2007-11-16 TKILGORE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RHO: We are doing that. We are imposing or we are saying it’s 20 feet based on the 8-foot setback on either side and then making the calculation based on that -. YUEN: Right. RHO: All I’m saying is then the developer comes along and makes it, makes the buildable area even smaller, yes? Well, you guys agree to that? YUEN: Right. The side setback -. RHO: And all I’m saying is why not make the buildable area larger and take more from the, take less from the shoreline, I guess, or cut back on the shoreline side and make it wider. That’s just a comment. I don’t have a question about that. I just wanted to clarify in my mind that that’s exactly what’s happening or that’s what’s happening. So if you allow me to make more comments, I will, which means that you don’t have any viewplane already, basically on that whole strip, so why not build wider.And that’s not a question. I just, I’m thinking aloud. So I want to move onto what I really have a question about, which is back to my first comments about Exhibit 10. And on the attachment to Exhibit 10 there is this message or comments by Eric Hirano; at the very bottom there’s an X. And I still, I’m not clear as to what all of the additional comments refer to, so if the applicant can comment about that. DARROW: If I could comment on that. What Mr. Hirano is asking is to replace the references within the background, the application from, instead of Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the proper term should be Federal Emergency Management Agency. So there are three references within the applicant’s report where he references, instead of FEMA, he references the FIRM map. So on the record, if the applicant is okay with that, we can have them replace that with the proper term, which should be Federal Emergency Management Agency. If you want, I can identify the three areas in the background report. RHO: And that doesn’t change any rules or regulations, etc.? DARROW: No, it’s just the proper reference that they are trying to bring up. RHO: Okay. That’s fine. On Exhibit 12, it’s actually a letter from the Kona Traffic Safety Committee, and it references parking; and I think the project is going to do 17 covered stalls and 2 visitor parking. And I was curious as to what the applicant’s response to that letter was in light of the applicant’s background report. There is no page but it begins, I guess when it addresses the Special Management Area Major Use Permit Application, Section 3-N, and it talks about “the current assessment of traffic conditions along Alii Drive can be described as congested and traffic slowing is exacerbated by the prevalence of shoulder parking along the Drive.” KILGORE: Just for the record, we are fine with changing the FIRM note to FEMA. And with respect to the parking, the actual latest updated drawings, per Planning Department’s recommendations, where we have 15 covered stalls and – I’m sorry – 13 covered stalls and 2 that are not underneath the structure. That is reflected on both the colored and uncolored plans there. And it is for aesthetic purposes and practicality. It’s really the max meal that we can get on that site. For the current ordinances, the parking ordinances, we’re required to have 13.25; we have EXHIBIT B 13