HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ - Appliant Response to Staff Report
Chris Johnson
From:Danielle Stehman <Danielle@PivotNorthDesign.com>
Sent:Thursday, September 19, 2024 2:30 PM
To:Nick Napoli
Cc:Clerks Comment; Bill Nary; Kurt Starman; Bill Parsons; Kyle Sihon; Darian Westrick;
Cory Schrack; John King
Subject:MCU-2024-0002 Comments
Attachments:Landscape Plan-L100.pdf; Landscape Plan-L101.pdf
External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments.
Hi Nick and Planning Staff -
Our team had the following comments in response to the Staff Report. We have an updated Landscape Plans, attached. These are
reflected in the presentation sent earlier this morning.
Landscape Plan Comments:
Comment 2, ii / 12o – Parking Lot Landscaping:
Due to utility easements and seepage bed locations, parking lot island tree requirements cannot be met. As an
alternative compliance, 13 trees have been added throughout the open space on site to provide shade for the
residents as shown on sheet L101.
Comment 2, iii / 12f – Landscape Buffers:
Trees added to sheet L101 and calculation clarifications on sheet L100. West property line shall use existing buffer
trees along the shared property line for perimeter buffer requirements. Trees have been added along the south
property line to meet the perimeter buffer requirements.
Comment 2, iv / 12g – Tree Preservation:
Notes added in Landscape Calculations Table on sheet L100. No mitigation required, no viable trees on site to
mitigate.
Comment 2, vi / 12d – Pathway Landscaping:
Trees have been provided on both sides of pathway, see sheet L101. Landscape Calculations have been updated
on sheet L100.
Comment 12c:
Open space calculations and tree requirements have been added to the Landscape Calculations table on sheet
L100.
Siteplan Comments:
Comment 12h:
A cross-access easement is located on the Civil Plan to align with the flow of traffic, aligning with entrance to a
parking area in the center of the site. This location also works well with the grading of the site, as it provides a
more gradual path that is accessible. Significant grade differences exist near the Locust Grove Road site of the
site. If placed near Locust Grove Road, the cross-access easement would need to cross a proposed retaining wall.
Note, the parcel to the south is currently undeveloped. Locating a cross-access easement anywhere along this
property line would be purely speculative; the optimal site connection could be anywhere along this boundary. It
should be noted that the property to the south, 183 S Locust Grove Road, is zoned 'RUT'. The Zoning Map suggests
the parcel itself (to the south) is outside of the boundaries of the City of Meridian. Therefore, we advocate the
cross-access easement is best placed where it serves the development in question.
Comment 12i:
The development team does not control the property to the west, which is a small strip of land owned by
"Stonebridge OA Inc". The team can provide a cross-access easement up to the west property boundary, but
cannot connect to 50 S Adkins Way without crossing the Stonebridge OA parcel.
1
Danielle Stehman AIA, NCARB, LEED AP BD+C
PROJECT MANAGER / ARCHITECT
208 690 3108 x728
2