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.

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.

Chapel Ridge will cost lives

One of the most pertinent things to address when considering new development is the public well-being.  What problems will new development cause?  How will it affect peoples' lives?

Traffic problems will be a major consequence of the proposed Chapel Ridge.

The 2011 MODOT traffic count figured 3,333 cars per day for K Highway / Hampton Road.

The developer's own study figures that Chapel Ridge will add an additional 3,669 new traffic trips per day for the surrounding area.

This could result in 7,002 traffic trips per day on K Highway / Hampton Road, increasing traffic by 110%.

In other words, Chapel Ridge would more than double traffic on K Highway / Hampton Road.

K Highway already is a very dangerous road, narrow, winding, with steep shoulders, little visibility, etc.  People often try to pass cars on K Highway, although there is no passing lane.  K Highway has 64 street intersections and driveways in only 1.7 miles.  Already there are many serious auto accidents on K Highway, and Chapel Ridge will probably more than double these catastrophes.

In short, Chapel Ridge inevitably will cost human lives.

Typical day of cars lined up behind school bus on K Highway

If you have't already, please go here to sign the petition, and here to get more information on opposing Chapel Ridge.

Chapel Ridge Defeated by Platte County Planning & Zoning Board

Last night, rezoning to High-Density R-7 of the proposed (and ill-conceived) Chapel Ridge was firmly rejected by the planning and zoning board, with a unanimous vote of NO.  Hooray!  (It will probably still go before the county commissioners.)

If you were unable to attend the meeting, here are a few of the (many) slides presented last night by the opposition to Chapel Ridge.

Brian Mertz & Tabb Reese have been spreading the misinformation that Chapel Ridge is "2.65 homes per acre."  Mind you, this is the gross density, not the real density, as gross density includes streets, flood detention structures, flood drainage stream areas, etc. (which, by the way, are probably inadequate and would result in flooding of Countrywood Estates).  The real density of Chapel Ridge often reaches around nearly 6 homes per acre.  The image below shows their plat and the size of an acre:

The image below shows the plat of Chapel Ridge superimposed over Google Earth:

As you can clearly see, Chapel Ridge is completely incompatible and incongruent with the surrounding area.  It's a high-density monstrosity.  

Daniel Erickson has tried to compare Chapel Ridge with Thousand Oaks, but the image below shows otherwise:

As you can see, Thousand Oaks has large (often 600 ft) green buffers around it and large green spaces within it, unlike the high-density, ugly concrete jungle of the proposed Chapel Ridge.

Regardless, citizens spoke up last night.  Know the truth: No more high-density R-7 zoning for this area.  We don't want it.  We don't need it.  Keep the area AG, RE or R-80, with minimum 1 acre lots.

Best quote of the night by the planning and zoning board: "You've lowered your standards, Daniel," referencing Daniel Erickson, director of Platte County Planning and Zoning.

Which gets back to the question that a lady in the audience was overheard asking (paraphrase):  "Why has Daniel Erickson become so opposed to the interests of local citizens and hell-bent on fast-tracking such an ill-conceived plan?"

If you have't already, please go here to sign the petition, and here to get more information on opposing Chapel Ridge.

Media inquiries, contact:  Bill@wmqlaw.com

The fast-tracking of Chapel Ridge

Over at Brian Mertz / Tabb Reese's facebook page, they recently wrote:

This post almost makes it sound as if Dan Erickson is advocating for Chapel Ridge.  Is he?  Is he supposed to?  Why does Erickson seem so hell-bent on fast-tracking Chapel Ridge?

A few of my favorite things in south Platte County

While this blog hitherto has focused on some negative aspects of future development of south Platte County, it's time to take a look at some of the positive things about south Platte County --- things we want to preserve.

As Julie Andrews sang, these are a few of my favorite things about our area of south Platte County:

- Minimum 1 acre lots generally in our area of south Platte County
- Large, open green spaces  in our area of south Platte County
- That Charlotte Sawyers donated her land off Union Chapel to the Platte Land Trust.
- Abundant wildlife (deer, turkeys, groundhogs, red foxes, coyotes, bobcats, and the occasional quail)
- The fact that there aren't chain and fast-food restaurants everywhere in our area of south Platte County
- The fact that much of the 45 corridor has been kept business free
- Cafe des Amis (can be expensive but arguably the best restaurant in Platte County)
- The French Bee Bakery (a new, and welcome addition to Parkville)
- Old news, but the Vasto-Hustler feud did provide endless hours of entertainment
- The breakfasts at Frank's and Roxanne's.
- English Landing Park
- Occasional drinks at the Rusty Horse or River's Bend, or pizza at Stone Canyon.
- U-Gene's Deli in Riverside

What are a few of your favorite things?

Who owns developable land in area around proposed Chapel Ridge?

Many people have asked:  Who owns other tracts of land in this area that could potentially be developed?  Below is a brief survey.  What's interesting is that much of this land more recently is in the form of LLCs and LPs, where previously it was owned by private owners.

The land (parcel 20-5.0-16-300-001-031-000) across from the proposed Chapel Ridge (across from the Baptist church) was sold on June 10 to Westwood Partners, LLC, which is addressed to Adam Tholen, who lives down 45 Hwy.)

The land off K (parcel 20-4.0-20-100-000-003-000), just south of Union Chapel elementary school (what people have called "the man cave"), is owned by RD Owens Investment LLC, since 2011.  RD Owens Investment LLC, is addressed to Douglas Owens, who lives at the Nationals.  Prior to 2011, this tract of land was owned by Platte Clay LLC, addressed to Michael Gunn, who is an attorney, was previously arrested and allegedly maced, and used to represent Platte County Planning and Zoning.

The house at the corner of 45 & K (parcel 20-4.0-20-100-000-005-000) was purchased by Darrel's Haven LLC in 2011.  The registrant of this LLC is Robert K Kirkland of Liberty, Missouri.  Kirkland is an attorney.

Another potential big player in this area is Harmony IV LP, which owns parcels of land all up and down 45 Hwy and Brinkmeyer (parcels 20-4.0-20-100-000-011-000, 20-4.0-20-100-000-014-000, 20-4.0-20-100-000-013-000, 20-5.0-21-300-003-010-000).  Harmony IV LP is registered to a Roger L. Wagy of Lees Summit.

The land off Brinkmeyer (parcel 20-4.0-19-000-000-008-001), behind the gas station at 45 and 435, is owned by Brinkmeyer Investors LLC,  registered to Scott Sperry and Jim Nichols of Lees Summit.  The land adjacent to this (parcel 20-4.0-19-000-000-029-000) is registered to 45 Park Place, L.L.C., which in turn is represented by an agency out of Jefferson City.

As many already know, the land on the SE corner of the K / 45 intersection (parcel 20-5.0-21-200-002-001-000) is registered to John and David Barth.

The land on the NE corner of the K / 45 intersection (parcel 20-5.0-21-200-001-004-000) is owned by NBH LLC, registered to Keith Hicklin and Jennifer Snider of Platte City.

There is nothing wrong with owning land.  In fact, it's a good thing.  Many people, however, do not want reckless, irresponsible development in this area.  People do not want south Platte County to become a clone of Johnson County, KS - high-density subdivisions, apartment complexes, chain and fast-food restaurants, etc.  We like our big lots and big, open green spaces.

If you know of any other interesting potentially developable tracts of land in the area and their ownership, please post in the comments below.