Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Winfield Ridge residents urge council to require fire gate for proposed through‑street; city manager says construction approved
Summary
Winfield Ridge residents told the Newcastle City Council on Jan. 21 that a planned through‑street connection would endanger children and erase a 13‑home cul‑de‑sac, and asked the council to require a fire gate in construction plans.
Several residents from the Winfield Ridge neighborhood addressed the council during public comment on Jan. 21 to oppose a proposed through‑street that would connect Southeast 85th Street to 113th and, residents said, create a fast route to I‑405.
Anna Evans, identifying herself as a Winfield Ridge resident, told the council she has safety concerns for her two daughters and asked that a fire gate be required if the through‑street is built so that her cul‑de‑sac would not become a cut‑through for hundreds or more vehicles daily. Sarah Goodman, another Winfield Ridge resident, said her neighborhood contains just 13 homes and described the cul‑de‑sac as a place for block parties and children’s play that would be lost if connected as a through‑street. Goodman urged the council to include a fire gate in construction documents so the mitigation would be a committed item rather than an optional add‑on.
Goodman also said a prior council presentation about the subdivision omitted information showing how a connection to 113th would provide the fastest route to I‑405 and claimed more than 60 comments from nearby residents opposing a through‑street had not been adequately considered.
In response, the city manager told residents the construction of the through‑street has been approved and said staff can only stop a development if it fails to comply with applicable code; the manager invited residents to meet with staff and Director Fitzgibbons to review process and options. The city manager also acknowledged that local governments often meet legal requirements for notice and comment but could be better at setting community expectations up front about what comments can accomplish.
Goodman returned during the meeting’s second public comment period and reiterated that residents felt their neighborhood safety concerns had not been addressed and asked the council to require mitigation. No formal council action on the specific fire gate request was taken at the meeting.
The comments were recorded for the council packet and the speakers asked for continued staff follow‑up and clearer communication on the subdivision approval process.
