My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2003-12-04 TCLIFTO120403
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003
>
2003-12-04 TCLIFTO120403
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2011 4:07:58 PM
Creation date
6/14/2011 4:07:54 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
FUKE:I didnÓt do the traffic study so -. But I would imagine just reading <br />it, Commissioner Springer, that that relates to the average dela <br />SPRINGER:Mr. Chairman, we have discussion on the application itself now, or <br />would you like to wait for a motion on the matter? <br />GALDONES:If you would like to raise any questions for clarification of the <br />Applicant or the staff, weÓll do that. But if itÓs to debate the issue then weÓll wait till we <br />have the motion. <br />SPRINGER:IÓll wait. Thank you. <br />GALDONES:Okay. Any further -. Mr. Yuen? <br />YUEN:If there arenÓt any, I did want to say some, speak to the <br />Commission just a bit about our recommendation that we made here. We had been <br />recommending that the Commission defer action on this until the Council acted in order <br />to reduce the possibility for conflict between the two actions. At the last meeting it was <br />quite clear that the Commission wanted to go ahead and vote on t <br />the vote on the request for deferral was five-to-one against. Rather than continue to be <br />overly stubborn on this point, we are now issuing a recommendation. It is part of our job <br />to make recommendations to the Commission. And if the Commission does not want to <br />keep deferring the matter as far as the SMA Permit, then thatÓs fine, then we would issue <br />this recommendation. We are making the recommendation for appro <br />Just to speak for a moment about the relationship between the rezoning and the SMA <br />Permit, if the Council does not pass the zoning, then the SMA Permit, if granted by the <br />Commission, would be of no effect. If the Council did pass the zoning, but then the <br />Commission denied the SMA Permit, youÓd have a piece of property thatÓs zoned but <br />cannot yet be developed because they have no SMA Permit. There would be a waiting <br />period to reapply for the SMA Permit. <br />The Commission can pass an SMA Permit that has fewer units than allowed by the <br />zoning, and it can also pass an SMA Permit that has more conditions that are protective <br />of the environment or cultural sites, historic sites and the like, than are contained in the <br />rezoning ordinance, as long as that limitation and those conditions are tied to things in the <br />SMA law. The SMA is a separate layer of protection beyond the zoning. So in <br />considering an SMA Permit, we have to, there are things that we have to look at; and <br />those may cause the Commission to decide to restrict the project beyond what was <br />allowed by the zoning or to put additional conditions on the project at that time. <br />So the major difference between the recommendation that weÓve ma <br />ApplicantÓs request is the number of hotel rooms. <br />The basic reasons for recommending approval are that this is an area that has been <br />identified in the General Plan for urban development and the current Heavy Industrial <br />9 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.