Laserfiche WebLink
<br />YEH: Yes, just briefly. What we tried to do was to try to first explain the fact that in this context what <br />the applicant/developer is proposing to do is not to add any additional lots to what’s there now. There <br />are four lots which the applicant owns. There probably would be some adjustment of lot lines in a <br />consolidation and resubdivision which doesn’t increase the number of lots. So the concern was, you <br />know, given the language of the condition that has been proposed, the term subdivision could include <br />even a consolidation/resubdivision that doesn’t encompass the addition of any lots which normally <br />then does trigger improvements. What we did circulate the last time, and I’m not sure the <br />Commissioners got it, is we did circulate a draft revision to the conditions that the Department has <br />proposed that basically said that if any portion of any of this property does get developed, either in the <br />context of plan approval or certificate of occupancy where you actually have a use going on, it really <br />should be at that time that the required drainage improvements and/or traffic or road improvements <br />would then get triggered, just to kind of avoid this kind of consolidation/resubdivision context that is <br />actually being proposed. You know, we’re looking basically, from what I understand, you know, road <br />improvements of about half a million dollars alone. So if this consolidation/resubdivision were to <br />trigger that, it doesn’t really make a lot of sense. Because when you try to get financing, get lenders <br />involved, you first need to adjust your lot lines. Then the security is placed on that property to do the <br />financing. To me so long as you can’t really actually physically develop the property when you get <br />plan approval or certificate of occupancy you’re really not implicating any public health, welfare <br />concerns. So this situation is a little bit different given the, you know, how this particular development <br />is intended to proceed. So even in the context that staff mentioned about, you know, having multiple <br />owners which is unlikely in the first place, even one owner of the lot couldn’t proceed forward with <br />developing until those improvements were put in. So there, from the way that we’ve tried to propose <br />the condition when you develop any portion, then it triggers this requirement. So that’s the limited <br />comment we have. Otherwise, all the other conditions and proposed conditions that the Planning Staff <br />has submitted are entirely acceptable. <br /> <br />If you take a look at the Planning Department’s recommendations they incorporate provisions of the <br />flood control code requirement that all drainage be dealt with on site. There is not going to be actually <br />any development within the flood plain. They’re going to stay out of that area. There was a site plan <br />that was submitted also that basically verifies that. The developer doesn’t want to be dealing with <br />flood plain issues, trust me. It would, implicates all kinds of issues. So that’s basically where we’re at. <br /> <br />KERN: Thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant/representative? Commissioner <br />Domingo. <br /> <br />DOMINGO: Not the representative, but I’d like to ask a few questions to the staff afterwards. <br /> <br />KERN: I’d like to maybe ask the Planning Director briefly how do you feel about a lot consolidation <br />and resubdivide where there’s no additional lots being created? Is that different outside the intention <br />of your recommendation or is it still in alignment? <br /> <br />LEITHEAD TODD: The basic concern is development of the land incrementally. So if there were <br />some type of a condition that the improvements had to be done before any one of the lots could be <br />developed I think we could live with that. But the concern is that having separate lots and then one <br />6 <br /> EXHIBIT E <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />