My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2008-01-11 TKOHALA LLC
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2008
>
2008-01-11 TKOHALA LLC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2011 8:38:44 AM
Creation date
6/13/2011 8:38:41 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
HAYASHI: Yes. <br />WATANABE: Oh, okay. Thank you. So then that’s, assuming the Commission is <br />agreeable that’s open then. <br />LIM: The Condition O is that from a particular permit? <br />WATANABE: O, this was from the SMA. And actually, but I couldn’t, normally we <br />would not include something like this, I don’t believe, in a zoning type of ordinance. But the <br />SMA was not agendized for this meeting and so to make sure that it was in there, basically it’s <br />the same thing as was contained in the SMA condition, with the exception that the lateral public <br />access was increased from 10 feet to 20 feet which is consistent with the Belt Collins. And I <br />believe in your response that you said you would comply with this, aside from the change from <br />10 feet to 20 feet, as well as the change from the 40 feet to 100 feet on the setback. <br />LIM: Okay, when you speak about the 20-foot wide lateral public access <br />walkway, is that an improved walkway like a roadway or something? <br />WATANABE: It’s the exact wording that was in the existing SMA; and I’m not <br />suggesting that you put any sidewalks or anything there, you know. It’s a trail, right, in my <br />mind. But -. <br />LIM: I would think, I’ll probably come back with amendments to Condition P to <br />increase the fair share contribution numbers to the current numbers. <br />WATANABE: Yeah, I wasn’t aware of the current numbers so I just took, Condition P is <br />exactly the same as it was in the original. And if you are willing to increase it to the current <br />numbers that’s, you know, obviously better for the community. <br />LIM: That’s what the County Council will do in any event. Condition Q, this is <br />something that we’d like to retain. You crossed it out. This is the ability of the developer to <br />bond the improvements rather than have to build them out; and this is a fairly standard condition. <br />WATANABE: I think I left that in one of the conditions for the flood mitigation, I think it <br />was. But I guess what I’m saying is I was looking at this as, because I believe you had agreed <br />already, if you review your notes, that you were going to build a number of the, oh, wait, <br />Condition Q? <br />LIM: Yes, yes. It’s just the bonding condition which is kind of standard. <br />WATANABE: Yeah, but, okay. Let’s look at the conditions then. That was to E, F, H, J <br />and O, yeah? <br />LIM: Yes. <br />EXHIBIT D <br />8 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.