2007-05-24 TWAIKOLOAMAUKA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

develop the project in phases; the first phase would consist of the makai portion, which would be about 149, the balance would be as the market demands and hopefully within a 5-year period. But the reason why the condition was written as the staff had proposed, “The second channelized intersection improvements shall be provided prior to its use,” and we need to clarify, we have some clarifying language to that, is that the tentative plan right now is that to provide the appropriate water infrastructure to the site they basically need to construct major spine road that goes all the way up over there; and then they’re going to bring the water tank down. But they will not have a connection at the mauka end. And so the intent behind this condition was just to say when and if they do the mauka subdivision and they’re going to actually punch through and utilize that access point, then before they can actually use it, then the channelized intersection has to be fully improved. So that’s was the intent. So in that regard, what we were going to suggest was that the second page of the current recommendation that was provided by the Planning Department, the last sentence would be amended to read as follows: it would read, “The second channelized intersection improvements shall be provided prior to or in conjunction with the opening or use of the project’s second access.” In so doing this allows the developer to actually construct the road as close as they can to that area, so that they can get access to the water system, but yet not be obligated at that point in time to put in a channelized intersection. But they will put in a channelized intersection before they actually utilize it for the subdivision. So that was the intent, Mr. Chairman. Prior to the meeting too, I discussed it also with Ki Emler, your Department of Public Works’ Engineering representative; and what we would like to suggest would be on Condition B, near the end of the Condition B, the second to the last sentence would read, “Upon execution of such agreement and/or filing of the security with the County, final subdivision approval for the subject property or portions thereof shall be granted” – and this is really more grammatical – “in lieu of the actual construction of required infrastructural improvements.” ’Cause I think that grammatically it’s not correct. And then on the last new proposed amendment it would read, “No occupancy shall occur until all of the infrastructure improvements covered by the bond or surety have been constructed and approved by the County.” GRAHAM: Okay. Do we have any questions from the Commissioners? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: So that final one, instead of “no occupancy permit”, you’re saying “no occupancy.” So the permit could be issued, and yet you still would not have anybody occupy those homes until such time, right? FUKE: Correct. You know, like the Zoning Code presently allows for -, when you have a bonded agreement in place, what you’re doing is guaranteeing to the County that the improvements all will be in by a certain period of time. However, you can start constructing homes on that, but the Zoning Code says specifically that you cannot occupy the dwelling until such time that all of the improvements have been completed. The reference here was to occupancy permit, was after confirming with Mr. Emler, there is no such thing as occupancy permit per se, so that’s the reason why for its deletion. SIRACUSA: Okay. Thanks for clarifying that. Are we talking about a single-lane or two-lane roundabout? EXHIBIT C 6