Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-06-04 Andrew Pietila Charlene Way From:Andrew Pietila <pietila@pm.me> Sent:Monday, June 3, 2024 9:33 PM To:Clerks Comment Subject:Public Hearing Comments External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments. Written public comments for Public Hearing for Pebblebrook Subdivision (H-2024-0005) by Rodney Evans + Partners, LLC., located at 5725 N. Meridian Rd. My name is Andrew Pietila and I live at 417 W Broderick Drive in Meridian. I live in the Paramount neighborhood immediately south of the proposed Pebblebrook subdivision. I am respectfully addressing the council this evening because of the planning and zoning commission’s refusal to take any public input into consideration regarding this proposed development. The commission completely disregarded the overwhelming opposition to the development, and even went so far as to admonish and insult the neighbors who provided public testimony. The commission ignored material differences between the surrounding Paramount neighborhood and the proposed development. The commission erred in only relying on the zoning requirements while ignoring the characteristics of the neighborhood which completely surrounds the proposed development. Briefly, the proposed development is unique because it is completely contained within the confines of the existing Paramount neighborhood. There is no access to the development except through the existing Paramount neighborhood. As a result, it is indisputable that the proposed development should be considered as part of the Paramount neighborhood and not merely as a separate, neighboring, or adjoining area. In fact, the developer applicant has sought to be incorporated into the Paramount HOA, which clearly indicates the applicant’s awareness that this development is inseparable from the Paramount neighborhood. At the public commission hearing, there was overwhelming and unanimous opposition to the development as proposed. At this time, it is not necessary to restate all of the reasons for the public’s opposition to the development as proposed. What I wish to bring to the council’s attention is the commission’s disregard and contempt for the public’s input. Throughout the public testimony, the commission listened silently as person after person explained why this development was incompatible with the surrounding Paramount neighborhood. Not one member of the public spoke in support of the proposed development. Once the public testimony was closed, every commissioner expressed “surprise” at the public input. The chairman told the members of the public to “love thy neighbor” and not “look down their noses” at others. This is no way for commissioners to respond to public input which is given earnestly and in good faith. If the commissioners literally express “surprise” at the volume and content of the public input, what then is the purpose of public input at all? Does the public input only matter if the commission agrees with it? The residents of Paramount have welcomed many different neighboring developments. They have a neighboring elementary school, middle school, and high school. There is a senior living community, apartments, a church, library, medical facilities, and multiple retail business, including the Orchard Park development, within the block that includes Paramount. The residents of Paramount welcome and embrace these diverse neighbors. What the commission refused to understand is that the proposed development is literally inside the boundaries of the Paramount neighborhood, and the applicant has not taken adequate steps to assimilate this development into the existing Paramount neighborhood. The commission relied solely on the designated zoning of the land and city requirements, and the commission exhibited a glaring ignorance of the actual surrounding neighborhood characteristics. The density of the proposed 1 development was compared to the zoning requirements, but there was no comparison made to the density of the surrounding Paramount neighborhood itself. Additionally, the commission seemed impressed with the amount of common areas and amenities in the proposed development, without any comparison to the surrounding Paramount neighborhood. Again, because of the nature of this development being completely surrounded by Paramount, the comparison must be between Paramount and the development. It is not adequate to simply compare the proposed development to the city and zoning requirements. I respectfully urge the council to recognize the serious errors made by the planning and zoning commission regarding this proposed development. I ask that the council reject this development as proposed, and direct the planning and zoning commission to meaningfully engage with members of the public on a development that is compatible with the surrounding Paramount neighborhood. Sincerely and respectfully, Andrew Pietila 417 W Broderick Drive Meridian, ID 83646 2