HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/30 Letter from Chris Broer
~ ,
Written testimony for the Public Hearing on the proposed Crossfield subdivision
Meridian City Council, October 4, 2005
My neighbors and I who live in Waterbury Park are concerned about the proposed additional
access road from Crossfield to the west of the seven acre enclave that Planning and Zoning
added as a condition of approval. I think the commissioners thought that if they added an
additional access road from the high density Crossfield parcel to the seven acre enclave, there
would be less need to someday develop our stub street from Waterbury Park to the enclave, and
they were trying to help after listening to the concerns of our neighborhood. However, in
speaking with ACHD's Planning Review Supervisor, Christy Richardson, after the Planning and
Zoning hearing, ACHD will nevertheless eventually request that our northwest stub street be
extended to the enclave no matter how many access points there are from Crossfield to the
enclave. In other words, the condition adding the extra access road would ironically mean many
more of the 1,900 vehicles trips per day from Crossfield would go through our existing
subdivision. You can see by looking where the proposed additional road would be how it would
essentially create a straight shot from the high density through our existing neighborhood to
Meridian Road, as we're in the primary direction of travel. No one in the bottom two thirds of
this proposed subdivision would want to go north to U stick to their own entrance, 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. ACHD does not require this additional
access road, and the applicant did not request it.
When Salisbury II / Vallin 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 roads to the west of 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 those
in Salisbury I, and that traffic should be rerouted away from Salisbury I's stub street. 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 primarily flow through undeveloped
Indian Rocks Road, just to our north, instead of their stub street. This set the precedent in our
area for dealing with high density proposals interior to existing R-4 neighborhoods.
Recommendations / Possible Solutions:
1. It is reasonable to request that the similar accommodations given to Salisbury I (similar sized
lots adjacent to existing homes, and rerouting traffic away from their stub street) be applied to
protect Waterbury Park as well. Yet, there are 8 proposed lots along the western boundary of
Waterbury Park where we have 7, and the proposed density throughout the bottom half of the
parcel, interior to us, is greater than ours.
2. We ask that the additional access road added by Planning and Zoning, entering the west side
of the enclave, be removed as a condition. This is the most important concern to us. Ironically,
Vallin Court, which came in after the neighborhood center idea was proposed, would receive less
of the brunt of the high density traffic than existing Waterbury Park is being asked to bear.
3. The other 13 neighborhood centers are semi-circles. To be consistent with all the others, this
neighborhood center could just be a semi-circle on the north side of Us tick, but if such high
density is to also be south of Us tick, please at least 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.
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 requesting that our stub street to the
north be protected from high density traffic, just as the same protections were provided to our
Salisbury I neighbors.
Thank you for your consideration, Christopher Broer, 387 West Woodbury Drive