2007-02-02 TBIG ISLE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

conditions. So as far as how they would treat that I have no idea. I would believe that as long at it meets the criteria for the landscaping requirements that it should be okay even if it’s existing. If it doesn’t meet those requirements then it should be brought up to that standard. If it surpasses then it should be okay. SIRACUSA: What I’m concerned about especially is I see there are very nice mature trees on the property and I would hate to see them come down in order to accommodate some rule on paper that, you know, I mean, there might be an inflexibility there. And maybe the Director could address that question. GRAHAM: Mr. Yuen, do you think that’s an issue we need to concern ourselves with here today? YUEN: Well, I can just read what the Rule would require. First, looking on the right-hand side, because the adjacent property is zoned CV there isn’t any landscaping requirement between those two lots. On the back side, on the top of the drawing there, because that was an RS zone, that would require an opaque landscaped buffer from the ground to 3 feet high with intermitted visual screening from the opaque portion to a height of at least 20 feet. And maturity, the portion of intermittent visual screening should not contain any completely unobstructed openings less than 10 feet wide. There are several ways you can do this. One is small trees 20 feet tall at maturity planted 30 feet on center with a 3-foot high solid fence or wall. You can also do shrubbery with trees. So for the back side a mix of trees and shrubbery would , satisfy. Now then you have a front yard requirement, let’s see10-foot wide landscaped strip with a minimum of 1 tree and 10 shrubs per 35 feet of frontage, excluding highway openings. And then where plantings would result in an inappropriate or impractical design due to underground utilities, overhead wires, or other factors, 5 shrubs may be substitute for 1 tree. So, and I think this being a corner there are two fronts. Both the Kukui and Mamalahoa would both . be considered fronts I’m not familiar certainly enough with the property to tell you whether the existing landscaping complies with Rule 17. SIRACUSA: A lot of times when we get these applications we’ll see a plot plan and it will show where the existing or proposed vegetation is going to be; and here it’s hard to tell. I mean even the photographs, we don’t have any photographs of the back of the parcel to see if there is already something there, you know, that would meet with the Rule 17 or not. And without a plan to show what we have in place, it’s hard to determine if Rule 17 would be an improvement or a step down. GRAHAM: Ms. Siracusa? We’ll get the applicant here in just a minute; and probably if there are any specific issues we can chase them right down at that time, I think. YUEN: We can ask the applicant. I’d be okay with varying the requirement for Rule 17 because we are making them simply keep the home which -. So the basic appearance of the site will still be that of a single-family home. And I think we may have done this before where you’re keeping a home in the area. The idea behind these landscaping requirement, see, part of it is for parking lots but also partly to give some screening and greenery for your typical EXHIBIT B 4