Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC - Public Testimony Susan Karnes 11.20Susan McKeague Karnes 5556 S Graphite Way Meridian ID 83642 817-909-0488 susankarnes@gmail.com Mayor Tammy DeWeerd Members of the City Council 33 E Broadway St Meridian ID 83642 November 15, 2017 Re: H-2017-0129 East Ridge Estates Dear Madam Mayor and City Council, I am writing to express my personal opinion regarding the above application for annexation. The City clearly states that it sets a higher bar for annexation applications. I believe this application fails to meet a reasonable standard for inclusion in the City for the following reason: Lack of Water for Irrigation The applicant states that he has applied for water and has been told there is an approximate 5-year waiting period. Even after procuring said water, Mr. Conger has told me that he expects only enough pressurized irrigation water for the proposed patio homes and “possibly” the common area. This application proposes 139 rooftops. Approximately 40+ single family homes on large lots would therefore forever rely on treated city water for irrigation. Approval of the requested waiver means an: a) Irresponsible use of a valuable resource, b) Onerous expense for homeowners that will detrimentally affect property values and landscaping, c) Unreliable and untenable position for future homeowners— subjected to the vagaries of the water market and supply in perpetuity. It is a fact that Idaho faces a water shortage and crisis in the future due to its exponential population growth—so leaving homeowners to seek irrigation water on the free market is not a viable solution. Nor is it responsible to drill a well for 139 homes on 40 acres in an agricultural area. To subject any future Meridian resident, let alone dozens of families, to rely on the free market for irrigation water is not a responsible or compassionate decision—it is an unconscionable one. 2 In my opinion, this land is NOT suited for, nor can it sustain, a development of this size and scope. The developer has proposed a subdivision that cannot secure a fundamental necessity for a “liveable city” in the Treasure Valley—pressurized irrigation water. This annexation application should be denied and the land should then be rezoned as RUT or R-2 until a secure source of surface water can be permanently procured. In addition to the above issue, several other aspects of this application are deeply troubling: 1. Lack of Appropriate Transition The applicant believes he has provided appropriate transition to adjacent properties. However, the staff report regarding neighboring properties is misleading: a) The “RUT” property to the east is a 2-plus acre $1.1 million estate property—and it faces west, directly toward East Ridge Estates. This application calls for 80’- wide lots to line the east boundary, which will create a “transition” of four 2- story homes directly adjoinng this estate’s front elevation; b) The “RUT” property to the west is a 10-acre estate property with a 5,000+- square foot home; c) The “RUT” property to the south, immediately across Lake Hazel, is a 16-acre estate property; d) The “R-4” subdivision to the north, Blackrock, should never have been zoned R- 4. (It has one 1/2-acre lot, among 48, that was too narrow at the street for R-2; a waiver should have been granted.) This subdivision is comprised of 1/2- and 1- acre estate properties. e) There should be no more than 2:1 lot ratio from East Ridge Estates to its neighbors. To deem an incongruent development of 3.39 density appropriate to the adjacent semi- rural properties of this Southern Rim area is illogical. 2. Slopes are Not Designated Common Lot The Council has set a clear precedent for slopes along this rim; in Reflection Ridge and Sky Mesa slopes are designated common lot. Therefore, the steep slopes in this development should have been included in common lot—and ALL AFFECTED LOTS should have been reconfigured for transitional lot sizes. Should the Council decide to annex this development, the DA should require irrigation and plantings to mitigate fire and erosion hazards. 3. Green Space and Amenities are Meager This application barely reaches the City’s guideline of 10% of green space—so much for transition to its adjacent properties—and some of it is behind locked gates in the Village Home section. Additionally there are no amenities for children or families. The applicant 3 strongly reminded Council of the plans for Lake Hazel to be a 5-lane major arterial—so it is ludicrous to assume young families would ever cross that arterial for recreation except by vehicle. The planned common lot/park in this development should offer additional amenities. 4. Street Design This development would rely on a small and winding local street, Cyanite, to egress to the north. Because of Lake Hazel’s traffic and hilly terrain, it is logical to assume that many East Ridge residents would opt to utilize the smaller street rather than risk a dangerous left turn on Lake Hazel to go to Eagle Road. An aerial view proves that a stub into Sky Mesa is a natural route and should have been required in the plan. 5. Change in Terrain It may not be important to others, but I am not happy that this application –in response to a remand—opts to grade the 40 acre parcel, thereby losing natural topography in one of the City’s rarest land features. The City truly needs to study and weigh whether it is amenable to flattening the beautiful natural topography it enjoys, which is so unique in the Valley. In conclusion I wish to be clear that I have no objections to the developer; indeed, I do believe DevCo could create a unique, distinctive premier community here. I applaud DevCo for its effort to think beyond a typical R-4 design, and to negotiate concessions with the Baumgartner family to the west. However, the land does not convey sufficient and necessary water rights, nor does it appear that it ever will. In my opinion, based upon a remanded application that morphed from117 homes with 2.85 density to one with 139 homes and 3.39 density, the developer’s cost basis must be too high for a profitable development that offers appropriate transition to the adjacent properties. However, it clearly is not the City’s responsibility to ensure that a developer’s project “pencils.” Nor is that a factor for an application’s approval or denial included in our Comprehensive Plan, FLUM or UDC. I urge Council to be far-sighted and place the needs of its future residents above the immediate profit of development: Deny this application until permanent, ample surface water rights are secured, and require a development that addresses transition, slope as common lot, lower density, safer street design and greater green space and amenities. Sincerely, Susan Karnes 1 Charlene Way From:Morgan Andrus Sent:Monday, November 20, 2017 2:46 PM To:C.Jay Coles; Charlene Way Subject:FW: New submission from meridiancity.org/council/request.html From: Formspree Team [mailto:submissions@formspree.io] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 1:46 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 Hey there, Someone just submitted your form on meridiancity.org. Here's what they had to say: Request for Mayor and Council Name Susan Karnes _replyto susankarnes@sbcglobal.net Street Address 5556 S Graphite Way City Meridian State ID Zip Code 83642 Subject East Ridge Estates H-2017-0129 Message Susan McKeague Karnes 5556 S Graphite Way Meridian ID 83642 817-909-0488 susankarnes@gmail.com Mayor Tammy DeWeerd Members of the City Council 33 E Broadway St Meridian ID 83642 November 15, 2017 2 Re: H-2017-0129 East Ridge Estates Dear Madam Mayor and City Council, I am writing to express my personal opinion regarding the above application for annexation. The City clearly states that it sets a higher bar for annexation applications. I believe this application fails to meet a reasonable standard for inclusion in the City for the following reason: Lack of Water for Irrigation The applicant states that he has applied for water and has been told there is an approximate 5-year waiting period. Even after procuring said water, Mr. Conger has told me that he expects only enough pressurized irrigation water for the proposed patio homes and “possibly” the common area. This application proposes 139 rooftops. Approximately 40+ single family homes on large lots would therefore forever rely on treated city water for irrigation. Approval of the requested waiver means an: a) Irresponsible use of a valuable resource, b) Onerous expense for homeowners that will detrimentally affect property values and landscaping, c) Unreliable and untenable position for future homeowners— subjected to the vagaries of the water market and supply in perpetuity. It is a fact that Idaho faces a water shortage and crisis in the future due to its exponential population growth—so leaving homeowners to seek irrigation water on the free market is not a viable solution. Nor is it responsible to drill a well for 139 homes on 40 acres in an agricultural area. To subject any future Meridian resident, let alone dozens of families, to rely on the free market for irrigation water is not a responsible or compassionate decision—it is an unconscionable one. In my opinion, this land is NOT suited for, nor can it sustain, a development of this size and scope. The developer has proposed a subdivision that cannot secure a fundamental necessity for a “liveable city” in the Treasure Valley—pressurized irrigation water. This annexation application should be denied and the land should then be rezoned as RUT or R-2 until a secure source of surface water can be permanently procured. In addition to the above issue, several other aspects of this application are deeply troubling: 1. Lack of Appropriate Transition The applicant believes he has provided appropriate transition to adjacent properties. However, the staff report regarding neighboring properties is misleading: a) The “RUT” property to the east is a 2-plus acre $1.1 million estate property—and it faces west, directly toward East Ridge Estates. This application calls for 80’-wide lots to line the east boundary, which will create a “transition” of four 2- 3 story homes directly adjoinng this estate’s front elevation; b) The “RUT” property to the west is a 10-acre estate property with a 5,000+- square foot home; c) The “RUT” property to the south, immediately across Lake Hazel, is a 16- acre estate property; d) The “R-4” subdivision to the north, Blackrock, should never have been zoned R-4. (It has one 1/2-acre lot, among 48, that was too narrow at the street for R- 2; a waiver should have been granted.) This subdivision is comprised of 1/2- and 1- acre estate properties. e) There should be no more than 2:1 lot ratio from East Ridge Estates to its neighbors. To deem an incongruent development of 3.39 density appropriate to the adjacent semi-rural properties of this Southern Rim area is illogical. 2. Slopes are Not Designated Common Lot The Council has set a clear precedent for slopes along this rim; in Reflection Ridge and Sky Mesa slopes are designated common lot. Therefore, the steep slopes in this development should have been included in common lot—and ALL AFFECTED LOTS should have been reconfigured for transitional lot sizes. Should the Council decide to annex this development, the DA should require irrigation and plantings to mitigate fire and erosion hazards. 3. Green Space and Amenities are Meager This application barely reaches the City’s guideline of 10% of green space—so much for transition to its adjacent properties—and some of it is behind locked gates in the Village Home section. Additionally there are no amenities for children or families. The applicant strongly reminded Council of the plans for Lake Hazel to be a 5-lane major arterial—so it is ludicrous to assume young families would ever cross that arterial for recreation except by vehicle. The planned common lot/park in this development should offer additional amenities. 4. Street Design This development would rely on a small and winding local street, Cyanite, to egress to the north. Because of Lake Hazel’s traffic and hilly terrain, it is logical to assume that many East Ridge residents would opt to utilize the smaller street rather than risk a dangerous left turn on Lake Hazel to go to Eagle Road. An aerial view proves that a stub into Sky Mesa is a natural route and should have been required in the plan. 5. Change in Terrain It may not be important to others, but I am not happy that this application –in response to a remand—opts to grade the 40 acre parcel, thereby losing natural topography in one of the City’s rarest land features. The City truly needs to study and weigh whether it is amenable to flattening the beautiful natural topography it enjoys, which is so unique in the Valley. In conclusion 4 I wish to be clear that I have no objections to the developer; indeed, I do believe DevCo could create a unique, distinctive premier community here. I applaud DevCo for its effort to think beyond a typical R-4 design, and to negotiate concessions with the Baumgartner family to the west. However, the land does not convey sufficient and necessary water rights, nor does it appear that it ever will. In my opinion, based upon a remanded applica tion that morphed from117 homes with 2.85 density to one with 139 homes and 3.39 density, the developer’s cost basis must be too high for a profitable development that offers appropriate transition to the adjacent properties. However, it clearly is not the City’s responsibility to ensure that a developer’s project “pencils.” Nor is that a factor for an application’s approval or denial included in our Comprehensive Plan, FLUM or UDC. I urge Council to be far-sighted and place the needs of its future residents above the immediate profit of development: Deny this application until permanent, ample surface water rights are secured, and require a development that addresses transition, slope as common lot, lower density, safer street design and greater green space and amenities. Sincerely, Susan Karnes This form was submitted at 08:46 PM UTC - 20 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.