|
Also indicated on the site plan is this rock wall structure that the Applicant has agreed to build in
<br />response to neighbors' concerns over visual and noise impacts from the project, and so, these are
<br />the neighbors here who have agreed toagreed to that as part of that mitigation.
<br />Also on this pardon me—on this site plan, it's showing proposed restriping of Puainako Street
<br />and proposed restriping of Kekela Street. These proposed restriping mitigations come from the
<br />TIAR that was submitted as part of your packet.
<br />Here's some photographs of the subject parcel. The top photo here is a view of the project area
<br />looking north across Puainako Street. Again, we've got Kekela Street generally in this area, and
<br />the area for the driveway access is generally here. On the bottom left, again, is a little closer
<br />view of the proposed driveway access area from Puainako and then a view of Kekela Street
<br />looking north with the access generally in this area adjacent or across from the current Ginger
<br />Patch development.
<br />Here's some additional views, top left is a view of Kekela Street looking south with the subject
<br />parcel on the right-hand side. So, KTA here, and alternately a view of Kekela Street looking
<br />north with the subject parcel on the left-hand side. There is full curb, gutter, sidewalk on Kekela
<br />Street that's already developed there. Just needs to be mowed a little bit, and you'll be able to
<br />see it a little bit better. A view of Puainako Street looking west with the subject parcel on the
<br />right-hand side, and, again, the general area for the access will be right about here. And, a view
<br />of Puainako Street looking east with the subject parcel on the left-hand side.
<br />So, this is a little bit different from your normal presentations. Because there are several
<br />requested amendments, I just wanted to lay out that the Director is recommending that we
<br />forward a favorable recommendation for five of the six amendments --that's C, D, F, H, and N.
<br />And, then forward an unfavorable recommendation on the request for the deletion of
<br />Condition E, and I'll get into a little bit more about what those requests are and the reasoning
<br />behind it.
<br />So, here is the Applicant's suggested language, condition language for Condition C, and
<br />ultimately, it's the same condition. All it says is that the construction of the proposed
<br />improvements shall be completed within five years from the effective date of this ordinance as
<br />amended, and their reasoning is the deadline to complete construction was August 14, 2017, after
<br />a granted administrative time extension. However, the original developer abandoned the
<br />previous project, and the land was returned to the fee owner. AutoZone entered into a 15 -year
<br />ground lease on September 2nd, 2015 with the landowner but realized they would not be able to
<br />meet the development deadline, and the Applicant, for those reasons, is requesting that five-year
<br />time extension to complete construction of their project.
<br />So, the Director is supportive of this proposed amendment, but changed slightly the language to
<br />match kind of our standard condition language. So, the Director's suggested language is,
<br />"Construction of the proposed project or other use permitted in the zoning district..." Again,
<br />because, rezoning doesn't lock them into this proposed project. We just want to make sure that
<br />we cover that, and then it says, "shall be completed within five years of the effective date of this
<br />amended ordinance." And, then, at the bottom, the very last line at the end, we just changed it to
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />3
<br />
|