HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ - Public Testimony: Susan Karnes 10-41
Charlene Way
From:Joshua Beach
Sent:Wednesday, October 04, 2017 3:09 PM
To:Barbara Shiffer; C.Jay Coles; Charlene Way; Machelle Hill
Subject:FW: DevCo letter re East Ridge
Please add this letter to the public comments for East Ridge H-2017-0129.
Josh Beach | Associate City Planner
City of Meridian | Community Development Department
33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-489-0576
Built for Business, Designed for Living
www.opportunitymeridian.org
All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law,
in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law.
From: Susan Karnes [ mailto:susankarnes@gmail.com ]
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 1:55 PM
To: Caleb Hood; Joshua Beach
Cc: Jim Stroo; Kathi Baumgartner
Subject: DevCo letter re East Ridge
Good afternoon, Caleb and Josh,
I am writing to clarify what I believe is confusing language in Jim Conger's letter attached to his "Village"
application for East Ridge.
In his letter, Mr. Conger states that he held several neighborhood meetings (he met with representatives from
the Meridian Southern Rim Coalition and later presented two iterations to Blackrock homeowners in a meeting
with the neighborhood). He then states that the "majority of neighbors favored the second design" over the first.
With all due respect, I believe this language is confusing and easily misinterpreted.
I will defer to the Blackrock HOA board to state its official position and to include its letter to Mr. Conger in
the City's public testimony file, but I will tell you as a Blackrock homeowner that the neighbors strongly
opposed both iterations and the HOA board advised Mr. Conger of such in a letter.
Members of the Coalition steering committee were split, as detailed in my August 31, 2017 letter to Mr.
Conger, which I CC'd to Josh Beach. While some members saw aspects of the "Village" iteration that they liked
(larger lots adjacent to existing neighbors, a sound mitigating berm, single story homes, larger setbacks), all
expressed concern about density that contradicts the City's FLUM and therefore conflicts one of the Coalition's
critical missions about protecting low density on the Southern Rim. The land on which East Ridge would be
developed, as you know, is zoned 1/4 R-2 and 2/3 R-4; its adjacent neighbors are 2-acres (east), 10-acres (west)
and 1/2 to 1 acre (north). There is a 16-acre estate home across Lake Hazel. It was difficult for some steering
committee members to conceive how any typical R-4 development would be appropriate in this context, and we
believe Council remanded the original application due to its ill fit and transition.
2
The Coalition cannot support this application due to the split opinion of its steering committee members; there
was no consensus to support it. Therefore, individual homeowners and HOAs will advocate for their interests at
P&Z and Council. But please be aware that there was no "majority of neighbors" who supported the second
design over the first. All Meridian Southern Rim Coalition steering committee members unanimously opposed
the first iteration. There were some steering Meridian Southern Rim Coalition steering committee members who
supported the second design over the first.
I hope that's helpful.
Warm regards,
Susan Karnes