Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMichael & Lani Wagemen - 8.231 C.Jay Coles From:Morgan Andrus Sent:Wednesday, August 23, 2017 11:24 AM To:C.Jay Coles; Machelle Hill Subject:FW: New submission from www.meridiancity.org/council/request.html- Sky Mesa East Was this project approved last night? Can this be added to the record? Thank you, Morgan From: Formspree Team [mailto:submissions@formspree.io] Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 4:59 PM To: mayortammy Cc: Catherine Roebuck; Anne Little Roberts; Keith Bird; Joe Borton; Luke Cavener; Genesis Milam; Ty Palmer Subject: New submission from www.meridiancity.org/council/request.html Hey there, 2 Someone just submitted your form on meridiancity.org. Here's what they had to say: Request for Mayor and Council Name Michael & Lani Wageman _replyto lani@ltunes.com Street Address 5662 S Graphite Way City Meridian State ID Zip Code 83642 Subject Sky Mesa East - File H-2017-0068 Message Dear Mayor and Council members, Much of the below text has been presented to you in prior meetings. My husband and I are hopeful that you will help to maintain the existing area that is slated to be built on, and come up with a plan that will keep the rural feel that we fell in love with. We moved back to Idaho from San Jose, California. That valley uprooted all the orchards and farm land and built the Silicon Valley. It is now completely congested with houses and traffic, and very little park areas for the neighborhoods. My husband used to hunt in Meridian as a kid and would ride his bike out to the Blackrock/Sky Mesa area with his friends. When we saw Blackrock we both knew it was the place we wanted to live. We still do, but we think back at what happened in San Jose and pray that you keep the congestion and infrastructure of Meridian in mind when you make your decisions. We unconditionally object to/oppose: 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. I would like to see R2-R4 throughout Sky Mesa East, particularly where BHH wants to build “patio” houses at R8. 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. 3 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 requiring right only traffic, the variance will create a bottleneck that will very likely impact South bound 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, Blackrock, and possibly White Bark. d. It is our access route to Hillsdale Elementary School and the future YMCA. e. Public safety should be your primary objective. f. This 120’ variance represents a critical margin of public safety. g. Traffic already stacks 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. We support: 1. Staff’s recommendation that the slope adjacent to Blackrock be designated common area. 8. We request: 9. The slope be designated as non-buildable on the plat AND the CCRs. 10. 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. 11. 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 in the first phase of Sky Mesa, for those homes on Lodge Trail that abut Blackrock rim homes. 12. The increased number of parking spaces be added without sacrificing adjacent park and green space, including additional Handicap parking spaces. 13. Connectivity to the Pathway Network Map be required in the DA. 14. Increase to the size of the green area. Tuscany has 8 acres of park with bathrooms and water fountains, and a lot of parking spaces. 15. Comments 4 16. 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. 17. This application requests annexation of 54.01 acres and rezoning for 98.35 acres—a substantial and permanent addition to our community. 18. 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): 19. Considers existing and surrounding uses in a manner that encourages compatible patterns, character, and appearances. (LDR.1, Future Land Use Designation) 20. 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) 21. 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) This form was submitted at 10:59 PM UTC - 22 August 2017. You are receiving this because you confirmed this email address on Formspree. If you don't remember doing that, or no longer wish to receive these emails, please remove the form on meridiancity.org or send an email to team@formspree.io.