My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0876.000 1996-1998
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
1996-1998
>
COM 0876.000 1996-1998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/19/2011 11:19:55 AM
Creation date
5/10/2008 8:09:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
1996-1998
Communication
0876
Point
000
Author
Stephen K. Yamashiro, Mayor
Communications - Referred To
PC
Comments
PC: Amends Bill 258 to Draft 2 - 06/15/98
Communications - File Code
ZNG/HI
Document Relationships
AGE PC 06/15/1998 1996-1998
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\1996-1998\Planning Committee (PC)
BIL 258 Draft 01 1996-1998
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Bills\1996-1998
COM 0876.001 1996-1998
(Related To)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\1996-1998
COM 0876.002 1996-1998
(Related To)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\1996-1998
REP PC 126 06/15/1998 1996-1998
(Related To)
Path:
\Council Records\Reports\1996-1998\Planning Committee (PC)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> requirements and appropriate conditions of approval. The RS-7.5 zoning is <br /> <br /> being requested to allow the existing buildings to be more consistent with the <br /> required sideyard setback. The setback between the structures is 15 feet; and <br /> the RS-10 zoning would require a total of 20 feet between the buildings, <br /> whereas, the RS-7.5 zoning would require an 8-foot setback. As proposed, <br /> there would still be a need for a 5-foot variance however. This distance <br /> would still meet the Building Code setback requirement. <br /> <br /> It should be noted that the actual density of the subject area would not <br /> change, regardless of the zoning (RS-7.5 or RS-10). The requested zoning is <br /> thus not intended to increase the utility or density of the lot, but make it more <br /> consistent with the subdivision requirements. <br /> <br /> B. Proiect Timetable and Cost <br /> <br /> The applicants hope to secure the necessary County rezoning approval as <br /> soon as possible and begin the subdivision process immediately thereafter. <br /> Tentatively, plans call for having the lots subdivided by the end of 1998. <br /> <br /> The estimated cost of the improvements is marginal, as all improvements are <br /> in. <br /> <br /> IV. INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS <br /> <br /> A. State Land Use <br /> <br /> The subject area is designated Urban. As such, no State Land Use action is <br /> required. <br /> <br /> B. County General Plan <br /> <br /> The County General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map <br /> designates the site Law Density Residential. Under this designation, single <br /> family residential uses of this nature are permissible; as such, no amendment to <br /> the Plan would be necessary to effectuate this proposal. <br /> <br /> <br /> C. Hilo Community Development Plan <br /> <br /> This plan attempts to further define the General Plan and serves as a guide for <br /> decision-makers. It was adopted by the Planning Commission in 1975. It has <br /> not, however, been adopted by the County Council. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.