|
Planning staff or the Planning Director behave that. But, nevertheless, the applicant has, has
<br />concerns, and they just want to make sure that the process is fair to all.
<br />Finally, you know, we heard like, too, whether it's to this application or other applications, Planning
<br />Commission, you know, like they don't necessarily want to have these administrative plans because,
<br />you know, it can go on and on and on. And you want to be able to, you know, to look at the
<br />situation, being that I was doing a time extension for Kona Country Club, the residential project by
<br />the gold course, and I think Commissioner Vitousek raised an issue, what about the SMA because
<br />they want to see the project and not just kind of like let it go—very reasonable. So we are proposing
<br />to say like, no, it's not going to be any administrative extensions --such that if it cannot comply with
<br />the conditions, then it's got to come back to public review through the Planning Commission and the
<br />County Council. Who makes a decision in determining substantial plan compliance? The Planning
<br />Director has the authority. He can review it until—I know, _I just:yiew that, you know, you're having
<br />only like there is some kind of nails in the project, that's not substantial—they can make that, and we
<br />are going to have to make our case before this body tq" say, yes, it is, substantial, no, it's not
<br />substantial enough.
<br />So, I guess like the bottom line is saying that knowing that, you know, like the: what we are doing,
<br />we've kind of like restored back the affordable housim condition, all of the phase,, and we are saying
<br />that we are going to do a master plan, and we've eliminated administrative decision [sic]. From our
<br />standpoint, the applicants' standpoint; I think -that we've addressed as much as we can, reasonably
<br />can, you know, all of the concerns raised by the Department, as well as the Commission throughout
<br />the hearings. We are kind of hoping that the Planning Commiss I iOnwould look at the proposed
<br />recommendations and conditions that we prepared, the,favorable one; and, you know, - - - at the end
<br />of the day vote to recommend its_approval. I realize that if you -take the position and accept the
<br />Director's, accept the applicants' position on the conditions, as well as some of Planning's, that there
<br />may be a need to make sone editorial„things, and if it comes to that, we would have no objection to
<br />having --- ,the--stuff"just to -make sure tliat these editorial kind of comments on both the conditions
<br />and the Planning's = are kind.of like consistent with'the final action of the Commission. Thank
<br />you very, much.
<br />CARR SMITH: Thank you, --sit.,, Question? Mr. Vitousek.
<br />VITOUSEK: Yes, for Sid, my 'question is if the applicant would be willing to consider the rezoning
<br />as proposed by the County, the Neighborhood Commercial.
<br />3•
<br />FUKE: - - -one propertyis-proposed like, the existing, the Puaa property is currently zoned CN, and
<br />the Suffolk property is currently zoned RM. So, are you suggesting if the applicant would have any
<br />objection to having the designation on the Suffolk property changed from RM to CN? And if that's
<br />the question, the answer is no. We - - - not having to go back to square one.
<br />VITOUSEK: It seems—
<br />FUKE: If it could be done, you know, like right now, then that would be, you know, we would have
<br />no objection, and all of the conditions can still be the same.
<br />21
<br />DRAFT
<br />
|