HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC - Applicant's Response to Staff Report for 12-9
Charlene Way
From:Mary Wall <mary@pe-services.biz>
Sent:Monday, December 8, 2025 11:53 AM
To:Nick Napoli; Clerks Comment
Cc:Natalie Jonsson (Natalie@desertedgecommercial.com); Brian Burnett (invest1977
@yahoo.com)
Subject:FW: Commission Recs for Meridian Luxe H-2025-0035
External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments.
Good morning, Nick,
As a follow-up to the email below I would like to provide the specific requests for revision to City/Agency
Comments & Conditions. These requests will be presented in our presentation tomorrow evening, but we would
also like to provide them in writing.
Requested revisions to City/Agency Comments & Conditions:
1) The applicant shall install a four (4) foot berm with a barrier that allows trees to touch within five (5) years
of planting in the landscape bu?er adjacent to the existing residential.
a) We propose that NO berm be required and that more mature landscaping be installed (as available) to
create a more immediate bu?er for the residential neighbors. Our proposal is based on the following:
i) The berm will impose an additional overburden (2-3’) on irrigation easement which may require shoring
of trenches in event of repair to the 8” irrigation main. The barrier above a repair trench is an additional
safety concern. Settlers Irrigation District does not want the berm over their irrigation main.
ii) The 25-foot bu?er does not allow enough room to install a standard 3:1 slope on the berm without
diverting drainage onto neighboring property and into proposed storage condos. Building code requires
drainage away from buildings. Drainage laws require that stormwater remains on the property.
iii) The available space between the irrigation easement and the proposed barrier is only about 2.5 feet
and will limit the option for trees in this area to deciduous trees. Any conifers would have to be placed
between the barrier and the storage condo. Neighbors would see tree trunks and the barrier instead of
vegetation.
2) Revise the ten (10) foot multi-use pathway to eliminate the meander and make it straight per ACHD’s
conditions of approval.
a) We propose that the meander remain as shown for the following reason:
i) The original plan for this project showed a meandering sidewalk along the entire extent of McMillan
Road. ACHD indicated in their conditions of approval that they did not want a meandering sidewalk.
The City’s condition was in response to ACHD’s condition. We have consulted with ACHD and they are
not opposed to the one meander we have shown on the plan. This meander will allow Idaho Power
facilities to remain in place by allowing the sidewalk to meander around these facilities.
3) Revise the fencing to provide eight (8) foot closed vision fencing along the perimeter of the storage area
where the buildings are not present.
a) We propose that the fence height be revised to a 6-foot-tall fence for the following reasons:
i) Proposed enhanced/more mature landscaping in the landscape bu?er will create a visual barrier for
the adjacent neighbors.
ii) Proposed luxury multi-use & storage condos will have well maintained buildings and grounds and do
not require the tall fence to provide a visual barrier.
Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information.
1
Thank you,
Mary B. Wall, PE
(406) 600-6218
From: Mary Wall
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 3:46 PM
To: Nick Napoli <nnapoli@meridiancity.org>; Clerks Comment <comment@meridiancity.org>; Bill Parsons
<bparsons@meridiancity.org>
Cc: Kurt Starman <kstarman@meridiancity.org>
Subject: RE: Commission Recs for Meridian Luxe H-2025-0035
Nick,
The following are my comments on the Sta? Report and comments on the Commission’s recommendations:
III. Sta? Analysis –
Section C.2. You note the requirement of a short plat for the individual storage units. It has always been our intent
to do a short plat for BOTH the condo units and the commercial units. It is not clear if that is your understanding so
I wanted to mention this.
Section D.2.iii. Note that field verification of the existing fence on the north and east perimeter show that it is a 5-
foot tall fence.
Section E.2 Note that we do not own property to the east and cannot extend any pathway across that property
without approval of neighbor. Sidewalk on the west side does not extend to our property but there is a sidewalk
easement across the Kelly Creek HOA property or we can use ACHD ROW to extend the pathway over to existing
sidewalk.
Section F.2 Just for clarification, the PI services are not required to lots created through the condo plat, correct?
Since there is no purpose for irrigation water within the condo property.
IV. City/Agency Comments & Conditions
Section A.1.g. It is our intention to condo the commercial spaces so they are separately saleable, too. Please let
me know if this is an issue.
Section A.1.h. We will be requesting an alternate option to this requirement. Per our prior conversations, we
would like to propose installing su?iciently dense landscaping and more mature landscaping (based upon
availability) to create a su?icient bu?er so that the berm and barrier are not required. A berm with a barrier will
create issues with drainage, tree placement, and irrigation system maintenance where located between the
property line fence and the proposed buildings. We would appreciate sta?’s support with the alternate proposal
and will work with sta? to prepare a landscape plan that creates a satisfactory barrier.
Conditional Use Permit
Item 2 – We will be requesting that a 6-foot tall fence be required (instead of the 8-foot fence) since the facility will
be an upscale storage facility. We can do the 8-foot fence but it does not seem necessary for this facility,
especially if we are creating a good landscape bu?er such that the fence won’t be that visible.
Item 3 – Is this condition referring to the storage unit wall along McMillan Road? It is not clear.
Overall, our biggest concern is the requirement for the berm and barrier between the property line fence and the
buildings. We appreciate your help in finding an alternative that will, hopefully, be acceptable to City Council
members.
2
We will have a presentation for the City Council hearing and will send that over to you on Tuesday before noon.
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this email. Thank you!
Mary B. Wall, PE
(406) 600-6218
From: Nick Napoli <nnapoli@meridiancity.org>
Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 9:28 AM
To: Clerks Comment <comment@meridiancity.org>; Bill Parsons <bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Mary Wall <mary@pe-
services.biz>
Cc: Kurt Starman <kstarman@meridiancity.org>
Subject: Commission Recs for Meridian Luxe H-2025-0035
Good morning,
A?ached is the staff report with the Planning & Zoning Commission’s recommenda?on to City Council for
th
Meridian Luxe. This project is scheduled to be on the City Council regular mee?ng agenda on December 9,
2025. The public hearing will be held at City Hall, 33 E. Broadway Avenue, beginning at 6:00 pm. You may
a?end in person or virtually via Zoom – the link/phone number to join the mee?ng is located at the top of the
mee?ng agenda. Please call or e-mail with any ques?ons.
Please submit any wri?en response you may have to the Commission’s recommenda?on in the staff report to
the City Clerk’s office (comment@meridiancity.org) and me as soon as possible prior to the mee?ng. If you
have a presenta?on you’d like to present at the public hearing, please send it to the City Clerk’s office no
later than 12:00 pm the day of the hearing.
Thank you,
Nick Napoli| Associate Planner
City of Meridian | Community Development
33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: (208) 489-0574
Built for Business, Designed for Living.
3