Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Developer Brian Mertz's Past Projects

In light of Brian Mertz's recent request for the extreme PR (planned residential) zoning for Chapel Ridge, people have been discussing Mertz's previous high-density developments.

Recently in the Platte County Landmark (Oct. 9), Sue Land wrote the following letter to the editor:
Brian Mertz, developer of the planned Chapel Ridge subdivision, using TV and newspaper interviews, and even letters to the editor, has described himself as a self-proclaimed benefactor to Platte County; a long time resident, a home-grown boy who just wants to make a living and help the county with it's needs. He's indicated, too, that this is his livelihood, his money, on the line. The property owners of the would-be-Chapel-Ridge development, have referred to the opposition as "vigilantes" and bullies. Okay, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They are not, however, entitled to their own facts.
So let's review these facts: 
1) Mertz (or someone on his team) took the original logo used on their website and Facebook page to promote Chapel Ridge, from an unrelated development in North Carolina. That entity has since contacted him and forced him to change it. 
2) Mertz has repeatedly appeared on web-based forums whose only purpose is to find investors for pre-completed properties. Selling single family rental properties before they are even built is not about investing in our county's future, it's about grabbing a cut off the top and cutting out fast. His comments indicate a pattern of building lower-cost homes next to very high value homes, artificially raising the value of his units while decreasing those surrounding it. His comments also indicate a "get in and get out" action plan, leaving others to deal with the fall out. 
3) Tiffany Estates, a relatively new development of his, is already on the 'downhill slide' in terms of appearance and maintenance and by no small coincidence, all but two of these 18 homes are owned by persons who don't live there, essentially they are rental properties inside of only a few years 
4) Mertz repeatedly uses the term "gross density" and indicates the number of houses will be 2.65 per acre. But the real density, after you take out the land that must be allowed for roads, green space, etc, is 5-and-some-change-per-acre. 
Mertz can say whatever he wants about himself. If his support team writes enough letters, they may all begin to believe it. But the facts, ladies and gentlemen, tell a different tale. In my opinion he's not an honest man; honest men don't take other people's art work (or associate with those who do), and they don't deliberately misrepresent the truth about how many houses will be placed on a single acre. If there is nothing wrong with what he's building and where he's building it, then just spit out the actual number of houses per acre and quit trying to morph it into something that "sounds better.” 
While it is true that he is an investor of sorts, he is not investing in the betterment of Platte County, he is investing only in his pocket, and the pockets of friends. I don't have a problem with that either, but let's "tell it like it is.” Don't pretend that he's somehow 'saving' the county,” as if this county doesn't have good developers who can make a decent profit by putting R40 and R25 homes where they belong. 
And as to that hometown boy whose life savings is at risk? We have investments to defend too. If the rest of us, who have invested huge sums in our properties and the maintenance thereof, get burned by the soon-to-be-rental-district that gets parked next to us, or if people along K Highway get forced out of their homes for the eventual widening that will surely follow, you can bet Mertz doesn't care. He'll get his and then cut and run along to the next project regardless.

I have to ask, is that what what "good people" do? I don't think so. Brian Mertz is a lot of things, but he is hardly the victim here. 
--Sue Lange
Parkville

What Lang writes is verified by the facts.  Below are some slides compiled by various people opposed to Chapel Ridge.

Mertz says he is building a landscape buffer around Chapel Ridge, but here is his previous landscape buffer from Tiffany Estates:



Note too that 16 out of 18 of the homes at Tiffany Estates are owned by people out of state, which means that they have probably quickly become rental properties:


This seems to be a pattern in Mertz's development strategies:


Some screen shots from various investment websites where Brian Mertz has tried to sell properties from previous developments.  (Click on images to enlarge.)






If you're not worried about Mertz's latest proposal, you should be.

Stop Chapel Ridge.

Get involved today.

Saturday, October 12, 2013

Chapel Ridge 2.0: A pig with lipstick

They say you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still just a pig. That pretty much sums up Chapel Ridge 2.0, the newest short-sighted, get-rich-quick scheme that will go before the Platte County Planning and Zoning Board on Nov. 12.

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.