Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC - Public Testimony Ray Patel 11-17 East Ridge1 Charlene Way From:C.Jay Coles Sent:Friday, November 17, 2017 3:53 PM To:Charlene Way Subject:FW: East Ridge Estates annexation application Please put in the record. From: Ray Patel [ mailto:patelrk33@gmail.com ] Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:52 PM To: C.Jay Coles < cjcoles@meridiancity.org >; Joshua Beach < jbeach@meridiancity.org > Subject: Re: East Ridge Estates annexation application Dear Mayor and Council, I am the owner of 2868 E Lake Hazel, a 4800-square foot 5-bedroom, 6-bath custom home and 2-acre estate property (described by your staff as "RUT undeveloped" in the staff report) directly adjoining the east boundary of the above application. I am out of state and unable to personally testify before Council, so will ask a business colleague to speak on my behalf, but wish to tell you that I strongly object to the East Ridge Estates application coming before you November 28, 2017. This is the second application for East Ridge Estates. The first, which you remanded back to Planning & Zoning due to its lack of appropriate transition to its neighboring low density and estate neighbors, proposed 117 homes and a density of 2.85. This iteration plans 139 homes and a density of 3.39. This plan would severely impact my property's value, and my family and any future resident's quality of life and privacy, and proposes a terrible transition to my home for the following reasons: 1. The 40-acre parcel originally called for a natural riparian area along a canal between my home and those in East Ridge. Although I opposed that plan, believing it would create a weedy swath of land, the applicant now plans to tile that canal and grade the entire acreage. My home--which faces west, directly toward East Ridge-- would now face FOUR elevated, narrow lots (undoubtedly 2-story homes with minimum setbacks, due to lot dimensions). These lots are significantly closer to my home compared to the first application. This is NOT appropriate transition. 2 2. The applicant plans to restrict homes along the west boundary to single story homes with tall berms and significant plantings to shield homes from the estate property along the west boundary--no such provisi ons have been made for my home abutting the east boundary. 3. The City has a history of requiring a lot ratio of no greater than 2:1 to provide appropriate transition between neighborhoods. I oppose the idea that FOUR lots adjoining my property provides appropriate transition, especially given the fact that my home FACES this subdivision. 4. The applicant asks that steep slopes be included in the single family lots. The Council has set a clear and firm precedent that such slopes should be common lot: Sky Mesa, for example, after chronic problems experienced by my neighbors. Any such slopes in East Ridge should be common lot and maintained by the HOA. Any and all affected lots should be reconfigured for transitional sizes to neighboring properties. 5. This application requires annexation. Yet even after the developer's promise of an application and 5-year wait for water, many East Ridge Estates owners on sizable lots would forever have to rely on treated City water for pressurized irrigation--at steep co st. This is unacceptable and NO waiver should be granted to the applicant. The City must NOT annex land that cannot be served judiciously--and the 5-year wait for water, and its promise to be inadequate for its 139 homes, proves this application, whatever its other merits might be, offers no value to the City or its property owners at this time. It is unfathomable to me that the City would even consider approving this plan. During Council's deliberations on the original application, Mayor DeWeerd observed that we only have one opportunity to "get this right." I agree--despite months of opportunity to go back to the drawing board and plan a community that reflects the pastoral peace of the Southern Rim, the applicant instead opted to grade a beautiful geological asset and dramatically increase density. That profits no one except the applicant. For the reasons above, I respectfully ask that you deny this annexation. Sincerely, Ray Patel -- Ray Patel patelrk33@gmail.com 2868 E.LAKE HAZEL RD 3 MERIDIAN ID 83642 Cell: (208)-850 9320 Fax: (888)-860 9083 ***This information is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and is confidential. Any review, retransmission or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail.*** 1 Charlene Way From:Morgan Andrus Sent:Monday, November 20, 2017 11:03 AM To:C.Jay Coles; Charlene Way Subject:FW: New submission from meridiancity.org/council/request.html East Ridge From: Formspree Team [mailto:submissions@formspree.io] Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:54 PM To: mayortammy Cc: Anne Little Roberts; Keith Bird; Joe Borton; Luke Cavener; Genesis Milam; Ty Palmer Subject: New submission from meridiancity.org/council/request.html Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Hey there, Someone just submitted your form on meridiancity.org. Here's what they had to say: Request for Mayor and Council Name RAY PATEL _replyto patelrk33@gmail.com Street Address 2868 E. Lake Hazel Rd. City Meridian State ID Zip Code 83642 Subject Re: East Ridge Estates annexation application Message Dear Mayor and Council, I am the owner of 2868 E Lake Hazel, a 4800-square foot 5-bedroom, 6-bath custom home and 2-acre estate property (described by your staff as "RUT undeveloped" in the staff report) directly adjoining the east boundary of the above application. I am out of state and unable to personally testify before Council, so will ask a business colleague to speak on my behalf, but wish to tell you that I strongly object to the East 2 Ridge Estates application coming before you November 28, 2017. This is the second application for East Ridge Estates. The first, which you remanded back to Planning & Zoning due to its lack of appropriate transition to its neighboring low density and estate neighbors, proposed 117 homes and a density of 2.85. This iteration plans 139 homes and a density of 3.39. This plan would severely impact my property's value, and my family and any future resident's quality of life and privacy, and proposes a terrible transition to my home for the following reasons: 1. The 40-acre parcel originally called for a natural riparian area along a canal between my home and those in East Ridge. Although I opposed that plan, believing it would create a weedy swath of land, the applicant now plans to tile that canal and grade the entire acreage. My home--which faces west, directly toward East Ridge-- would now face FOUR elevated, narrow lots (undoubtedly 2-story homes with minimum setbacks, due to lot dimensions). These lots are significantly closer to my home compared to the first application. This is NOT appropriate transition. 2. The applicant plans to restrict homes along the west boundary to single story homes with tall berms and significant plantings to shield homes from the estate property along the west boundary--no such provisions have been made for my home abutting the east boundary. 3. The City has a history of requiring a lot ratio of no greater than 2:1 to provide appropriate transition between neighborhoods. I oppose the idea that FOUR lots adjoining my property provides appropriate transition, especially given the fact that my home FACES this subdivision. 4. The applicant asks that steep slopes be included in the single family lots. The Council has set a clear and firm precedent that such slopes should be common lot: Sky Mesa, for example, after chronic problems experienced by my neighbors. Any such slopes in East Ridge should be common lot and maintained by the HOA. Any and all affected lots should be reconfigured for transitional sizes to neighboring properties. 5. This application requires annexation. Yet even after the developer's promise of an application and 5-year wait for water, many East Ridge Estates owners on sizable lots would forever have to rely on treated City water for pressurized irrigation--at steep cost. This is unacceptable a nd NO waiver should be granted to the applicant. The City must NOT annex land that cannot be served judiciously--and the 5-year wait for water, and its promise to be inadequate for its 139 homes, proves this application, whatever its other merits might be, offers no value to the City or its property owners at this time. It is unfathomable to me that the City would even consider approving this plan. During Council's deliberations on the original application, Mayor DeWeerd observed that we only have one opportunity to "get this right." I agree--despite months of opportunity to go back to the drawing board and plan a community that reflects the pastoral peace of the Southern Rim, the applicant instead opted to grade a beautiful geological asset and dramatically increase density. That profits no one except the 3 applicant. For the reasons above, I respectfully ask that you deny this annexation. Sincerely, Ray Patel This form was submitted at 10:54 PM UTC - 17 November 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. Righ t- click here to dow nloa d pictu res. Righ t- click here to dow nloa d pictu res. Righ t- click here to dow nloa d pictu res.