|
DARROW: If I can bring a matter to the Planning Commission’s attention, in the
<br />background report it references 17 covered parking stalls and 2 visitor parking stalls; the reason
<br />for that is in the application on 3-B where it talks about detailed written description, it identifies
<br />17 covered parking stalls one of which will be handicap accessible and ADA van compliant in
<br />addition to visitor parking stalls. So that’s why I think the Kona Traffic Safety Committee had
<br />come up with the 19 stalls, as well as ourselves.
<br />KILGORE: That’s correct. We actually had a different parking layout originally that
<br />accessed the parking internally from the outside and north and southern edges, and that was
<br />deemed to be impractical. And so we have a central drive-out, 24-foot wide, with standard
<br />parking stalls on either edge of it now, which did reduce the total stall count by 2.
<br />WATANABE: Are there any other questions for the applicant? Okay, now as I
<br />understand it, we have a procedural issue also, I mean in spite of all this discussion. And I
<br />believe that is related to notification. So would you care to comment on that?
<br />YEH: Yeah, well, let me see, from a purely legal technical standpoint the Rules
<br />do seem to allow the Commission to render a decision without the notice, rendering that decision
<br />invalid. From a practical standpoint there may be some issue as to whether or not a fuller
<br />opportunity should be provided to the public to provide input. I think that’s kind of up to the
<br />Commission’s discretion. Obviously, from our standpoint we would like to see the Commission
<br />say yes today; but we also understand that there may be some concerns about the ability to give
<br />more notice to all of the owners that should’ve been given notice before. As I understand, there
<br />th
<br />is a possibility we can be put on the December, I think December 12, agenda that’s coming up,
<br />that I think would be acceptable to the applicant, if the Commission desires to continue the
<br />hearing to that date. And then we can try to, you know, supplement the notifications that have
<br />gone out by providing to the other owners, but we are fine either way.
<br />WATANABE: Okay, thank you. But it’s my understanding that when you provide notice,
<br />there has to be a 20-day period following the notice. Is that correct? So I don’t know if that’s
<br />th
<br />going to meet the December 12 meeting date. Is that, am I correct in that, Mr. Torigoe?
<br />TORIGOE: Yeah, basically under the SMA Permit rules, the notice should be given
<br />not less than 20 calendar days prior to the date of the hearing.
<br />thth
<br />YEH: If we gave notice on Monday, the 19 or Tuesday, the 20, that would still
<br />give us 22 days, and that including mailing, you know, assuming there is a two-day period to
<br />receive, we’re still within that 20-day period.
<br />HAYASHI: I guess this is a question for legal counsel, your counsel, if we were to
<br />th
<br />continue this matter to December 12, do we need to publish the paper, the new public hearing
<br />notice 20 days prior to the meeting date? Or since it’s a continued hearing, can we use a lesser -?
<br />TORIGOE: Yeah, I think basically as I’ve said in the past, as long as you’ve done the
<br />initial one, you know, with a long notice period, that subsequent ones are, it’s not necessary as
<br />far as publishing goes. But just to clarify, do we have actual neighbors within the geographical
<br />radius that should have gotten notice that have not gotten notice?
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />15
<br />
<br />
|