HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Chris Broer
RECEIVED
ccp t 3 "'!,,""
-"II..,. L.;O,,:
Written testimony for the Public Hearing on the proposed Crossfield subdivision
Meridian City Council, September 13,2005
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
The families and neighbors in Waterbury Park subdivision have serious concerns about the
proposed R-8 Crossfield subdivision, and respectfully request that:
1. only the required minimum number of stub streets from Crossfield to the seven acre
enclave be approved (i.e., probably one, since the fire department would only require a
second access point ifthere will be more than 50 homes in the enclave someday, unlikely
since that would mean higher density in the enclave than Crossfield averages)
2. such access roads to the enclave should be from the east (Venable Lane) or north (as far
east as possible).
ACHIYs Planning Review Supervisor, Christy Richardson, stated it would be ACHD's policy in
the future to request the stub street to Waterbury Park's northwest be developed, connecting it to
the seven acre enclave someday. Given the multiple proposed access points to the enclave from
the proposed Crossfield subdivision, especially the conditional one from the west, it means
someday all the high density neighborhood center traffic would pour directly into and through
our Waterbury Park subdivision, which was built before a neighborhood center was even
proposed. 90%+ of the vehicle trips that would emanate from the proposed R-8 subdivision
would have as their primary direction of traffic the southeast where our homes are, since there
isn't a stop sign or barely a curve from our stub street all the way to Meridian Road. No one in
the bottom two thirds of this proposed subdivision would want to go north to Ustick, wait at the
future light at Venable and Ustick, and then wait to turn onto Meridian Road at Ustick, when
instead they can just drive through our neighborhood.
Background:
1. Waterbury Park, our R-4 subdivision, was completed prior to the new comprehensive plan
which was proposed in 2000. The then-existing comprehensive plan called for eventual similar
or lesser density to our north and west, especially since we are in the primary direction of travel
from those parcels. Many of the homeowners, induding the undersigned, have lived in our
homes for 12 or more years.
2. When a new Comprehensive Plan was proposed in 2000, we pointed out that all ofthe other
13 proposed high-density neighborhood centers were semi-circles, except for a full circle one
proposed for Ustick Road, to our northwest and near our stub street to the northwest. We asked
if the proposed neighborhood center on Ustick could be consistent with the others and be a semi-
circle, on the north side of Us tick. We were turned down.
3. When Salisbury II / VaUin Court was proposed as an R-8 subdivision to our north last year,
we in the Waterbury Park and Salisbury I subdivisions, and Anna Canning ofthe Planning and
Zoning staff, requested access points from Venable Lane to Vallin Court, so eventual
neighborhood center traffic could flow to the east and then through as yet undeveloped Indian
Rocks Road, but were turned down. Mark Snodgrass, the spokesperson for our subdivisions at
the Planning and Zoning meetings, then pointed out that the proposed lots adjacent to Salisbury I
were smaller than Salisbury I, and that traffic should be encouraged towards Indian Rocks Road
instead of through Salisbury I. The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council agreed
to accommodate Salisbury I by requiring the developer instead put similar-sized or larger homes
near their homes, and re-drawing the street layout so that high density traffic would instead flow
through undeveloped Indian Rocks Road, just to our north.
Recommendations / Possible Solutions:
L The two accommodations given to Salisbury I when Vallin Court was proposed, which were
to serve as a precedent for other interior higher density proposals in our area, are not provided for
in the Crossfield proposaL For example, there are 8 proposed lots along the western boundary of
Waterbury Park where we have 7, and the density throughout the bottom half of the parcel is
greater than ours. It is reasonable to ask that the similar protections given to Salisbury I be
applied to protect Waterbury Park as welL The density of the part of the parcel directly to our
west (the southern half of the parcel) should be of similar or lesser density than Waterbury Park.
It is not the same to say Waterbury Park is R-4 and the part of the parcel to our west is also R-4;
both may be R-4, but the parcel to our west as currently proposed has higher density than we
have.
2. We ask that as a condition of this planned development that access points to the seven acre
enclave be as few as possible, and solely to the east and northeast of the enclave if at all possible.
This is the most important concern to us. Ironically, Vallin Court, which came in after the
neighborhood center idea was proposed, will receive less of the brunt of the high density traffic
than existing Waterbury Park would be asked to bear.
3. The other 13 neighborhood centers are semi-circles; please let any commercial part of the
neighborhood center proposal stay on the north side of Us tick.
Now is the time to place reasonable restrictions on the proposaL It will be too late if we wait
until only the seven acre parcel immediately next to our stub street is proposed for development,
given all the proposed access points from this parcel heading to it. If that happened, there almost
assuredly would be-a request from the planning staff at that future point to connect the seven acre
parcel to our stub street to the northwest. Right now, there is plenty of leverage with the
developer because the parcel isn't yet in Meridian's incorporated area.
If this parcel were being developed with similar or lesser density than Waterbury Park, we
wouldn't be requesting any changes. It's only because the comprehensive plan was changed
after our subdivision was finished that we are respectfully asking that our stub street to the north
be protected ftom high density traffic.
Thank you tor your consideration,
Christopher Broer, 387 West Woodbury Drive
Will BerQ
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tara Green [greent@meridiancity.org]
Tuesday, September 13,2005 12:10 PM
Will Berg
FW: Written testimony for tonight's city council meeting
Attachments:
Public Hearing on proposed Crossfield subdivision 091305.doc
~
~
Public Hearing on
proposed Cro...
---Original Message--
From: Chris Broer [mailto:CBROER@amresco.com]
Sent: Tuesday. September 13, 2005 9:51 AM
To: greent@meridiancity.org
Subject: Written testimony for tonight's city council meeting
If you could please include the attached written testimony regarding the proposed Crossfield subdivision for
tonight's city council meeting, I'd really appreciate it.
Thanks very much.
Chris Broer
Meridian
1