2003-06-06 Planning Commission Minutes

Home

Low Density Residential, and that the applicant concurs with that belief. He then suggested the following sentence in Condition F be deleted, ÐThe improvements shall include a paved shoulder along the entire parcel frontageÈ.Ñ He said the conditions, as amended, addressed the concerns of the community association. He pointed out that, if one looks at the photographs submitted, one will note that it is not so much the nature of the roadway b pedestrian and bike accessways. In response to Commissioner McCallÓs inquiry, Mr. Emler said the Department of Public Works favors a five-foot minimum wide paved AC shoulder along the entire frontage of the property. Commissioner Springer questioned if that was negotiable, as in looking at the photographs that did not seem consistent with the majority of the shoulder treatments on Puako Drive. Mr. Emler said he did not personally look at the project, but relied on the senior inspector who has had some experience with the maintenance issues, noting they were also looking at aesthetics, landscaping and safety issues. Mr. Emler added that he could not make a commitment on the record at this time whether the County would be infilling the areas that are not presently paved. Commissioner Springer pointed out that, as agreed to by Mr. Hayashi, Condition F as worded allows the applicant and the Department of Public Works an opportunity to further discuss the roadway requirements. Commissioner Graham, former resident of Puako 30 years ago, said he generally concurs with the idea that the area is more appropriate for residential; however, he felt the Commission was putting the cart before the horse as the General Plan provides the legal basis for all subdivisions, zonings, etc., the Zoning Code says the Code shall be applied and administered within the framework of the General Plan, and the General Plan designates this area for resort. In response, Mr. Mooers said, in general, what Graham says is true; however, the recognition is that the General Plan and LUPAG map have a certain broadbrush approach and he thought clearly the proposed residential use is consistent with the descriptive elements in the General Plan, noting the inconsistency between the Zoning Code and LUPAG map throughout the county is not that unusual. Mr. Mooers added that this particular parcel is very close to the boundary of the General Plan LUPAG Map designation for resort and, also, to the south is a single-family residence that has been there for decades that the owners are currently remodeling. Mr. Mooers agreed with Mr. Graham that under the present zoning the applicant can build two houses or up to 18 condominium units on this one lot, clarifying they are proposing to create two houses on two separate lots. Mr. Hayashi stated that although the General Plan LUPAG Map designates the area for Resort use, one of the resort policies in the General Plan states ÐThe County shall re-evaluate existing undeveloped resort designated and/or zoned areas and reallocate resort designated and/or zoned lands in appropriate locations." Commissioner Graham expressed his concern that if the application is approved it would not meet the Zoning Code requirements and create a situation where a variance would be required, which did not seem right. In response, Mr. Hayashi said what is before the Commission today is 3