternatives such as sidewalks.
Multiple Beaver Creek residents told the city council they strongly oppose a proposed widening of Shakertown Road, arguing the project would reduce private front yards, remove mature trees, increase speeds and safety risks, and is not supported by the traffic counts presented by staff.
Larry Hill, a long-time resident, said widening would bring more noise and larger trucks close to houses and make driveway access more hazardous. Dean Ecklan (2982 Shakertown) referenced the 2019 Thoroughfare Plan and questioned whether Shakertown meets criteria for a minor arterial, noting a cited trip count "about 3,000" and pointing out many homes have driveways directly on the road rather than side-street access.
Joe Volani (710 Callsbrook) and other residents said traffic counts have dropped over time and disputed the necessity of widening; several speakers urged the city to consider narrower alternatives (a side path or sidewalks) and to preserve trees, a historic barn and residents' property values. One resident asked the council to travel to the site to observe traffic conditions rather than rely solely on summary counts.
Heather Harvey (3180 Shakertown) presented a detailed objection on behalf of a group of residents, citing high observed speeding (vehicles "going 75 mph plus"), incidents of vehicles leaving the road and front-yard intrusion, and a claim that MVRPC told her cancelling the project would not be a permanent penalty although there could be financial consequences. She asked the city to withdraw from the project and said city engineering had conveyed confusing messages about resident responsibilities for shared-use paths.
Speakers also raised quantitative points cited in public remarks: earlier vehicle counts alleged in prior years (5,800 in 2013, down to ~3,400 at grant submission) and a referenced city contribution of "$800,000" in levy funds toward the project (speakers described that as the city levy portion). Residents repeatedly asked for additional public dialogue, clearer communication from staff and validation of traffic and safety data prior to moving forward.
The mayor and staff said a packet addressing prior questions was available at the back of the room and that the city will discuss the project at an upcoming work session; council did not take a formal vote on the project during this meeting.
