My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2010-03-05 TPD CDH
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2010
>
2010-03-05 TPD CDH
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2011 11:48:54 AM
Creation date
6/13/2011 11:48:50 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
WOODWARD: If I could get you to summarize, please. <br />MELROSE: This is the last -. <br />WOODWARD: Okay. <br />MELROSE: Three issues associated with the design in the ordinance. There is no other zoning <br />ordinance on the island and none in the State that I’m aware of that has a classical zoning <br />ordinance in which design elements are identified, specifically, and adopted by ordinance. So I <br />think generally that’s a reflection of the fact that design is often less a function of rule and more <br />a matter of guidelines and discussion about specific projects and specific circumstances. So <br />when you, in this case they picked three elements, not necessarily out of a broad array of well <br />articulated design elements. They just picked three elements. All of them have current tales to <br />them. We kind of understand where each of the case is from, but they’re not necessarily chosen <br />out of a context, an array of what the real key issues are in Downtown. But they’re being placed <br />into an ordinance which makes that much harder to deal with. And so our suggestion is that the <br />design elements really belong, first addressed in a comprehensive design review process and <br />that, in which the whole community is involved on how to do that; and then you determine how <br />you implement those issues. So we’ll continue to follow this issue as we move forward, but I <br />think the design issues is probably the one that rubs most specifically for us. <br />WOODWARD: All right. Thank you, Mr. Melrose. Do we have any questions? Commissioner <br />Domingo? <br />DOMINGO: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Jeff, you know, you mentioned about those <br />flooding areas, proned to flooding. And that’s Alenaio Stream we’re looking at, yeah? <br />MELROSE: No, it’s not. The Alenaio Stream was re -. A LOMAR was done after Alenaio <br />Stream so that the flooding that you related to, after the flood control system went it, that large <br />area of flooding in the Hara Store area by the market, that was removed and rechanneled. So the <br />issue is really the inundation line from the tsunami, which is, that’s the most prominent flood line <br />in Downtown. <br />DOMINGO: Now what if, what if in any event the volume of water that comes down and the <br />flooding begins to be more serious, that would certainly adjust the lines of the flooding areas, <br />wouldn’t it? <br />MELROSE: Right. What they did in ’06 was they just across the board put 50 feet on that <br />boundary, just generally said 50 feet makes it bigger. But more importantly they made the <br />recovery of the investment horizon, you can produce 50 percent of the value of the building. <br />FEMA requires a year, prior Code says three, change went to ten. And it simply stops the ability <br />of a small landowner to invest incrementally, particularly if they have to do ADA requirements <br />and fire suppression issues, and other issues that have to do with keeping those buildings that we <br />admire in Downtown in place. So it’s those changes that we’re focused on. <br />4 <br /> EXHIBIT C <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.