COM 0110.001 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Honorable Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd Chair Page 3 January 22, 2003 2. The DOT's November 13, 2001 letter contains several explicit conditions for the Kanoelehua access. These should be made express conditions of the rezoning rather than leaving this a subject of further negotiation; there should also be a more general condition requiring improvements to the satisfaction of DOT because their letter contemplates other possible requirements. 3. In consideration of the Awapuhi St. residents, even if the applicant is able to gain access to this private street, the access should be gated and used only in emergencies. Otherwise, Awapuhi St. will be the most convenient route for customers leaving this development to get back on Kanoelehua going south, or to cross Kanoelehua, via Kahaopea St., and a significant number of motorists may thus choose to travel through this residential street. Some councilmembers had asked for further analysis of the question of General Plan LUPAG map consistency. Because this was clearly not part of the GP amendment redesignating Prince Kuhio Plaza, the question is whether the property was included in an amendment passed with the 1989 General Plan revisions. Without going through an absolutely detailed chronology, it is clear from Planning Commission transcripts that the Planning Director, in 1987, intended this property to be included in what was presented to the Council as Amendment No. 11. There is a statement to the Planning Commission on Chis, that also mentions the fact that this property is meant to be included even though the written description of Amendment No. 11 describes it as applying to "industrial" property around Prince Kuhio Plaza, and this property was Low Density. The Director wrote the landowner's representative on October 26, 1988, assuring him that if this amendment passed, the property would have the appropriate General Plan designation to pursue commercial zoning, as a matter of "interpretation" of Amendment No. 1 1. We also have a letter from Takashi Domingo; the Planning Committee chair at the time, that the Council thought the GP amendment included this property. (I have not read all of the Council minutes on this GP amendment). The Planning Director, in February 2000, wrote the landowner that the property was "High Density". Because of this history, it would be unfair forme to advocate any different position now, although I have no explanation for why the LUPAG map was not actually changed for this property in 1989, although it was changed for the "industrial" properties, or why the written description of Amendment No. 11 only mentioned the industrial properties. Had the landowner been told, in 1987-89, that something more