|
VITOUSEK: Commissioner DeFranco.
<br /> DEFRANCO: Yeah, I agree with Mr. Fuke that it shouldn't be put on the applicant but—and I
<br /> think he was, I think commission- I mean, Mr. Kern was saying you do it sort of at the end of the
<br /> meeting; there is a place where we can create this. And I think that what we should do is
<br /> appreciate Hinchcliff for lighting this fire for the community to get something done, you know;
<br /> like this is, this allows us to focus on something that we can do. I think he should do his fair
<br /> share, contribute the fair share like Mr. Kern said, and then, and then in addition to this but not
<br /> having to do with this application, we should task, you know, a working group and task the
<br /> Planning Department to, and the State, to get together and do something with this intersection.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Director Kern.
<br /> KERN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, yeah, my suggestion is very much in alignment with Mr.
<br /> Fuke is that if we put, you know, as the Commission, say, make a request that we give an update,
<br /> say, in two months, on the status of this discussion, and by then we can pull together the parties
<br /> to have that begin the discussion, formulate the group, and then more or less it's kind of an
<br /> accountability type of thing, right? So we can come back and say here is where we are at, here is
<br /> what we are thinking, and where we are moving to, and then we can have another follow-up on
<br /> that afterwards. That could be a good option.
<br /> VITOUSEK: And that's not a condition on the permit; that's just a commitment from the
<br /> Planning Department.
<br /> KERN: Yeah, that's just my word which I will keep.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Cool. Okay. Commissioners, are there any other questions regarding Item J? Are
<br /> there any other questions on any other of the agenda items? I mean not agenda items, the
<br /> conditions that are being requested from the Planning Director.
<br /> I have a couple questions. What is the, what is the reason that we want to delete the condition to
<br /> eliminate the recording of the restrictive covenant prior to final subdivision approval?
<br /> FUKE: Okay, the applicant is making that request. You know, it's not to avoid having it
<br /> recorded,but the way it's structured right now, he can't get final until he can produce a recorded
<br /> document. And sometimes, you know, if you, if you've had experience with the bureau of
<br /> conveyances, it can take a while before the recorded document is actually recorded. So what we
<br /> are suggesting is that once Planning Department approves the document to be recorded, we can
<br /> submit it but don't—you know, because the document has already approved and it's going in
<br /> through the recreation process but we are asking not to be held at the mercy of the Bureau of
<br /> Conveyances before we can get final approval.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Okay, you know the language in the conditions does indicate"shall," so if it, we
<br /> know that it must be done.
<br /> 13
<br /> EXHIBIT C (DRAFT)
<br />
|