My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-07-16 Leeward Exh C (Amend SMA 314)
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2015
>
2015-07-16 Leeward Exh C (Amend SMA 314)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/20/2015 2:48:49 PM
Creation date
8/20/2015 2:48:47 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
upon the owner of the road, or possibly speak with Public Works to see if there is anything they <br />could do in regards to signage for slowing down, or the Police Department to maintain speeds on <br />the roadway. <br /> <br />BEAUDET: So Stardust Lane is a right-of-way for adjoining properties, or is it a TMK? <br /> <br />DARROW: I would have to, let me look at one thing here, so Stardust Lane looks like it’s <br />connected to Kahakai and does not have a separate, but in our comments previously from Public <br />Works, they stated Stardust Lane was a private road. So it does not look like it has its own TMK on <br />this particular map. But again, in regards to this particular application, because this is just an SMA <br />permit, if this was a Change of Zone, this would be different; we would be looking at regional <br />impacts as well. <br /> <br />BEAUDET: Thank you. <br /> <br />CHURCH: Yes. In the event that a subdivision comes about, those lots look pretty compact. Are <br />there any challenges that you would foresee with regard to a variance of zoning that we might face <br />or setback requirements that could be violated? Is anything like that evident to you? <br /> <br />DARROW: Yes, that would be in our Condition No. 3. We’ve been working together with the <br />Subdivision Section in regards to the current map that is submitted to the Planning Department, to <br />confirm that this particular map would also meet the requirements for Final Subdivision Approval, <br />and they have confirmed that it will. In regards to setbacks, if you look at Condition No. 3, the last <br />sentence, it says, “No variance from the minimum yard setback requirements of the Zoning Code <br />shall be applied for or granted except for ‘Unit C’ and ‘Unit E’ identified on the New Development <br />Plan.” And the reason why is because those are the two parcels, or units, that have been developed <br />at this time. <br /> <br />BEAUDET: What’s the average size of those lots? <br /> <br />DARROW: Seventy-five hundred square feet. They have to meet minimum zoning, which is <br />RS-7.5. <br /> <br />BEAUDET: Commissioners, any more comments or discussion with staff? <br /> <br />SHIMAOKA: I just had one question. Is 75 still the minimum? <br /> <br />DARROW: Yes. <br /> <br />SHIMAOKA: It is the minimum. <br /> <br />BEAUDET: Before we proceed, for the record there are no other members of the audience who <br />wishes to testify, so I’d like to ask for a motion to close this portion of the public hearing. <br /> <br />WHITTEMORE: So move, to close the public hearing portion. <br /> <br />7 <br />EXHIBIT C <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.