2009-09-01 TIIDA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

director and when the applicant came in, you know, rests solely on whether this property fell within the Low Density area on the General Plan or the Medium Density area on the General Plan. And we were trying to make, you know, on behalf of the applicant, that the General Plan was not intended to be GIS measurable like how you see right now. It was more intended to be like broadbrushed. And so as such, you know, given what’s happening in that area one could reasonably interpret this area to be Medium Density rather than Low Density. However, at that time the Department and the Director said, no, we’re still going to call it Low Density. And so what we then had proposed is that recognizing that within the Low Density area Neighborhood Commercial uses according to the General Plan could be allowed, but -. You know, you don’t want to have like a Commercial Neighborhood zoning that would be a blanket type which may undermine the intent behind the Low Density General Plan designation. So we made that concession. So that particular condition that Mr. Iida is proposing to delete right now is one ironically that we had suggested, you know, on behalf of the applicant. We said like, okay, we recognize the General Plan constraints. And then so if you have like a generic zoning which, with the Commercial Neighborhood zoning, then -- although at that time all they wanted to do was just put up their Lani’s Beauty Salon -- you know, it’s possible at some point in time in the future you could have like a gas station, or something which would be totally, which may be totally incongruous with the concept of a Low Density General Plan designation. So we said, okay, fine, let’s limit it then. And so we understood at that time that it was, amounts to some amount of a contract zoning, which Commissioner Domingo is pointing out accurately; but we said like that’s fine because this is the applicant’s proposal. We’re not saying that the County is unilaterally requiring that of the applicant to restrict uses. You said no -. We from the applicant’s standpoint we’re saying that’s fine. So what Mr. Iida is coming before you right now is that, you know -. And the General Plan has not changed, and so, and probably the interpretation has not changed as well. So we’re saying that, okay, recognizing that then all they want to do is, you know, like now introduce another element, which is to put in their Five Spice Store which is at the Puainako Center, and just relocate in that area. And so the staff is saying that the only way that they can do that right now is to, you know, expand the definition to also now allow a restaurant, rather than going like a wholesale deletion of that “condition.” And, you know, we agree that if you delete that condition it may kind of undermine the spirit of the Low Density designation. And so, you know, Mr. Iida, the applicant, would have no objection to the proposed amendment, you know, as it is with that kind of restriction. The only comment that I would make is that it’s clearly understood, you know, I guess by the Department and whoever is interpreting that that what he’s proposing right now, which is a Five Spice Store which has like, you know, they sell crackseed and all that kind of, you know, eating stuff, plus not a typical restaurant type. They serve like manapua, or hot dog, and sandwiches, those kinds of things; and that’s why they still need to have like a commercial kitchen. You know, whether that kind of falls under the definition of a restaurant -. And in my discussion with the staff this morning and also which was confirmed by her statement, you know, this morning, 7