2009-08-28 TKOHALA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

WATANABE: So then, at this stage Î I realize you donÓt have the whole plan Î but at this stage Agricultural 3-a is a sufficient reduction then in your mind? Because Mr. Housel indicated he would like to see something lesser than Ag 3-a, and actually the next step would be Ag-5, yeah, that was where the previous Commission really got stuck on; we couldnÓt, as you can see from the record, achieve any quorum. LIM: I think our position was that under the existing zoning of RS-15, we could do something like 110 lots; the SMA Permit that we have still is 50 lots. So we felt that coming back with the Ag-3 was a reasonable compromise that both gave my to have a return on the project and to preserve the drainage issues, setback issues and all the other things. And I think thatÓs what Mr. Mooers was hired to do is kind of go out there and find a suitable sites, home sites in the area, so that we could try to place these in a reasonable place because there is a lot of topography and some sloping areas. So we were able to do that. So we would of course ask for your support for the 3-acre zoning. The lots themselves are going to vary in size from below, if we stick with this plan, I think oneÓs down the smallest of 1.9 acres and others are as high as 3.9, 3.8 acres. So we would probably be doing some form of Planned Unit Development to reduce the lot sizes, but overall the average density is about three acres. IOKEPA: I have had a question. As far as that being zoned Agriculture, do you have any idea as to what kind of agricultural items there would be? MOOERS: I think the zoning -. ItÓs in the State Urban District and right now zoned Residential. So the RA zoning is a Residential-Agricultural 3-acre, but the likelihood of growing agricultural products there is very low. That would just be the density. But currently itÓs not in the State Ag District and doesnÓt have Agricultural zoning, so we are not looking at the agricultural productivity of this property. IOKEPA: Okay. I would concur with Mr. Housel that if you could reduce it, I mean, increase it to five acres, I think that would be better suited for the area. WATANABE: Okay. Mr. Beaudet, any feelings on this? BEAUDET: I think the measures taken with this development are adequate. I agree with the two-sided setback and open access for public use of the coastal area. And given the terrain or the topography of the shoreline, I think the 150-foot setback is key in order for transportation of people along the coastline. ItÓs always nice to see less than more development, but personally, given the surrounding development, I think it fits with the other subdivisions in the area and I would agree that your current layout could be accommodated. WATANABE: Okay, well, I guess IÓll have my comments. IÓve been the beginning. And certainly in my mind we were seeking, or I was at least, seeking some type of compromise. The compromise that we were discussing during those failed negotiations was, you know, I believe something in the neighborhood of 25 units. To see this density further eroded to shall we say twelve units, I think, is a major hurdle. I certainly appreciate that. During our original discussion we were requesting, you know, we were requesting 100-foot setback, and the standard setback really is 40 feet, yeah? And youÓve come up with the 150 feet. And I think EXHIBIT B 9