Bob Campbell asserted the primary reason for setting the 15,000 sq ft code dates back to the time when septic tanks were the rule in WL and no longer was operative because of our current sewer system. Interesting.
Alderman Folkedahl questioned the process by which the Board came to it's conclusions and resolution...by his rancorous comments put him clearly in the Hoy column. Okay, let's do the math, Hoy and Folkedahl in favor of changes to accommodate patio homes and who knows what, DeJong and Finn seem to be nays. Tie vote if it gets that far. Mayor Bos has been relatively quiet on the whole subject but presumed to be a nay...big presumption. Look for the Hoy forces to work over Bos and DeJong big time...best bet would be DeJong, making any vote on changes a done deal, taking Bos out of the picture.
Not possible? Hmmm.
Part of the Hoy story is making affordable homes available to our senior citizens. Take a look on page 7 of today's Northland section in the Star...Westwood Manor. Can't happen here, right?
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/04/22/2818860/westwood-manor-move-sooner-program.html
13 comments:
Ok, I get it, Cones want to make a little money and get the vacant spots at Sonoma sold. The City should help them and provide homes for old poor people. A win/win, unless of course you own a home and have any intentions of selling it to return you investment. Our namby bamby Aldermen keep turfing it to Planning, what a joke, they all need to be thrown out and take Bos with them.
Is this a solution to a minor issue or is this a fundamental change to our community for the profit of a few?
Mike,
What makes you think Tanya is not in favor of the idea? For that matter, why do you think this of DeJong? Has Tanya declared?
I had a lot of faith in Mary Hoy and the Mayor until this issue. This proposal is absolutely ridiculous. Home values have always been the guide for Weatherby Lake. This proposal will create a degrading of these values. I believe the big issue here is the current homes that were grandfathered under the 15,000 sq ft rule. These home owners should be allowed to tear down and rebuild on a case by case basis under the original grandfather clause. PUD's are not for the lake. This will of course cause membership problems for the WLIC. But I have always thought that there could be a non-resident access fee. Similar to what the National's does for non-resident membership to dueces. That is why I feel we loss out when the WLIC strictly opposed the annexation of the Highlands, etc. Back to the PUD's, NO NO NO NO NO NO
And I will sign this.
Robert J Eckerle
Retired Deputy Chief of Police
Why do the PUD's cause any membership problems for the lake? Why is any of this any business of the WLIC? I cannot see the connection. Not only that but I really have issues with the fact the WLIC spent OUR (the membership's) money on the mailing they did. I am not saying I favor the PUD's...for that matter, I do not see how anyone can say they favor or don't favor them. At this point nothing is described or even submitted as a plan. For that matter, do we even know if the builder wants to do this with their investment??? Would seem odd to me if they did.
11:51am Why is it a WLIC matter? Uh, because the WLIC owns the lake and operation of the lake. The city has NO rights to it -- EVER. But, if the city says now we should build 100 patio homes vs. 25 regular homes, those people will demand same access to the lake and dock privileges. How do you resolve that? We already are struggling to provide access to existing members.
Plus, the other piece that Mary is trying to railroad into law is the reduction of lot size. That means that people can come in and build little weekend shacks on little plats of land. Buh bye property values!
And to your last point -- WTF? THAT's EXACTLY THE PROBLEM!!!! -- she's asking us to change major municipal laws with "nothing described or even submitted as a plan. For that matter, we don't even know if the builder wants to do this with their investment!!!" --- THAT is what the problem is -- making legal changes without THAT information. She is trying to push through a vote based on nothing but idle conversations with her click of friends.
Geez.
3:12pm: WOW...where did you get 100 homes instead of 25 regular homes out of Mary's letter??? As I understand it, her idea (yes it is just an idea and she is not asking that it become law) is to take 90k sq ft and place 6 patio homes on it. That is an average of 15k sq ft per home. So, what is true about what she is saying is that instead of 6 "regular" homes, there would be 6 "patio" homes within the same 90k sq ft of lot space. This is why I do not understand why the WLIC would have any concerns over this matter whatsoever. It is still the same number of people occupying the same amount of space. To me, I do not know why a builder would want to do such a thing but that is the proposal/idea as I understand it.
As you your second paragraph, again, not sure where you are getting that info either. I see no where that she is recommending or asking for small shacks to be built on small parcels of land. As I understand it, she favored allowing people who already have a home on less than 15k sq ft to be able to rebuild on the same footprint should their home be destroyed by fire or other act of God. I personally think this is fair and again, do not see where replacing a home that is falling apart or has been destroyed, ruining my property value. In fact, I would think it would have the opposite effect.
As to your last point, I think you need to call and chat with Mary to understand what she has done and is trying to do. I am sure she would be more than happy to explain it.
If this is to put PUDS on the same 15k sq foot lot, it makes no sense to say it's for those who can't do the upkeep on their yards anymore. There'd actually be more yard with a smaller house.
Gosh, didn't any of you read her letter? Okay, this is what she has said, again, as I understand it. Think of this as a community...I think it is easier. One takes 90,000 sq ft of lot and builds 6 smallish homes on it...call it a patio home or just a small house. The size of it could be anything but generally, the appeal of this type of deal is for professionals who are out of town a lot and have no time to maintain a yard or exterior of their home, it could be ideal for singles or seniors or anyone who does not want to or can't or has no time for outside maintenance. The 6 homes would be built perhaps on zero lot lines...meaning close together. this would create a lot of green space in front or in back of them. The green space would make it easy and affordable for a Home Owner's Association to mow and maintain the areas and the homeowner would pay the dues for that service. Presumably the HOA dues would cover potentially many aspects of home care but it would be more affordable than any of the homeowners paying for those same services on their own.
Again, this is all a "concept" as I understand it. Many of the "assumptions" need to be tested and challenged to determine if the costs would be what is imagined. This would provide a clean and beautiful home for people who can no longer live in a 2 story home or a large home that has become too burdensome. It would also provide a nice home for professionals who are away so much of the time.
That is the concept as I understand it. Again, I am not necessarily a proponent just yet because I feel there is too much yet that is unknown about the assumptions. Many questions need to be addressed. But as far as I can see, this is not a matter that should cause any issues for those who help us (the owners of the lake) manage our lake. I really do not currently see a downside to this but much is yet to be learned and I think from what I have heard so far it sounds like a nice option for those looking for something like this.
That's exactly what we need. ANOTHER home's association to contend with in an area that already has two governing bodies for 700 or so homes. Not!
Now let me understand, yes this is just a proposal but if proposals are not nipped in the bud they can become law because citizens don't stand up. Let's see you take one lot that supports one family, one homeowner paying real estate taxes, property taxes and WLIC user fees. Now you take that same lot and build 6 homes on it, that is 6 families. Are you trying to say that we still have only the one primary owner that pays all the taxes and build their own little fiefdom with a common area fee with what sub-leases or owned homes but the property still belongs to the primary. So now these six homeowners have no rights to use the lake or its access areas as only the primary owner has that right. Or are we really saying we want the developer of Sonoma Ridge to sub-divide their lots so that a previous one owner lot is now capable of supporting six individual lots. These six will now pay real estate tax, property tax, and WLIC user fees moving up from the one original to now six. The WLIC gets more money but now they have to support additional dock spaces, etc. The City sort of breaks even other than they now get more building fees, sewer fees, water fees, etc. Patio homes are fine, but why not leave them on the current lot size, if you want to build a ranch style home so be it, pay for a lawn service and someone to clean your driveway in the winter, there are a lot of services that will take care of your yard year round a lot cheaper than putting up with someone else dictating to you what you can or cannot do on your property. I am sure the City wants the additional revenue to support the four city cars and other extras that they are maintaining on an annual basis. But hell why not just approve a trailer park in the area or the prefab homes in the now smaller lots. Let them rent the homes and create a neighborhood that looks like, well you know where I am coming from there. Or should the area be restricted to only owners that are 65 or older. By the way, this would not be limited to Sonoma Ridge, anyone owning a current home could tear down and rebuild a nice six homeowners residential housing addition in the area. Why keep up the prices of our great homes when we can devalue everyones.
June 3rd 10:01am...Oh my God are you dense or what??? You are SO wrong about everything you posted here! Please do yourself a favor and call or visit Mary Hoy to understand what she is proposing...please do it before you have your heart attack!!!
I have a better idea. Why doesn't Mary do a better job of communicating honestly on behalf of her constituency about this particular matter, rather than purporting to the planning commission that her constituency have told her they would have stayed and like the idea for the community. Perhaps a communication on her list-serve would do the trick
Post a Comment