Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ - Public Testimony by Richard Gardner - 12/8December 7, 2016 1 of 3 Dear ACHD: I oppose the Firenze Plaza application. The Amity/Eagle intersection is not designed as a commercial corridor. Attempting to make it so will worsen an already complicated traffic situation and change the nature of the area. If the project does move ahead, then it should at least be modified. 1. THE PROJECT WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT ARTERIAL TRAFFIC The developer’s own traffic study admits that this project violates ACHD policy in multiple respects. Their justification is that this better than the alternative of having no arterial access except through the neighborhood. True enough, but that is just another way of saying that the present configuration was not designed for commercial access in the first place. Their position boils down to “we need waivers because the project can’t be done without violating policy.” Exactly. The problem with making an exception is once you say yes to the first applicant, it’s hard to say no to the next one. If this change goes through, it’s hard to see how other applicants could be prevented from doing the same thing. It will change the whole character of the area. In my opinion, the roundabout at Eagle and Amity is good design. It is part of a comprehensive plan that ACHD has already spent lots of time, effort and money implementing. Every time I drive through it— usually without stopping—I think about how many hours of my life I have spent waiting at stoplights when no one is coming in the other direction. I applaud ACHD’s attempt to try something different here. Adding multiple intersections for commercial access is not a compatible design element. It is asking Eagle road to serve the dual role of arterial circulation and commercial access. We’ve all seen how well that functions north of the freeway. In the long run, the commercial access functions will overwhelm the plan currently in place and we will end up with a gauntlet of stoplights. Eagle road south will become a clone of its cousin to the north. The study rightly points out that future residential development will continue to put pressure on the traffic situation at the roundabout. True enough—but that in no way supports the change they are seeking. The idea that bringing commercial development here will somehow reduce traffic is laughable. The Amity/Eagle intersection should remain focused on its primary purpose of allowing arterial circulation. It should not be repurposed in this manner. 2. THE PROJECT WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC The initial traffic study completely ignored any impact on neighborhood traffic. The follow up study concluded that the project would not have a substantial impact on the neighborhood. This is not a realistic conclusion. Even the study’s own findings do not support it. Burgo is a thoroughly residential street with homes facing it. It is also home to a neighborhood swimming pool that attracts significant pedestrian and bike traffic during the summer months. The study estimates that the project would impose an additional 190 average daily trips on Burgo—a 70% increase based on the study’s own numbers. Assuming a 12 hour window, that’s an additional car every 4 minutes, every day, all day long. At peak hours the impact would likely be much higher. The study December 7, 2016 2 of 3 concludes this is “not a substantial impact.” The residents who live on Burgo, and the many more residents whose children ride their bikes to the pool, would probably not see it that way. And the problem is likely to only get worse. If at some point the Zaldia/Eagle intersection is modified to facilitate left turns from Zaldia onto northbound Eagle (for instance, with a roundabout, traffic signal, or left turn merge lane), then Burgo-Zaldia will become the path of least resistance for exiting shoppers trying to head north on Eagle road. The project will also have a substantial impact on the existing residential portion of Mount Etna. The study suggests only a limited number of trips would be added from neighborhood residents accessing the new development via Mount Etna. But this ignores the impact of attaching to Eagle road. Extending Mount Etna to Eagle road renders it a viable alternative to Zaldia—something it is not designed for. It is also aesthetically undesirable, creating a straight-shot sightline from existing Mount Etna all the way to Eagle road—something the rest of Tuscany has been designed to avoid. While no connection is specifically proposed at Taormina, the developer has recently mentioned this as an alternative to Mount Etna. This creates the same undesirable aesthetics, and simply shifts the problem to a different location. Neither Taormina nor Mount Etna should be turned into a connection point for commercial access. 3. AT VERY LEAST, THE PROPOSED ROADS SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO MITIGATE THE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS Again, my hope is that you will reject the application outright and formally recommend that the area remain residential. However, in the event the project is allowed to move forward, you should require the applicants to revise the proposal in several regards. First, if a neighborhood connection is required, it should be confined to a single point by extending Burgo and Santo Stefano—the two roads currently marked for extension—to a point of intersection, then extending Burgo further south, across the site of the proposed Mount Etna, then join in to the proposed Bellezza Way from the west, midblock, behind the proposed grocery store. The new Mount Etna should only extend from Eagle to Bellezza, then force a hard left. It should not be extended to Montague. The future residential portions of the project can access off the extensions of Burgo and Santo Stefano without requiring any additional connections to Tuscany. Neither Mount Etna nor Taormina should extend beyond Montague. The connection must be indirect enough to discourage outside traffic from using neighborhood streets—particularly drivers who might be tempted to use the Burgo-Zaldia route for northbound access to Eagle. Second, the plat should include setbacks sufficient to ensure adequate pedestrian access, including a sidewalk or jog path along the east side of Montague, similar in size and quality to what is on the west side of Montague near Amity, but extending all the way from Amity past Santo Stefano to the existing December 7, 2016 3 of 3 boundary of Tuscany. In addition, there should be a pedestrian access corridor beginning at the point where Mount Etna meets Montague and extending east to Bellezza, and from there alongside the new Mount Etna far enough to ensure safe pedestrian access to the commercial development. These features are critical to ensure compatibility with the surrounding Tuscany neighborhood. CONCLUSION The applicants do not live here and are not impacted by the project, except financially. Those of us who live near the proposed site will be deeply impacted on a daily basis. Everyone understands that the property will be developed sooner or later, and I certainly don’t begrudge the owners wanting to put their land to more profitable use. But they should do it according to the same plan everyone else has been following. Like many residents, I purchased a home in this area because I believed it was going to remain residential. There are upsides to having close access to shopping, but this is not the right place for it. The current configuration is simply not designed for commercial access, and cannot be adapted to that end without dooming the roundabout to a slow and certain death and impacting the surrounding neighborhood. For that reason, I urge you to reject the application and recommend against a commercial rezone. If the project is permitted to move ahead, then I urge you to require modifications as described above in order to mitigate the traffic impacts to the neighborhood and ensure pedestrian access in a manner that is compatible with the rest of Tuscany. Thank you for the valuable work you do in guiding the future development of our community. Best Regards, Richard Gardner 2571 E Taormina Drive cc: Mayor’s Office mayortammy@meridiancity.org Planning & Zoning Commission clerk@meridiancity.org The Land Group c/o Tamara Thompson tamara@thelandgroupinc.com