Loading...
Browne, Steven & Christine'~q '.f„• ~y 6 r~i }. . ,- ~'? `:~ `~ "~ ;aq 4'~} C?TY OF N~ERIDIti,ti 728 ~~eridian S~. "^eridian, ID 8642 VARIANCE APPLICATION (RE: Meri~ian Zoning Ordinance Owner or holder of valid option .''HONE `~-Co~(Q~- • ADDRESS: ~(~~ 1a ~~SZVC~ G~ TP'I~C~Li'0~ ~.~~Q~ 7 ~'~ GENERAL LOC~ITiON: ~ '~ ~` u ~~ ~'~4T~ a~_~L-~_ moo. a~~ ~~tl~ik~l~l ~..~ ~, o~ `~(`t-0a0i~ ~~-~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: I QWNkt.t~ ~~~~~~_ a~.ll~a~\l.{t`a.loi~ "~ a , ~~ ~u va ~ t~,1 ~ N E W ~ ~. w `~ ~ ~~ ~[~~.>~4~ s~~_.~.~ - 1 ~rV • , Pa~n~. ~}c PROOF OF ObJNERSHIP OR VALID OPTION: A copy of-your propert teed or o i y pt on ~" a.greemEnt must' be attached,__ .:, PRESENT ZONE CLASSIFICATIONL ~~~ '" VICINITY SKETCH: A vicinit ma at a scale a ~ ~". 4~ y p pproved by the .~ayor showing property lines, streets exist-°r.g and proposed zoning and suc~ eth.~r items as the Mayor may require. t ~~ ~, SlkRROUNDING PROPERTY OWNS=~ 3: A 1 i st of a f i property o~~~ners anc' addresses ~,; within contiguous to, directly across the street fr«~, and 4vi+~,in a 300' "' radius of the arcel ` p f ~ ~ ~~, ~, + . ,,.. p (s, pro osed oa a Jarian~_ mus~~~ ~~ a ~ .:.ec. (This infor!nat ion is available from the County i°1ss~~ssor~. ~ r i ~.. ~,~ .DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED VARIANCE: l.Ul _~~~..n dui ~~i~G!u r "L~?Q~ ~ Y ~. ~ ~~ n~.-c-, `(~1E i~ SST ~~_oF O~t~^n1~c i~ K~C N l~. FLU WC-~ ,' .I ~.i ~ i :,VUt1L~~. I-CLI,VKUJ Date Received ~ ~~~ Received ., ~~~~"~~ C~_,,.ounci' !-'ea~T- nq Date .' ;~,. r ~ ~ -- Attach asite plan showing all r'!etails of the proposed ~' development, Complete file following questions and return 3„ 'with the application. .p 1. That is intended to be done on or with the property? ;~ W E wts~ fio ~u~~.~ I~ fo` W°~~ ~ENCrc ~tZeurv~P out y. ~, . ~ 1~C~ ~Y~20 .. i~' 2. What s ecial conditions and circum, ~ ; p stances ex~st which are peculiar to the land, structure, or +~uilding invo'v~~d and ~` which are not applicable to other lands. structures, or• buildings • in the same district? 1~~0 ~.~ ~ ~nP ' q j 3. Why will a literal interpretation of the prov~~~lc~~ss of this ordinance deprive you of rights com;rnnly enjoyed by o~~her ~, „properties in the same district under the terms of this o~~'~h~~nce? 4. What special conditions or circumstances exist that wire not.a result of your actions? r ~,, 5. Why will the granting of this Variance not cone~~ on you any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance f,~ other lands, structures, or building in the same district? ~~ l.c~~c~ IAS ~uQ ~E+~c~ ~1.1~ ©+~~CQutCTt~C~ '`'~E ~1lE~n( of i '~. ~- ~ GtC... ~ W E ~-E~i__ `iCN~S ~l ~ ~.\ ~ ra t E. l~ t ~~~~ Cx: ~a FAQ-- ~ ~'~ N ~S. p '~ L~~4V ~W~'1 `('H E ~~AhnE ~\"L.~ ~~ACK ~IRul~f) ~S `C'~1E ~p~nt J.- i ~`~ [~ 1..c~-~S ~~ ~~ ~ ~ r -~ ? "' N~ N 1~14VE IZ GT. I "= 2ti ~- :~~.~P~ ;, . PETITION REQUIREMENTS: 1. Petitioner must supply a comprehensive list of ALL residences within 300 feet f..,m rhP orooosed Variance property line to include Name, Address, Telephone and Date. 2. Supply 1'copy of petition.. ~' f 3. Three-fourths (75~) of those persons living or owning property within 300 feet must agree to this Variance before the proposed use will be considered. '. ~ ~ ~~. t wE THE UNDERSIGNED DO NOT OBJECT TO ~f l ~, ~ I~IR <~'C~VE1.1 ~'EUSING THE PROPERT~,~ IDCATED AT rlCo~ N~AlOVEQ ~-"C ~ - MERIDIAN, FOR THE PURPOSE OF 1..11. C . ~~ y 3 S cam- ~ L= ~ `~ ~~~' ~ ~ -~G ~.3 ~' 11 n~_ ~ ,~ On~~n.~.rri+N lY L ~ G ~~ ~,~ ~ l.~~C S a F~ A NC~(EQ- C~T' , ~W ~~ ~T ~,utwG~~ ~.,, as ~ a~ - a~~ ~~~, -~~ ~-~z , ~~~, ~~s, ~a~+~~~~ 4~, 44; fib, 4~', 4~ , .? ~~ ~ ~~-~ ;:;; '~~ ~~FT/ ~~ ~ Tyr ~ 'I ~~ . For Value Received cT a"v~'rIELI' DEVELOa'~:v'T COMPAI~'Y, a ,; o~ n" ve^ t~ r~ eompos~~d ~ F rlTi f r« `tom 'J VfT'+, r.' ~r.-r /~ t'!v i }, ~ ' + + T ~- r 1 o:. Ae ~;• S• ~,•..~' G .~,_.. _ ., :_:,~., ;" va1:~:_.~rr:..a Corpora..icn, <Rne. ..< ~• DEt,~,:~C_ ~~ N~NT CO., INC., a Ca~.ifornia corporat-Ion, the Grantor, doe ~erobti gYar:t, barG~in, '! P, e ~el'_ and convey untod STEVF,N JENSEN B3:J`n"~TL and CHRISTIivTE S,; ,., 3~.On_v:'~, :IUS'oand anc'. ~w~i'e t';t i whose address is: 765 F.ANOVER COURT - s:L2w^IA?~, IDAHC 8 SEi42 the grantees, the fol'_owing described premises, in Ada County, Idaho, to-w~.t: Lot 40 in Block 4 of FRAN?ZLIN S(~UARE SUBDIVISION, according :*_o the o`~{icial plat o- thereof, filed in 3ook 44 c` Plats __*_ ?agee 5587 and 3548, {f' n' '> 0 is ~_,~__ , ~ecords . m ~ ~~ ~a d;, i ~~~ ~ "; f ~. S~ ~ i~~, ~, i 1~ TO HAVE A'D'D TQ'~~q'~~ they` said ;premises, with their appurtenances unto *he said Grantees, `, their heirs ~ ~~d ~as.~ ~~' fo-ever~., And the saic'_ Grantor does hereby cc~ : ~=_nar.t to and with ~' .the said-.C:ra~itees; f'ad' they' are• the owners ~n fee simple of said pre~f~.~s~ys, that ~ are free fr;Qm al~:'iricumbrances ~~` .. , r ,,'; S• ., ~' ~~i '~. ~' : ant*h~t th•~. sai1~.J w~.r~ant and defend the s<:me from all ~aw£u_ , c'"farms' wh~tsoeveY ~ ~~,Dated: F'~ '~ ; ~~~,.,~,~ ~^~,~, /9 79 STUBBLEFIELD_ D~V~L``I"~:NT1 CO~L't~Y' ~ _ ,' 1 _ k ; ~...Y- By J." w. ~,s ^r~ *r~Ls`_vT„~C~., -~Cs+~ ~~+ .. ,; .. . By , , __ ,. ~:. ;. STATE OF IDAHO ) ) SS 'County of Ada ) ) 5S ~~ ~ r On th1.S ~ day Of L. in the I hereby CP_rti rv '=_^ar "^ S _a~tra^.:c:.nt W<'S year '9~', Before me, a Pv'ot~_?-v Public filed for re co re. at t se rer_uest o~ din and for said State, persona?ly appeared J. E. Stubb~.efie~d, know-. to r.:W~ to '~e the ~ t!#d~T P~~ME~~;~A~ ?R.~r'.a ~~~ ',President of J. E. S. DEVELOPI~,?1T CO., INC. ' ~/ 'one of the corporations that executed the ~ ar "~dminutes ;past nC o' c' ock~ ^:. , ~n within instrument or the person who t~xecnt- '~ m~ of~ice, and d'~~~.y rec:orded :. ; Book ed the instrument on behal;` o r said corpo-:~- - of ';ee'; at~gai~ge t,ion, and known to me to be one of *_he co r- ~ ~~.~ ~~ ~, / ~1/ ~J m rp ~' R G3'~J ,~e.~-err-~~..,</ ~ C%. / porations that compose S:L.~BL... ILED L1? ~rELOP- ~L?NT CO;KP~,NY, and acknowledged to me that '~~~~ ~~~~~ %~~~ such corporation_ executed the same on behalf Ex-Offic°_o Recorder of STUBBLEFIELD DEVELOPMd;NT CO:~ANY. IN WITN%SS 'v1~~EA;;•OF, '' have hP~'eunto set ~~~~ /' ~ ~ my hand and affixed my o£f_cial seal the dayE zy ~`" ~'',~~~,,,~/ „~ ~,%~~~ and year in this certificate ~~irst above ~ Deputy writ n., B Nota~yrPublic for .she ".. `~e o" Idah° Fees: $~{r~ Residing at: y~~~ "`~ "~' Commission Expires: /D- /0 - S.~ ~"~"~~' ~=``'~ Mail to: smr,T~ o~ I~AHo County of Ada :c? U' '! r 2 "? y °:! a 1 Meridian City Hall July 6, 1981 Regular meeting called to order by Mayer Joseph L. Glaisyer at 7:30 P.f~. Councilmen Present: Richard Williams; Grant Kingsford; Bill Brewer; Rick Orton Jr. Others present: Gary D. Smith; Vern Schoen; Steve Browne; Charles bJ. Collens; Dennis Wells; Karen Storey; Barry D. Mitchell; Coenraad Abas; Bruce Stuart; Rod Puckett; Dee Wells; Roger Welker; Ray Sotero; Moahammad Alidjaini; Steve Gratton; Kathy Williams; 4~Jayne Forrey Pastor Buddy Hoffman and Alan D. Cameron, Atty. Minutes. of the previous meeting were approved as read. Agenda Steven J. and Christine Browne - 765 Hanover Court FRANKLIN SQUARE 1 ~,,~,~ Steve Browne was present to request a variance from the City fence ordinance. ~ _ Browne: "t,~y request is to apply for a variance, you have a copy of the diagram of my property and the fence I wish to build. I believe we obtain a sketch from the Building Inspector stating that there is a 20 foot setback from your property line facing the adjacent street fora six foot fence. The way I understand,this is to avoid any obstruction or view of traffic on that intersection. I have presented a petition signed by my neighbors and they feel I would not be a nuisance at all. The fence will stop 83 feet from the center line to the front of the house." Bldg. Inspector Schoen: "It is not in the sight triangle" There was discussion concerning placement of fence. (Tape on file) The Motion was made by Williams and seconded by Kingsford that the City Council grant Steven Browne to build a six foot fence as outlined in his diagram to be located 765 Hanover Court. Motion Carried: 6~Jilliams, yea; Kingsford, yea; Brewer, yea; Orton, yea. Diagram on file with minutes, City Clerk Office Agenda 2 Treasure Valley Baptist Church - Pastor Buddy Hoffman Alan D. Cameron, Attorney, was present to represent Treasure Valley Baptist Church request to Vacate Lot 2, Timothy Subdivision. Tabled from June 15, 1931 Attorney Cameron: "It is my understanding that the Council has tabled this for further research from the City Attorney on the issue of vacation of plats. This is a petition fora partial vacation of plat pursuant to Idaho Code Title 50-1306.a in which the City is given the authority to vacate plats. First off is the fact that we are so sure of our legal position in this matter that we have agreed to indemnify the City if any liability whatsoever should accrue to the City because of their release of the Plat. All we're looking to have released at this time is Lot 2 of Timothy Sub. which comes within the one mile radius of the City of P~leridian. There has been an Ada County Planning & Zoning Staff report which says there is enough ground seepage for effective drainage for drain field, there's plenty of room for the project that is anticipated, we have an conditional use permit already, we have the street that was -~ laid out on that lot already vacated by the Ada County Highway District. Basically everything that we have had to do along the way, has been done appropriately and ---- -_ -p1"~P~'~"}y-~Y arl ~-the-~aryi ' nt ~vle mere-l y---- want to say that we cannot see any legal reason why the City of Peridian should fail to approve the vacation of the Lot 2 from the plat - there i;ray he questions, sure - but as far as the liability for doing what they are doing we don't feel that there is any:' "I wrote a letter to your City Attorney today and advised him of the fact that we would indemnify the City through legal services or money, whatever, that would be accrued by the City. We would hope you would take this into account." Williams: "Why do they want the lot vacated?" Cameron: "The reason for having the lot vacated is that it sits upon a subdivision that was formed originally as a single family residential subdivision. In that subdivision there are some restrictive covenants that would limit building of a church on that particular lot. The subdivision itself is one that really has failed as a residential subdivision, it was intially set out as 12 to 15 lots and after