|
look at the maps, you know, like the zoning map that Eric had put up, you see like a lot of
<br /> smaller lots in that area, there are like a few Ag-40 parcels. At one point in time, I think there
<br /> was like an adjoining property that was once considered for like Ag-3 rezoning, but there was
<br /> some kind of like community concerns primarily relating to the flooding and drainage issue,
<br /> which is not absent now, which is absent over here. So, and besides the configuration of the
<br /> parcel, if you saw, was kind of like long and narrow, so, you know, to create more lots than that,
<br /> I think, would have been a very, very, very challenging.
<br /> VITOUSEK: So, is there a number for this size of the lot, a minimum lot size that is allowable
<br /> to be subdivided within the small farms and ranches preservation area? Is that established in the
<br /> Community Development Plan?
<br /> JACKSON: I don't believe there is. I would have to research it a little bit. I do see that the
<br /> CDP recognizes that the small farms and small ranches typically consists of 10-acre or more size
<br /> lots.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Okay. So it seems like the intent is for, to preserve it above 10 acres, but because
<br /> we are, because it's a subdivision of for mostly for family purposes, that's why the director is
<br /> giving the positive recommendation. Is that right?
<br /> JACKSON: Yeah, so that's why this was originally approved, that's why the zoning was
<br /> originally granted, and so this would just be a time extension for that zoning.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Okay. My next questionI think this is again for the Planning Department, but I
<br /> think Mr. Fuke can definitely weigh in—is how to incorporate the SHPD review language into
<br /> the conditions of approval. It looks like in the background report, or in the recommendation, that
<br /> the conditions that we have try to pull it up, hold on—Condition J is dealing with inadvertent
<br /> discoveries of cultural material, but the letter from SHPD requests that they have the opportunity
<br /> to review the final subdivision and determine if an archaeological inventory survey is needed.
<br /> So, it, would that be something that we'd be comfortable incorporating into the conditions,
<br /> basically, stating that prior to issuance of final subdivision approval, SHPD will have the
<br /> opportunity to review and comment on the project?
<br /> FUKE: Yeah, actually, you know, Mr. Chairman, the applicant would not have any objections to
<br /> that largely because it's going to have to be SHPD review and sign off on the construction
<br /> drawings that's currently being worked on right now for the driveway. And so, in conjunction
<br /> with that, if SHPD does not sign off on it for its own reason, then, you know, you will have to
<br /> comply, but—
<br /> VITOUSEK:
<br /> utVITOUSEK: Right.
<br /> FUKE: without being said, SHPD will get involved in the further permitting process of this
<br /> proj ect.
<br /> VITOUSEK: For sure, it definitely will as part of the grading permit, but it seems like what
<br /> they're asking for in the letter is to be involved in the subdivision permit as well. And so, I think
<br /> 6
<br /> EXHIBIT A
<br />
|