HomeMy WebLinkAboutCameron Keller - 8.221
Barbara Shiffer
From:Cameron Keller <cameron@kellercpa.net>
Sent:Tuesday, August 22, 2017 3:04 PM
To:Sonya Allen; clerk; Machelle Hill; C.Jay Coles
Subject:Sky Mesa East
Reference
Sky Mesa East
File H-2017-0068
Dear Meridian City Council,
I wanted to take a moment of your time to voice my opposition to the above mentioned potential development.
I object to/oppose the following:
1. The “step up” zoning requests included in this application.
a. This application contradicts the City’s Future Land Use Map.
b. This application requests numerous steps up—and two steps up from R-2 to R-8—which is not allowed in
the comprehensive plan: “…the density can only be changed one ‘step.’” (page 21)
c. The City has approved too many/numerous R-8 developments in this section of town.
d. ACHD does not have right-of-way to widen Eagle Rd between Amity and Taconic. The roadways cannot
support the scale of this development.
e. ACHD’s 5-year plan does not offer traffic relief to this part of South Meridian.
f. The comprehensive plan states that Council “can” approved step ups—but does not state it must or
should, especially when annexation is required.
2. The proposed setbacks and small lots, which do not reflect the neighborhoods’ established semi-rural/estate
character.
3. Any and all approval of step ups that do not comply with the City’s Future Land Use Map.
4. Approval of any R-8 zoning in an area zoned low density. R-8 developments abound in the area, just across
Amity and Eagle.
5. Approval of a variance for two streets providing entry to 39 R-8 patio homes 210’ from the intersection of
Taconic and Eagle when the ACHD standard is 330’ and the neighborhood has loudly voiced its concern for
safety. Even with the directional medians req uiring right only traffic, the variance will create a bottleneck that will
very likely impact Southbound traffic on Eagle Road and unnecessarily reduce the safety of the intersection of
Eagle and Taconic. The 330’ standard was established to ensure public safety – why take the risk when the
applicant can simply modify its design to comply with code?
a. There is no supporting rationale for this approval other than profit for the developer.
b. Sky Mesa's plan does not offer a clear north-south connector.
c. This intersection is critically important for emergency response to hundreds of homes in Sky Mesa and
Blackrock.
d. It is our access route to Hillsdale Elementary School and the future YMCA.
e. Public safety should be our primary objective.
f. This 120’ variance represents a critical margin of public safety.
2
g. Traffic could conceivably stack up on Eagle Road
6. Proposed lots adjacent to Blackrock
a. Lots must be redesigned for appropriate transition to adjoining ½ and 1-acre lots since slope will now be a
common lot.
b. Homes set a clear precedent of appropriate transition in its first phase of Sky Mesa with ½+ acre lots
adjoining Blackrock.
c. There are no height restrictions proposed for this phase of Sky Mesa that will protect the views and
privacy of neighbors above. This was a condition in the plat for the first phase of Sky Mesa.
7. The lack of ample green space for a development of this scale.
a. The FLUM planned for a school, which would have provided critically needed green space. There is no
city park within this mile quadrant.
b. “Parkways” or the space between sidewalks and streets, does not provide green space for recreating.
I support:
1. Staff’s recommendation that the slope adjacent to Blackrock be designated common area.
I request:
1. The slope be designated as non-buildable on the plat AND the CCRs.
2. The slope be planted with erosion controlling vegetation and the HOA clearly charged with its irrigation,
maintenance and erosion control in the development agreement (DA) and CCRs.
3. Height restrictions for lots along the slope be included in the DA and CCRs to protect the privacy of Blackrock
homeowners. This precedent was set by BHH is the first phase of Sky Mesa, for those homes on Lodge Trail that
abut Blackrock rim homes.
4. The increased number of parking spaces be added without sacrificing adjacent park and green space.
5. Connectivity to the Pathway Network Map be required in the DA.
Additional Thoughts:
The City’s comprehensive plan clearly directs and values appropriate transitions between density zones, recognizing the
identities of existing neighborhoods and enhancing the unique characteristics of each.
This application requests annexation of 54.01 acres and rezoning for 98.35 acres—a substantial and permanent addition to
our community.
The Mayor and City Council have the public trust and responsibility to approve development that enhances livability for
all current and future residents, and adheres to the City’s Plan Vision and Plan Structure (page 4, Comprehensive Plan):
3
1. Considers existing and surrounding uses in a manner that encourages compatible patterns, character, and
appearances. (LDR.1, Future Land Use Designation)
2. Integrates the concerns and expressions of the community as a guide to Council about how residents would like
this neighborhood to grow and develop. (Chapter 1, page 1, City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan)
3. Embraces the key community values of “managing growth to achieve high-quality development,” and “enhances
Meridian’s quality of life for all current and future residents.” (Chapter 1, page 3, City of Meridian
Comprehensive Plan)
Your time is much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Cameron Keller,
Homeowner in Blackrock Subdivision