HomeMy WebLinkAboutProject DescriptionMachelle Hill
From: C. Caleb Hood
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 9:32 AM
To: Machelle Hill; Ted Baird; Jaycee Holman; Tara Green
Cc: Bill Nary
Subject: RE: Project Description
Please re -notice the AZ for 9/4, not 8/21. Thanks.
-----Original Message -----
From: Machelle Hill
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 8:12 AM
To: Ted Baird; Jaycee Holman; Tara Green
Cc: C. Caleb Hood; Bill Nary
Subject: RE: Project Description
Caleb,
Please let me know how you want to proceed in terms of the noticing dates, according to my
previous email. Thanks,
-----Original Message -----
From: Ted Baird
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 5:39 PM
To: Machelle Hill; Jaycee Holman; Tara Green
Cc: C. Caleb Hood; Bill Nary
Subject: RE: Project Description
Legal has determined that you need to re -notice because the uses are vastly different than
what was originally applied for.
-----Original message -----
From: Machelle Hill
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 11:28 AM
To: Jaycee Holman; Tara Green
Cc: C. Caleb Hood; Bill Nary; Ted Baird
Subject: RE: Project Description
To All,
If in fact legal determines that we do need to re -notice we could either re -notice the AZ
for August 21st (which I would need to do tomorrow) and continue the CPA from the 7th to
the 21st or re -notice both projects for the 21st.
Thanks,
Machelle
-----Original Message -----
From: Jaycee Holman
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 11:21 AM
To: Tara Green; Machelle Hill
Subject: FW: Project Description
Jaycee L. Holman
City Clerk
City of Meridian
-----Original Message -----
From: C. Caleb Hood
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 9:23 AM
1
To: Ted Baird
Cc: Bill Nary; Jaycee Holman
Subject: RE: Project Description
The applicant, in the narrative and on the application only listed L-O as proposed zoning
districts - that is why the notice went out as such. After talking with them further
though, they really want to zone 4 acres for L-O and 1 acre for R-8 (there is an existing
home on the south 1.4 acres). I have the legal descriptions from the surveyor showing the
2 zones. It sounds like we need to re -notice, but again my main concern is timing. What
hearing date should the Clerk send out for the hearing date? And what about a staff
report? I am putting the finishing touches on a joint CPA and AZ report. To separate them
now would be very cumbersome. Caleb
-----Original Message -----
From: Ted Baird
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 9:18 AM
To: Bill Nary; Jaycee Holman; C. Caleb Hood
Subject: RE: Project Description
My concern is whether we ever noticed it correctly in the first place. That is different
from the situation where the Commission fiddles with it once it is in front of them.
-----Original Message -----
From: Bill Nary
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 9:17 AM
To: Jaycee Holman; Ted Baird; C. Caleb Hood
Subject: Re: Project Description
I get this better now. He is right that if the applicant requested one zone and the
Commission selected another we did not re -notice if it is a less intense use. My concern
though is the diversity of uses that are different from L-O to now R-8. Re -notice cures
any potential dispute.
-----Original Message -----
From: C. Caleb Hood
To: Jaycee Holman; Ted Baird; Mach elle Hill
CC: Tara Green; Bill Nary
Sent: Thu Jul 31 08:56:32 2008
Subject: RE: Project Description
Just to make sure we need to re -notice, in the past if a property was noticed with a
"higher" zoning designation (in this case L-0) but a lesser zoning designation was
recommended (in this case R-8) by staff, the Commission or Council we haven't had to re -
notice. If it were the other way, noticed as R-8 but recommended for L-0 we have had to
re -notice. That is why I thought we were okay proceeding without re -notice. If the
determination is that we need a re -notice to change the agenda item description, I propose
leaving it as is and through the hearing process staff recommends the change. The notice
doesn't have to be changed, I just thought we could make it more accurate at this point,
but if it causes too much confusion (and more work for everyone), please disregard my
original e-mail.
I'm not trying to be difficult but I just want to know what
and what date the Clerk is noticing the hearing for (if in
AZ). It's going to be difficult to have the hearing on the
discussion and analysis, so we really can't move forward on
Thanks.
Caleb
From: Jaycee Holman
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 8:29 AM
the difference is in this case
fact we do need to continue the
CPA without the concurrent AZ
the project without both.
2
To: Ted Baird; Machelle Hill; C. Caleb Hood
Cc: Tara Green
Subject: RE: Project Description
Caleb,
I asked Legal some questions about the Noticing on this project and listed below is what
they are advising.
Jaycee L. Holman
City Clerk
City of Meridian
From: Ted Baird
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 5:12 PM
To: Jaycee Holman; Machelle Hill
Subject: FW: Project Description
You have concurrence from legal. My proposal is to go forward with the CPA and re -notice
the AZ. Who wants to tell Caleb?
-----Original Message -----
From: Bill Nary
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 5:10 PM
To: Ted Baird
Subject: Re: Project Description
I agree
-----Original Message -----
From: Ted Baird
To: Bill Nary
Sent: Wed Jul 30 16:31:02 2008
Subject: FW: Project Description
Bill: The notice that was sent does not even mention the R-8 portion. I don't see how
this meets the requirement of providing adequate notice of the item to be considered.
Here is the relevant portion of the notice:
"...on Thursday, August 7, 2008, for the purpose of reviewing
application CPA 08-008 of Jack Gish for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future
3
Land Use Map by changing the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Mixed
Use — Community for approximately 5 acres for Postal Annex; Furthermore the applicant
requests application AZ 08-009 for Annexation and Zoning of 5.56 acres from RUT in Ada
County to L-O (Limited Office District) for Postal Annex generally located in the
Southwest Corner of Meridian Road and McMillan Road."
I'd suggest that they go ahead with the CPA to keep those together and on -track, but I
think we need to re -notice the AZ. Thoughts?
-----Original Message -----
From: Machelle Hill
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 4:25 PM
To: Ted Baird; Jaycee Holman; Bill Nary
Subject: RE: Project Description
There you go...
-----Original Message -----
From: Ted Baird
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 4:24 PM
To: Jaycee Holman; Bill Nary
Cc: Machelle Hill
Subject: RE: Project Description
Can you forward a copy of the notice that was sent so that we can review?
From: Jaycee Holman
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 4:20 PM
To: Bill Nary; Ted Baird
Cc: Machelle Hill
Subject: FW: Project Description
I just want to make sure that legally we don't have to re -notice for this (see below e-
mail from Caleb). My first thought is that we would have to but I am not a Planner or a
Lawyer. Here is how it was originally stated in the Notices as per the information that
4
was we received on the file:
Public Hearing: AZ 08-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.56 acres from RUT in Ada
County to L-0 (Limited Office District) for Postal Annex by Jack Gish - Southwest Corner
of Meridian Road and McMillan Road:
The original notice does not list the R-8 portion separately. Please advise oh great
Legal minds....
Jaycee L. Holman
City Clerk
City of Meridian
From: C. Caleb Hood
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 4:04 PM
To: Machelle Hill
Cc: Jaycee Holman; Tara Green
Subject: Project Description
Machelle,
Can you please amend the agenda description for AZ-08-009? It is on the August 7th P&Z
agenda. There are actually 2 zones being requested, not just one. Here is how the agenda
item/description should read:
AZ-08-009 Annexation and Zoning of 5.56 acres from RUT in Ada County to L-0 (Limited
Office)(4.41 acres) and R-8 (Medium Density Residential)(1.14 acres) Districts, by Jack
Gish
The notices you sent out are okay, but I want the agenda to reflect this change. Let me
know if you have any questions. Thanks.
C. Caleb Hood
Current Planning Manager
City of Meridian Planning Department
660 E. Watertower Street, Ste. 202
5
Meridian, ID 83642
208.884.5533 (phone)
208.888-6854 (fax)
Vision without action is a daydream.
Action without vision is a nightmare.
6