REP PC 005 12/19/2006 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Communication 680 Bill 221 Page 3 of 4 8. The property is located northeast of the Keaau-Pahoa Highway and would not be a complementary extension of the commercial azea of Pahoa and extending commercial areas across of, or east of the Keaau-Pahoa Highway would create a spot or scattered development along both sides of the highway. 9. Existing infrastructure cannot support commercial development east of the Keaau-Pahoa Highway and industrial-commercial use at this location would create an increase in cross- highway movement and traffic congestion. The State Department of Transportation (DOT) has requested a Traffic Impact Analysis Report and recommended extensive improvements prior to establishment of the proposed uses. 10. Allowing this change of zone that results in further higher density of industrial-commercial uses through the MCX zoning in this area would be inappropriate at this time, would not result in an appropriate land use pattern and would not further the public convenience, necessity and general welfare. By letter dated February 27, 2006, applicant Timothy Lynn Gardner requested that due to medical reasons, his application for change of zone be deferred to the July 2006. Mr. Gardner also stated the additional time would allow he and his partners to meet with members of the Pahoa community and address their concerns. At the 7uly 6, 2006 Planning Committee meeting, no public testimony was received regarding this application. Following discussion of applicant's companion Bill 220, this matter was also postponed to the August 22, 2006 Planning Committee meeting to allow Council Member Safarik an opportunity to comment. Committee Chair Pilago explained that the July 3, 2006 deadline to agendize items for the July 18, 2006 Planning Committee meeting had passed, that the July 31, 2006 Planning Committee calendaz was full, and therefore the next available Planning Committee meeting date was August 22, 2006. At the August 22, 2006 Planning Committee meeting this matter was postponed to the December 19, 2006 Planning Committee meeting along with Companion Bill No. 220. At the December 19, 2006 Planning Committee meeting no oral testimony was presented by the public on this matter. Discussions of companion Bill No. 220 regarding applicant's State Land Use Boundary Amendment application were noted. Council Member Stacy Higa inquired whether applicant had any discussions with the Police Department regarding the proposed project. Mr. Gardner said he had no contact with the police department but that he did speak with the Fire Chief who was excited about their proposal and also applicant's offer to contribute $200,000 PC Report No. 5