Laserfiche WebLink
improvements to the frontage of the road, frontage of the property along Ainako Street. And <br />these types of improvements are normally associated with subdivision of the property, so we <br />decided to leave these conditions, this particular condition intact; and we provided further <br />clarification on when it should be implemented. <br /> <br />At this time I believe I’ve covered everything, so I stand ready to answer any questions that you <br />may have. <br /> <br />ISHIBASHI: Questions? Commissioner Ono? <br /> <br />ONO: Yes. Condition C, I’m kind of, rather confused on your presentation. We’re addressing <br />the request for one residential development but the entire report seems to say that the individual <br />is planning an estate development for the entire area. So that on Item C are we deferring Item C <br />because of what you had mentioned about the other conditions, or are we taking the whole <br />property request as a projected development for all of the property? <br /> <br />ARAI: In the application the applicant made it clear that the landowner had no intentions of <br />constructing a second home at this time, nor did they have any intentions of subdividing the <br />property at this time. It is basically to clean up the split zoning and make it easier to, say if they <br />contemplate in the future building a second home that it could, it will be allowed to do so. So we <br />kept that part of it in mind. <br /> <br />Let me see, if I can back up just a little bit. Even though the zoning, part of the complication was <br />that the zoning could allow the subdivision of up to three lots, even though the applicant <br />indicated they have no intensions of doing so. But you can also see the complication of having <br />this split zoning where, for example, you have Ag in the back and Residential in the front. If you <br />wanted to do something like put up a chicken coop on the property, which is perfectly fine on the <br />Ag portion, you couldn’t spill over into the urban portion because that is prohibited by law. But <br />yet the landowners would sit on this land and say this is just my 1.3 acre property. So you can <br />see some of the difficulty. So we tried to accommodate this applicant’s request by basically <br />cleaning up the split zoning, and hopefully it will provide for, facilitate estate planning in the <br />future. <br /> <br />LEITHEAD TODD: The current intent in their application is that while they’re healthy, right <br />now they’re both retired, they foresee that in the future they may want to either expand their <br />home or build a second home so that the children can reside close to them to care for them as <br />they get older. And the problem with the split zoning is that you can build on the Ag land but <br />generally you have to justify it as a farm dwelling; and they don’t envision really doing <br />agriculture. So at the moment they’re not looking at subdivision cause they’re going to continue <br />on this property for, you know, however long they envision living there. It could be 10 years, 20 <br />years. But they envision that at some point in the future when they pass that their children may <br />want to subdivide to create separate parcels out. But there’s no intent to subdivide now. But <br />they just are trying to clean it up now so that in the future if they have to do estate planning that <br />it’s all one zoning, all one type of residence, and you don’t have to deal with the whole issue of <br />having agriculture on the back portion in order to justify an additional dwelling there. <br /> <br />ARAI: And if I can add one thing. The property was originally 13,500 square feet roughly. <br /> 4 EXHIBIT A <br /> <br />