2006-01-20 THiluhilu - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

do have a copy and we just recently transmitted to you the second revision I believe or was it called the third? Its revision dated 1/19/06. And we apologize for this late changes, the reason for that is that this is a rather complex project and after coming out with the initial conditions we did have the opportunity to meet with the applicant and as a result of discussions with the applicant and upon our concurrence we made certain changes to the original submittal to you. I think one of the, well I was about to go over the, some of the, highlight some of the changes but since all of you had an opportunity to read that Ill defer it at this time and entertain any questions that you may have. There are 3 other conditions that we just came across that needed to be changed. Two of them being suggested by the representative from the Department of Public Works. One is condition M. And if you look on page 3 about the middle section of the page before condition N the second to the last sentence and it states, it makes reference to the uniform building code. Mr. Emler requested that we change the wording of that condition to read as follows. And Ill start with regard to the requested sewer line building setbacks the applicant shall conform to, and delete, uniform building code requirements 1991 edition, and insertthatwith,thecurrentHawaiiCountyBuildingCoderequirement.Andtherestofthe condition will continue on as previously submitted to you. On condition Y4 on page, starting from page 7 and going to page 8, the last portion of that condition states that the Planning Director under condition SS, that should be changed to conditon TT. Everybody got that? So that would be on page 8 the ending of condition Y4. And finally, Mr. Emler indicated, requested that condition BB regarding the security gate be amended to delete the words or property on the second line. So the condition would read, no vehicular security gate shall be installed within 60 feet of any proposed County road and a turnaround shall be provided within the private road on the County roadside of the gate. So those are the additional changes that we are recommending. Are there any questions? ALAMEDA:Any questions Commissioners? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Norman I dont, I think I didnt get to read some of these things that came out at the last minute for whatever reason but you were offering to sort of tell us about the things. I think one of the biggest issues has been the roads issue. Could you just tell us roughly as far as the mid-level roads, theres a Queen K connection road and the Mamalahoa Highway road what the Planning Department is recommending as conditions of approval in those regards at this point? HAYASHI:Okay Mr. Director would you like to explain that? Okay. YUEN:I think the easiest way to understand this is to go to Exhibit B thats in the yellow pages. The conditions of, at the end of the conditions of approval and then the map, roadway alignments conceptual. And so the specifics, you see the Palamanui property located there and you see the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. So road 1 is their main project access road, thats the spine road that goes mauka-makai. Road 2 is, becomes, is a portion of what is called the mid-level road in the K to K plan. Theres maybe a little confusion about this because at this location the mid-level and main street are the same road. They merge together. Ill show you the map, how that happens after we look at this map. So they would have to build this section of the road and it connects Kaiminani with their main project access road thats a distance of about a mile and a half. Then they have to build whats shown as road 3 across their property and this EXHIBIT H 4