Residents press city over proposed Peavine Peak business park, citing traffic, noise and flood risks

A proposed Peavine Peak Trails Business Park and its accompanying specific-plan handbook prompted sustained public comment at the Ward 4 Neighborhood Advisory Board meeting, with nearby residents urging the city to reject or substantially rewrite the plan.

Residents said the project — which would reallocate portions of land shown as large‑lot residential or open space in the current master plan to industrial and commercial uses — would bring heavy truck traffic, round‑the‑clock noise and new flood and wildfire risks to adjacent neighborhoods. “Approving this master plan amendment would do the opposite” of protecting neighborhood safety and livability, said Sarah Maguire Fisher, a nearby resident and parent who testified remotely.

The applicant’s representative, Garrett Gordon, said the project includes multiple layers of mitigation intended to limit impacts on adjacent homes: roughly 172 acres of deed‑restricted open space; a 30‑foot landscape buffer and a requirement that the two buildings closest to the residential edge (identified in the handbook as Buildings A and B) have no loading docks facing homes. Gordon said the handbook limits certain uses in the buildings near housing, requires slope stabilization and revegetation, and anticipates on‑site stormwater detention and roadway upgrades along Peavine Peak Road and North Virginia Street.

Neighborhood speakers repeatedly disputed that those measures are sufficient. Multiple residents said GPS‑directed trucks already enter Seneca Drive — the community’s only local exit — and become stuck or block the roadway during snow or storm conditions, creating safety hazards. “There’s already a problem with semi trucks coming into our neighborhood and blocking our only exit,” said Luke Salmon, a nearby resident. Several speakers recommended that the city require permanent physical truck restrictions and enforceable routing that prevents trucks from entering neighborhood streets.

Others raised environmental and public‑safety concerns. Residents asked for detailed hydrology studies and asked whether detention ponds on site would adequately protect downstream properties and wells. Laura Henry asked about the fire risk from large mulch piles and storage of combustible materials. Several residents asked whether the proposal reduces long‑term housing capacity in an area facing an ongoing housing shortage.

Gordon acknowledged the public concern and said the application remains under staff review. He said the current traffic study shows intersections meet City and RTC level‑of‑service thresholds under the scope given by the agencies, that the developer expects to fund intersection improvements (including a signal at a key intersection when thresholds are met), and that a neighborhood meeting would be held in August to collect more input prior to a planning commission hearing. “We’re always open to adjusting the handbook and conditions as staff and the neighborhood provide comment,” he said.

The advisory board meeting is an informational step; formal noticing and staff recommendation will follow before any planning commission or city council decision. Gordon said the developer hopes planning commission consideration could follow the September intake, but he emphasized that staff review and neighborhood input could change the handbook and exhibits before any hearing.

Next steps: the applicant will host a neighborhood meeting in August and will respond to staff comments; the planning commission review is to be scheduled after staff completes its review and posts a formal hearing notice.