2007-01-05 tclark - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

WATANABE: I just didn’t want to require the study in the thing, cause I don’t know what, you know, I have no idea what’s required. And the study might be, you know, not only time consuming but real expensive. I suppose requiring the form is minimal and yet covers us. YUEN: Right. I don’t think that the form itself, I think the form itself is something not that onerous. It just means that the applicant describes what they’re doing and they submit to the FAA; and the FAA tells them if it will cause a problem. There was a rezone, didn’t we just do Ishii next to this? And Ishii, I know he has to fill out form. We didn’t require that but he’s going through that. He was a pilot and I talked to him about it. This side of Kekuanaoa is not as big a concern as the Puna side of Kekuanaoa. But as far as the guide path of planes landing at the airport, the FAA is mostly concerned about a cone extending on the Puna side of Kekuanaoa into Waiakea House Lots because there’s one runway that, and I don’t remember the numbers of the runway, but there’s one runway that comes in at an angle there. And I think most people have seen small planes come in that come across Kekuanaoa at an angle from more or less the Puna side. So on this side height is not so much of problem. But since they’ve expressed this concern I think you’re right to pick it up; and we can put that in as a condition that they file the form and whatever FAA wants them to do. If they want them to use a different kind of glass, then -. Of course the airport is of crucial importance to the community. So whatever is necessary to make the airport function or keep the airport safe we should go along with what the FAA wants. GRAHAM: Thank you. Any other questions from Commissioners? Norman, I have one point I wanted to bring up and just for you to, I think I got it right, but just for you to confirm -. Back in the 90’s this property was in the RS Residential zone and we have in our background that there was rezoning in ‘97 to ML zone. And I believed that rezoning came with conditions, and from what I see the conditions have not been complied with, timely and all that; nevertheless those were conditions of the approval of that rezoning. At this point they treat this property as if it were in the ML zone; and therefore the change of zone from ML to something else, MCX. Is that correct? Even though those conditions were not totally met from the prior rezoning from RS we don’t worry about that and we treat it as if it is now in the ML zone? HAYASHI: Well, once the rezoning of this particular property is granted then this would supercede the prior ordinance, Ord. 97-93; however, procedurally I don’t know whether we should have recommended nullification of this particular ordinance. Perhaps that question may be better directed to legal counsel, or maybe the Director could respond to that. GRAHAM: Yeah, I think when I was new to this Commission we had a similar situation and I brought up this point; and Mr. Yuen did kind of respond to it in that fashion at that time. And if he’d like to say a few words to that, right now might be good so the other Commissioners are seeing things in a way which I think the Planning Department sees things. YUEN: Well, if I can remember what I said before. But I think we actually should, hang on a second here. There’s they have not secured final plan approval and -. I suppose for the sake of clarity we should repeal the prior ordinance. EXHIBIT A 4