My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0656.001 2020-2022
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2020-2022
>
COM 0656.001 2020-2022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/2/2022 12:36:15 PM
Creation date
2/28/2022 10:25:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2020-2022
Communication
0656
Point
001
Author
Jeffery Darrow for Zendo Kern, Planning Director
Communications - Referred To
PC
Document Relationships
AGE PC 2022/03/08 (2020-2022)
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2020-2022\Planning Committee (PC)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
i <br /> I <br /> I <br /> objective decisions and provide our opinion subjectively. Generally, your staff's presentation is <br /> always very comprehensive, well thought out, and the recommendation those both items were <br /> reviewed by Mr. and Mrs. Goode and myself, and they found them to be very comprehensive <br /> and acceptable, including the conditions. We really don't have too much more to add to the <br /> staffs Background report except that we just liked to make one additional comment. I guess that <br /> is that as the staff noted they requested; you know 2 comments I think so. As the staff noted the <br /> subject property is like nine (9)plus acres and conceivably we could have gone in for like an FA- <br /> 3 acres zone. But because the way the property is configured, and you have the existing Kalaoa <br /> Road easement which actually the property belongs to the Goode's. But it's a roadway so it just <br /> made the subdivision of the land difficult in terms of trying to create 3 3-acres properties and so <br /> as a result, the applicant came in with the FA 2-acre zone. But effectively it's going to be a 3- <br /> acre lot subdivision and that's about it. Although mathematically you could create like an <br /> additional lot, but that is not going to be I guess from a configuration standpoint, doable. The <br /> other thing I kind of wanted to mention is that as the staff noted that there are 2 existing <br /> residences on the property. They currently have a building permit application out for the third <br /> dwelling, which is going through the process right now. <br /> So, at the end of the day, if the rezoning is approved, from a density standpoint you're not really <br /> increasing the density of the project, of the subject property, because you already have <br /> permission to construct 3 dwellings and that's all you're going to have on the property. The <br /> primary intent, so one might ask then. Okay, so if you have permission to construct 3 dwellings <br /> 2 of them are going to be conveyed to your children, then why the rezoning? Well, the idea <br /> behind the zone change is to enable them to subdivide the land such that each of the different <br /> areas where you have your home could be conveyed easily, without having to be conveyed on an <br /> undivided interest basis. So that's the idea behind the subdivision. Also, we know that for <br /> financing purposes it becomes easier if you have your own TMK number, rather than having it <br /> done encumbered by the balance of the property. <br /> The staff recommendation I think in Condition F, has a condition that requires, actually that <br /> prohibits the construction of any additional dwelling on the respective 2 plus acres site property. <br /> So that effectively closes the door on having any more residences on the 9-acre site. So, I think <br /> essentially then what you have is like what you see, is what you have and all you have is this line <br /> going through the respective property to create separate TMK's and in essence that's the nature <br /> of the project. And we request the Commission's favorable consideration of the Goode's <br /> request, thank you very much. <br /> AU: Thank you, Mr. Fuke for that presentation and you did state for the record that you agree <br /> with the Planning Director's recommendation? <br /> FUKE: Yes. <br /> AU: So, Mr. and Mrs. Goode would you guys like to say something? <br /> L. GOODE: I think everyone said it just right. <br /> G. GOODE: Thank you. <br /> 5 <br /> EXHIBIT A (DRAFT) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.