Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> i <br /> i <br /> plans, building permits, or Plan Approval. There has also been no work on the property, and by <br /> that, I mean any groundwork or construction, to indicate that the landowner intends to develop <br /> the property with multiple-family residential units. <br /> So, you know, while the landowner did intend to develop the property, that isn't happening now, <br /> and the General Plan discourages speculative development which this is. This is becoming a <br /> form of speculative development now that the property is up for sale. One of the criteria for <br /> granting a Change of Zone is that the zoning is consistent with the goals, policies, standards of <br /> the General Plan, and that the zoning would promote the general welfare of the community. <br /> The housing section of the GP also states to continue to study'!and implement appropriate <br /> measures to curb property speculative practices that result in increased housing costs. The land <br /> use section of the General Plan recommends establishing controls to discourage speculative land <br /> development. Specifically, the multiple-family residential section states to assure the use of <br /> multiple-family residential zoned areas, and to curb speculation and resale of undeveloped lots, <br /> the County may impose incremental and conditional zoning which shall be based on <br /> performance requirements. And then anotherpolicy states support the rezoning of those <br /> multiple-family residential zoned lands that are used for other purposes to amore appropriate <br /> zoning designation. In this case, the property is more appropriate to be zoned Single-Family <br /> Residential because at this time, that is what it is being used for. <br /> So, the Director's recommendations, the Director believes the-,-current RM-1.5 zoning district for <br /> the property is not the best land use pattern, and it will not promote the general welfare of the <br /> surrounding community at this time. Therefore, the Director recommends rezoning the property <br /> to its original designation of RS-7.5 so that up to 19 Single-Family Residential units and lots can <br /> be provided. If a subsequent landowner wishes to develop a multiple-family project on the <br /> property, they would need to come in for a Change of Zone to RM and at that time, the Planning <br /> Commission and County Council could look at these,the requested zoning and project to <br /> determine if lib proposed zoning and density would promote the general welfare of the <br /> community: So,based on.all of that;information,I provided to you, the Director is <br /> recommending forwarding a€avorable recommendation to County Council to rezone the <br /> property from RM-1.5 to RS-7.5. <br /> And, since we sent out your Background and Recommendation report, we've received several <br /> additional letters of testimony, so I just want to go through those with you. The first thing you <br /> should have is a map. We forgot to include that in your ordinance package. This is just a map <br /> that we typically include with a rezone ordinance. Let's see, we also have an email dated <br /> January 31 st from Melanie DeMello at Department of Public Works to Mr. Tai; a letter from Mr. <br /> Tai dated January 31 st to Mr. David Yamamoto of Public Works; a letter of testimony dated <br /> January 31St from Charlene Nishida to the Commission; a letter dated February Yd from Mr. Tai <br /> to Mr. Yee. a letter dated February 4th from Mr. Tai to Mr. Yamamoto; an email dated February <br /> 4th from Ms. Nishida to me for the Commission; and an email dated February 5th from Mr. Tai to <br /> Melanie DeMello at Public Works; a letter dated February 5th from Mr. Tai to Mr. Yamamoto at <br /> Public Works; another one-page letter from Mr. Tai to Mr. Yamamoto dated February 5th; an <br /> email from Melanie DeMello to Mr. Tai and the arborist, Justin, dated February 5th; and lastly an <br /> DRAFT <br /> 4 <br />