Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMPD CommentsPage 1 of 2 Sharon Smith From: Wendy Kirkpatrick [kirkpatw~meddiancrty.org] Sent: Monday, August 11, 200311:59 AM To: J. Johnson; Sharon Smith; Tara Green; Will Berg Subject: FW: Mayfair Commons Development Proposal Please include this letter from Chief Musser In the Mayfair files. Wendy Kirkpatrick City of Meridian Planning and Zoning 660 E. Watertower, Ste. 202 Meridian, ID 83642 208.884.5533 Fax: 208.888.6854 Email: kirkpatw@meridiancity.org -----Original Message----- From: Bill Musser [mailto:musserbCglmeridiancity.org] Sent: Wednesday, August Ofi, 2003 6:17 PM To: Anna Borchers Powell Cc: Wendy Kirkpatrick Subject: Mayfair Commons Development Proposal Anna, RECEIVED AUG 1 1 2003 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office Wendy had called me regarding the proposed development for Mayfair Commons and asked for comment from the Police Department. I apologize for the delay in getting bads toyou -Wendy had advised me to email you my comments. RE: CUP 03-052; PP 03-017; RZ 03-008 -Applications by Wildwood Development for Mayfair Commons Subdivision. From a public safety standpoint 1 have three (3) major concerns with the Mayfair Commons development proposal: 1. The common ddve access known as Stonehenge Way, currently couched In the development plan as a private lane, is very problematic. Private lanes usually do not have through traffic access back into dedicated streets as Stonehenge would where it cenneds into Commercial Ave and E. Pine Ave. Stonehenge Ln. appears to be a relatively narrow drive (30 feat wide) through this development. The proposal has at least 48 parking spaces directly in Gne with the drive that wIG present a great likelihood of collisions resulting from backing movements in to the drive (lane), which does indicate two way traffic flow patterns. The width of the proposed drive (lane), the two way treffic, and the proximity of parking that will have to bads into the ddve pane) poses great risk to vehicle operators and other users of the lane such as bicyclists and pedestrians. 2. There is no evidence of any traffic calming appliances within the development plan, which does indicate the tretfic flow will be two way. Considertng the prevalence for cut-through traffic in apartment complexes like the Mayfair Commons proposal it would be prudent to require traffic calming applications such as speed humps, off sets, or traffic circles -especially in the area of the intersection of Stonehenge and Commercai. However, given the diagramed width of the drive pane} as proposed traffic calming may be problematic without some s:gniflcant redesign. Access for Fire Department vehicles and ambulances must Ue considered, too as they are larger bodied vehicles. An alternative such as redirecting the Uaffic flow around the central common area without the direct trefflc flow from Pine to. Commercal would suffice. The 8/11/2003 Page 2 of 2 curcent straight through access proposed on Stonehenge Ln. does need to be eliminated. The proposed "sport court" at the end of Stonehenge is also problematic. As the development is currently designed the "sport court" area is apart from the rest of the development. It lacks preventative passive guardianship - an element of crime prevention through environmental design (OPTED). The development is designed to house high residerctial densities. Studies of urban development "projects" -large apartment complexes, have indicated that open public space not under direct control or subject to constant view by the community in general tend to become areas of withdrawal and encourage illegal activities (i.e. juvenile smoking & drinking, loitering, and gateway drug usage). Open public areas of this type present the sense that no one is watching -they lack a passive guardian presence. The "sport court" is also adjacent to the Oregon Short Line Railroad, which has been a historical conduit for late night foot traffic for those involved in gas thefts from vehicles and "jockey boxing" in the area. The proposed "sport court' presents the strong potential to become an attractive nuisance. While I do support the mixed use concepts the developer has tried to present in the Mayfair Commons proposal, it needs to address the issues I have made note of. I do curcentty recommend against approval of this development, as currently proposed, because it clearly presents threats to public safety and well-being. Wm. (Bilk Musser Chief of Police 8/11/2003 Page 1 of 2 Sharon Smith From: Wendy Kirkpatrick [kirkpatw~meddiano:ty.org] Sent: Monday, August 11, 200311:59 AM To: J. Johnson; Sharon Smith; Tara Careen; VlfiO Berg Subject: FW: Mayfair Commons Development Proposal Please include this letter from Chief Musser in the Mayfair files. Wendy Kirkpatrick City of Meridian Planning and Zoning 660 E. Watertower, Ste. 202 Meridian, ID 83642 208.884.5533 Fax: 208.888.6854 Email: kirkpatw@meridiancity.org -----Original Message----- From: Bill Musser [maifto:musserb@meridiancity.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 6:17 PM To: Anna Borchers Powell Cc: Wendy Kirkpatrick Subject: Mayfair Commons Development Proposal Anna, RECEIVELI AUG 1 1 2003 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office Wendy had called me regarding the proposed development for Mayfair Commons and asked for comment from the Police Department. I apologize for the delay in getting back to you -Wendy had advised me to email you my comments. RE: CUP OS-032; PP 03-077; RZ 03-000 -Applications by Wildwood Development for Mayfair Commons Subdivision. From a public safety standpoint 1 have three (3) major concerns with the Mayfair Commons development proposal: 1. The common drive access known as Stonehenge Way, currently couched In the development plan as a private lane, is very problematic. Private fines usually do not have through traffic access back into dedicated streets as Stonehenge would where it connects into Commercial Ave and E. Pine Ave. Stonehenge Ln. appears to be a relaflvety narrow drive (30 feet wide) through this development. The proposal has at least 48 parking spaces directly in One with the drive that will present a great likelihood of collisions resulting from baddng movements in to the drive (lane), which does indicate two way traffic flow patterns. The width of the proposed drive pane), the two way treffic, and the proximity of parking that will have to back into the drive pane) poses great risk to vehicle operators and other users of the lane such as bicyclists and pedestrians. 2. There is no evidence of any treffic calming appliances within the development plan, which does indicate the traffic flow will be two way. Considering the prevalence far cut-flrrough traffic in apartment complexes like the Mayfair Commons proposal it would be prudent to require traffic calming applications such as speed humps, off sets, or traffic circles - espeaally in the area of the intersection of Stonehenge and Commercial. However, given the diagrenred width of the drive (lane) as proposed traffic calming may be problematic wflhout some signiflceM redesign. Access for Fire Department vehicles and ambulances must be considered, too as they are larger bodied vehicles. An alternative such as redirecting the traffic flow around the central common area without the direct traffic fbw from Pine to Commercial would suffice. The 8/11/2003 Page 2 of 2 current straight through access proposed on Stonehenge Ln. does need to be eliminated. 3. The proposed "sport court° at the end of Stonehenge is also problematic. As the development is currently designed the "sport court" area is apart from the rest of the development. It lacks preventative passive guardianship - an element of crime prevention through environmental design (OPTED). The development is designed to house high residential densities. Studies of urban development "projects" -large apartment complexes, have indicated that open public space not under direct control or subject to constant view by the commugity in general tend to become areas of withdrawal and encourage illegal activities (i.e. juvenile smoking & drinking, loitering, and gateway drug usage). Open public areas of this type present the sense that no one is watching -they lack a passive guardian presence. The "sport court" is also adjacent to the Oregon Short Line Railroad, which has been a historical conduit for late night foot traffic for those involved in gas thefts from vehicles and jockey boxing" in the area. The proposed "sport court" presents the strong potential to become an attractive nuisance. While I do support the mixed use concepts the developer has tried to present in the Mayfair Commons proposal, it needs to address the issues I have made note of I do cunently recommend against approval of this development, as currently proposed, because it dearly presents threats to public safety and well-being. Wm. (Bitq Musser Chief of Police 8/11/2003