Winfield Ridge residents press council to require fire gate as developer resists

Residents of the Winfield Ridge and White Hawk neighborhoods urged the Newcastle City Council on April 1 to require a fire gate on a proposed through street tied to a new housing development, saying the gate is the only practical measure to prevent cut-through speeding that would endanger children.

The request matters because the council faces a choice between requiring a gate now or enforcing a longer traffic-monitoring plan required by the hearing examiner. City Manager Pingle told the council staff met with the developer but have not yet reached agreement on whether the developer will accept a gate as a condition.

Sarah Goodman, a Winfield Ridge resident, said the gate is essential to keep her neighborhood safe and to prevent the quiet dead-end street she described from becoming a shortcut to I-405. “The requirement of a fire gate as a mitigation for the proposed through street is the only remaining solution to safeguard our community,” Goodman said. “Really the only thing that stands between this us and the safety of our children is this fire gate.”

Anna Evans, also a Winfield Ridge resident, asked the council for concrete cost updates and for staff to produce the cost estimates the neighborhood requested for both the traffic-monitoring plan and for the gate. “We ask that the city staff provide updates tonight on the gathered cost estimates for the traffic monitoring plan and the cost estimate for the gate,” Evans said during public comment.

Council member Quigg, who said he previously moved to require a gate, told residents he expects staff to keep them updated. “I made a motion to do it and, Deputy Mayor Licotte, I think, seconded it and went sideways from there and I hope that we can get plenty of information to you guys, keep you in the loop with all the detail possible,” Quigg said.

City Manager Pingle described a recent staff meeting with the developer and said the developer’s “initial reaction was that they were not in favor of installing a gate.” Pingle said differences in how staff and the developer interpret the hearing examiner’s condition for a traffic-monitoring plan became apparent and that staff provided the developer with additional information to clarify the developer’s obligations. “We wanted to make sure that they're understanding that they're going to have some skin in the game on this,” Pingle said.

Director Bonds, who oversees public works matters, told the council the hearing examiner delegated to the public works director the task of setting the proportionate cost for the monitoring study and any required mitigations. He explained that the monitoring-plan costs and any resulting traffic-calming measures could, in combination, exceed the cost of a gate: “A gate's gonna cost 20 or $25,000; a monitoring plan plus potential improvements may cost more than a gate or may include installing a gate.”

Council members and staff said next steps include staff sending the developer clarified materials and cost information and returning to council with updated options. No formal council action was taken on April 1; the matter remains under discussion.

Ending

Residents said they will continue to press the council for a faster, permanent mitigation. Staff told the council it will follow up with the developer, provide cost estimates for the monitoring plan and for a gate, and report back to the council before a final decision is made.