2023-02-13 Sally Reynolds
Mr. Mayor and Meridian City Council Members,
This is public testimony regarding the Sagarra Application that will be heard tomorrow night,
th
Tuesday, Feb 14.
First, I’d like to put on record that Tony Tseng and his team have done a great job of reaching
out to the community to communicate their plans to residents and ask for input. They held two
neighborhood meetings and have done two surveys regarding a park (not part of this
application) and the fence. I appreciate that. Furthermore, the exterior elevations of the
community, while they may not “match” the style of Paramount homes, will be cohesive with
the commercial areas of Orchard Park. Lastly, I believe other developers could take note of
how they are feathering density from single-family to townhomes towards the commercial. This
is a good example of thoughtful development and planning. I also look forward to having this
parcel developed – not only because it will reduce dirt, bugs, and headlights from coming into
my house, but also because I’m sure it will bring some good families.
Ultimately, I believe that City Council will approve this application because the developer has
worked with the community and while the density is high, it’s not as bad as some of the other
applications that come before City Council. Also, by the time a plat comes before City Council,
the Council is reluctant to recommend any changes that would cause a substantial rework of
the plans.
My concerns with the application are: it asks for notably more density
than the underlying R-8 zoning; and the setback deviations (see the chart in
the staff report) are zero to none, which will not create an aesthetically
pleasing community (see the applicant’s concept elevation which shows
a two-story home abutting the street, but it many areas the buildings will
be three stories right up next to the road). While the plat shows space
between houses and buildings; in reality, there will be hardly any,
creating a very cramped look and feeling. While this plat looks good on
paper, the land area where the development will be is quite small.
Again, I know City Council has seen worse and I know this developer is trying to work within
City Code to make this project pencil, which means they need more rooftops. At the end of the
day, I would request a reduction from 146 to 120 units; however, the Orchard Park developer
held a neighborhood meeting last month where they unveiled plans to erect a five-story
apartment complex with 540 units in the corner of this neighborhood. Putting energy into
asking for 26 less units from a developer who is actually trying, and seems to care, is probably
misdirected in the long-run.
To me, the more pressing matter is how the staff and/or staff report steered the applicant to
use the PUD process to undermine the R-8 zoning of this parcel so density could be closer to
R-15. (Net density is about 16 units per acre). When developers approach the city with a
proposal, it is natural for city staff to be helpful in explaining city code and various options to
developers. However, time and time again, staff includes suggestions in a staff report about
how the developer could circumvent the city code in a way that is just close enough that staff
can justify it to the city council and the city’s legal team would not have a strong enough case
to defend a denial decision in court.
For example, on page 9 of this application, staff states that the application (at the time of the
report) did not meet open space requirements, but provided options to apply for alternative
compliance under the guise of “new urbanism” and referring to a different part of the city code.
With all the alternative compliance requests, variances, and DA modifications that are
submitted, a development agreement hardly means anything anymore. Six years ago, a
current city staff member said “Well, it can get it approved under the current conditions and
then we can just modify and variance the heck out of it.” I’ve seen that play out over and over
again.
I would think that staff should be encouraging applicants to adhere to code; and if they think
they need to provide options or suggestions, then the deviations should be clearly outlined in
the staff report and supported with documentation as to why staff believes the variance or
alternative compliance request is sorely needed. Developers know the underlying shape and
zoning of a parcel before they purchase it. It is not the city’s job to make sure that transaction
is profitable by bending city code.
I will include my detailed reasons for why I believe a PUD is not warranted in this area below;
but I understand the reality of this situation. My personal situation is that my youngest will
graduate in two years and if we really don’t like what is built behind us, we can move. I would
prefer not to leave a place we have lived since she was in kindergarten, and where we have
dear friends. But, we can move. And someone else will buy the house who will pay the same
property taxes.
Thank you for taking the time to read and consider this letter – I could not have stated this in
the allotted 3 minute time limit. Also, thank you to this council who I believe has listened to
residents’ concerns more closely, even if they can’t always fulfill resident requests. It has been
a marked improvement from the last city council.
Thank you,
Sally Reynolds
1166 W. Bacall St.
I testified at both planning and zoning meetings regarding the Sagarra application. Planning
and Zoning has recommended approval with suggestions to work with ACHD on
parking for the main roads, repairing the fence between the properties, and providing
some sort of lighting on the easement canal along the corridor. I agree with those
findings.
However, I disagree with Findings F and H of the Commission This application is using a PUD
as a work around to have more density.
Some background: Six years ago, the P&Z Commission sent Trevor Gasser back to the
drawing board for his Linder Mixed Use application, which was directly abutting this property to
the south behind Winco (see the white area in Exhibit 1). He was proposing 200 apartment
units, but the Commission voiced concerns that between the large number of homes in
Paramount, the Prelude apartments, the Linder Springs townhomes, and the higher density 55
and older Paramount community, Cadence, that this square mile was already quite dense.
Inviting more residential development instead of using it for commercial purposes seemed
irresponsible. They knew that part of the Orchard Park parcel would also be residential, so Mr.
Gasser used the land for commercial development, which we have enjoyed very much.
Per the development agreement, this area is zoned R-8. Original concept maps show 120ish
units with one main road.
Instead, the current application is 146 units with multiple roads. The application is using the
PUD process exactly for purposes the code states PUD are not allowed for. First, to change
the dimensional standards; two, to ask for a deviation to the periphery of the development; and
three, to be able to include multi-family housing in a zoning area where it is otherwise
prohibited.
City Code
Chapter 7 - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
11-7-1. - Purpose
A. The purpose of the planned unit development (PUD) requirements is to provide an
opportunity ….
B. B. It is NOT the intent that the PUD process be used solely for the purposes of
deviation from the dimensional standards in the district. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005,
eff. 9-15-2005)(Ord. 07-1325, 7-10-2007
This application asked for exactly that – changes to the dimensions of the development via a
reduction in setbacks. Furthermore, even setbacks in a PUD have their limits of being
changed.
“UDC 11-7-4 Standards of Planned Unit Developments
A. 1. Deviations from underlying district requirements. Deviations from the development
standards and/or area requirements of the district in accord with chapter 2, "district
regulations", of this title may be approved. The exception is that along the periphery of
the planned development, the applicable setbacks as established by the district shall
not be reduced.”
In the Sagarra development, the setback around the periphery is asked to be reduced to zero.
While this is only at several ‘points’ along the back, the setback will vary. Even though it is only
at a few points, it is a violation of the city code.
Lastly, while single family, duplexes, and certain townhomes are permitted uses in R-8 zoning,
multi-family buildings are prohibited per Meridian City Code 11-2A-2, Allowed Uses of
Residential Districts. Applying for a PUD allowed the application to increase over density.
Respectfully, I do not believe the use of PUD was warranted for this community. It could have
been developed in accordance with R-8 regulations and still have been unique, innovative, and
a wonderful addition to the city of Meridian.