My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2007-05-04 TMILLER
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2007
>
2007-05-04 TMILLER
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2011 2:17:44 PM
Creation date
6/13/2011 2:17:40 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
have an 11 by 17 in your packet. Its Figure 4 I think it is. Just a comment on the access that the <br />Planning Director was commenting on, we have every intention of using the existing easement as <br />an access. I might note that we have an angled driveway shown on this drawing. The reason for <br />that is we dont have any right to have our access encroach on the neighbor beyond the access <br />easement. Just take a look at that. And the reason I make a comment on that is I think theres a <br />possibility that this alignment on the driveway will be modified some if we can get agreement <br />with the neighbor. But the existing easement only goes, it looks like about 40 feet into the <br />property; and we wouldnt be permitted to put pavement on his property unless he agreed to it. <br />So this looks like a little bit funny as far as the layout goes. But we dont have any right at this <br />point and we dont really want to approach the neighbor until were clear about the zoning. But I <br />think that probably that driveway will come further in just right there in the common area, just <br />the way its laid out. <br />The other comment I would make is on the overall layout the applicant has been working with a <br />local architect to develop the concept that he started, which you see the elevation up here. He <br />has developed his own floor plans and conceptual plans, which is what they are. And theres a <br />possibility that whats now shown as a three-story building will become a two-story building. <br />Instead of having covered parking it will be on the site instead of under the building as its <br />current shown. And, lets see, the other thing I do, Mr. Miller, would you mind just passing <br />these out to the Commissioners. They can take a look -. He has prepared these colored photos. <br />You can just take a look at that. Its sort of a conceptual presentation to get a little bit more of a <br />feel for the idea that hes trying to present. So this is pretty straight forward. There are four <br />apartment units in each building, so thats 8 units. So if you take a two-bedroom and a three- <br />bedroom thats five bedrooms, thats one wastewater system. You do that twice in this building, <br />thats two systems per building. So actually these two buildings will use four wastewater <br />systems. And there will be one additional wastewater system that could be used, and so we say <br />the future potential building. We dont know but that is a possibility, thats why we labeled it <br />that way. <br />The drainage easement is noted. And I take note of the comments by Planning Staff that the <br />actual boundary shown on the FIRM map needs to be shown on this drawing and may not <br />completely line up with whats shown there. But we understand that we have to honor the <br />FEMA flood boundaries. And other than that, under plan review we have to meet all the parking <br />requirements, and the access requirements, and the Department of Health requirements. Its a <br />pretty straight forward project. Were aware of the requirements; and if the zoning is granted we <br />certainly will meet that all. Mr. Miller, would you like to add anything? <br />MILLER:No. <br />ROSS:So maybe if there are any questions I need to answer? <br />GRAHAM:Thankyou,Mr.Ross.DowehavequestionsfromtheCommissioners? <br />CommissionerWatanabe. <br />WATANABE:SothenItakeitthatthereispotentialforathirdbuilding,isthatcorrect? <br />ROSS:Yes. <br />WATANABE:AndyouwouldntbeinviolationofStateHealth-? <br />ROSS:Therearesomanydetailsonhowtheactualfinalfootprintofthebuilding <br />comes in, how many bedrooms are actually in each building, which are all sort of in flux. But <br />we can say theres five systems allowed, thats maximum. And so anything the applicant <br />decides to do -. <br />5EXHIBIT C <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.