Some info:
Unlike the first Chapel Ridge (seeking R7 zoning), this version is seeking PR (planned residential) zoning.
Chapel Ridge 2.0 is only 3.7% less dense than first version.
Chapel Ridge 2.0 crams 365 houses onto 143 acres.
All of the other problems still remain: likely flooding of surrounding areas, extreme increase (doubling) of traffic on K Highway, destruction of wildlife habitat, etc.
Although the "gross density" is 2.55 homes per acre (as this includes streets, flood retention structures, etc.), Chapel Ridge's real density can reach as high as nearly 6 homes per acre. Some lots are only 7,150 ft. in size.
The hundreds of students this proposal will bring to Union Chapel almost certainly will result in a drastic redistricting of Union Chapel.
PR (planned residential) zoning is even more extreme than R7, as this is the zoning used for duplexes and 4-plexes. Although Brian Mertz is seeking single family PR, his plan could later be amended to include 4-plexes or patio homes.
Having PR zoning in our area sets a bad precedent, which will inevitable lead to lowering of surrounding property values and the destruction of quality of life.
If area is to be rezoned, it should be rezoned to R80, to compliment surrounding area. No lots smaller than 1 acre should be allowed.
Say No to PR (planned residential) zoning. It's wrong for our area.
Perhaps a limerick sums it up best:
A short-sighted scheme to get rich they deploy,
With new window dressing only to annoy.
Chapel Ridge is this trouble.
Traffic here it will double.
And your property value it'll destroy!
Stop Chapel Ridge.
Get involved today.
Stop Chapel Ridge!
ReplyDeleteSave south Platte property values!
If you are for Chapel Ridge, you are for lowering our property values!
Be heard. Email your opposition to Chapel Ridge.
ReplyDeleteEmail: derickson@co.platte.mo.us, jbrown@co.platte.mo.us, beverlee.roper@co.platte.mo.us, duane.soper@co.platte.mo.us, no-chapel-ridge-subdivision@googlegroups.com
..
The added Traffic, not to mention population density would be just WRONG!
ReplyDeleteIf developed lots should not be smaller then 1 acre! The streets are narrow, and only two lanes, we don't need or want hundreds of homes using what little transportation in the way of roads we have!!
Important:
ReplyDeleteJoin the No Chapel Ridge email discussion group:
(1) Send an email to: no-chapel-ridge-subdivision+subscribe@googlegroups.com
(2) When you receive an automated response (check junk mail folder if you don't get it), reply to it without changing subject heading.
Thanks.
This is no different than the first plan, just slightly smaller. The same problems still exist: too many houses translating to being too dense, a serious watershed problem, increased traffic, and no preservation of wildlife. Chapter 405: Subdivision Regulations clearly states avoiding congestion of population and protecting and conserving the value of land, and establishing reasonable standards of design for subdivisions in order to further the orderly layout and use of land. The 10 Principles By Agreeement of the Land Use Plan for Unincorporated Platte County states in part: maintaining the unique rural character, limited development, large setbacks and ample open space, limited noise and light pollution from surrounding developments, new development should be compatible with existing development in terms of quality, character and density, and limited development within environmentally sensitive areas such as floodplains or upon steep slopes. The Commissioners need to wake up! They voted the first plan down for these same reasons. This second plan needs to be turned down, also.
Delete