COM 1077.001 2018-2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I, you know, I agree with Christian's approach with the three items that are needed. I think having the Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial zoning makes the options a lot more open, considering that we don't know who the actual developer is going to be. You know, we are hopeful that it will go through and work out with Spring Capital and all that, but we have to take this application at its face of what the existing zoning is, what's best for the area, and I agree with Christian that the Neighborhood Commercial zoning is probably the most appropriate and most conformant with the Transit Oriented Development. I also agree that having a detailed master plan is crucial, and having a review by the Kona Community Development Plan Action Committee, make sure that it's aligned with the Kona Community Development Plan. To me, those three things are crucial, right? I agree, I agree, I think the County - - - long way, they stooped down at the table, and they opened up and said this is what we need in order to make this a favorable recommendation. You know, whether we can accomplish that through conditions or whether that has' -to'', , be an actual outright negative recommendation and have them come back with those, three things in hand, I would love to have opinions from County staff on if we can accomplish--that-,how and lead to a favorable today. CARR SMITH: Go ahead, Christian. KAY: I think at this point it's important to understand that if.the Commission". decides to go favorable, it will be a favorable coming from the Commission and not the County; ,.based on whatever analysis and conditions that yoiz place on it. `I -think Iwe are prepared to -speak to some of the conditions that we see are somewhat ;problematic, bd at this point if that's the way you choose to go, then we would have an opportunity to -address"those as we go along. VITOUSEK: Please do' so, Christian, please alet me know what, what' conditions that are being proposed you think are problematic:. KAY: Okay. There are a few. Condition B for both the Suffolk and Puaa ordinances, the condition as proposed -is not-consistent.with'the.:Planning Department's standard condition for rezones and doesn't consider recommendations",provided bythe'Department of Water Supply memo dated January 8t': " So we suggest replacing,the language, that is proposed with the following: "Prior to the issuance Of a water commitment by the Department of Water Supply, DWS, the applicant shall submit the anticipated maximum daily water usage calculations as prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Hawaii; to'the DWS. A water commitment deposit shall be paid to the DWS withiri480 days from the effective date of this ordinance in accordance with Rule 5 of the Department of Water Supply's Rules and Regulations. The applicant is responsible for maintaining valid water commitments°to support the proposed use until such time that the required water facility's charges have been paid; in full." So that would be the language for the first, our, our suggested language for the Condition B for both. CARR SMITH: Go ahead, Mike. VITOUSEK: Sid, are you okay with the suggested revised language? FUKE: We have no objection. It's fine. The only thing to be mindful of is that the property already has the X number of water commitments, 510 water commitments, and so that's the reason why we had included the term "if applicable," because it provides flexibility that if you have the 35 DRAFT