2012-02-02 Windward Transcript Galan

Home

GALAN: Yes. And then lot of, lot of, I guess, something for wastewater that has to be, and also taken away the septic system and everything out of there, but, yeah. MIKKELSON: May I add something. The existing structure is within the property setbacks on the side and in the front; and it would be such that it would be difficult to bring it up to the commercial code to utilize that structure. So we would probably make a plan with a demolition permit to remove the structure and recycle as much as possible, obviously. KERN: Any other questions for the applicant or representative? Seeing none, you may have a seat. Thank you. Public testimony, we have three people signed up to testify. I’ll call all three of you up. Sandra Song, Tiffany Hunt and Mark Hinshaw, will you all please come forward. And I’ll get to raise your right hand. You don’t have to -. If you want to testify, you’re more than welcome. Do you all swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. KERN: Okay. So we’ll start with Ms. Song. SONG: Okay, thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. Because I testified before, I’m not generally anti-development. It just happens that I’m here for another application. I did submit written testimony. I’m not going to read it. But I will just go through some points. First of all, the Planning Director has recommended approval of this application on two bases. One, that it is consistent with the General Plan and, two, that all essential utilities and services are available. But that’s not the complete standard under the Zoning Code for approving the amendments; and that’s not the standard. Because Section 25-2-40 of the Code says this chapter shall be amended, one, if it’s consistent with the General Plan. But it says “and whenever the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare requires such an amendment.” Now that condition, which is in addition to the General Plan, was not addressed in the Planning Department’s recommendation. Now I’m here representing Jeff Hunt and Jeff Hunt’s Surfboards. Jeff Hunt is the property owner that’s next door to this property. And Mr. Hunt has several concerns that, we submit, affect the general welfare which lend this application in doubt. One, and there’s parking, there’s traffic impacts, and there’s fire, issues on fire protection. On parking the applicant is proposing 18 parking spaces which they say exceed the Zoning Code, and it does exceed the Zoning Code. However, the Zoning Code requirements for parking are compromised of what property already zoned should have for parking. That doesn’t mean in a change of zone that that is a sufficient parking. In this particular project as proposed with five buildings and residential, taking just what the applicant says, if there’s going to be two employees for each of the commercial spaces, I’d say that’s two parking places. Okay, and then each of the commercial units, I mean the resort units, overnight accommodations would have 1. That totals, when you add that up that’s 14 spaces taken up by employee parking and the overnight units. That leaves four parking spaces for all people coming to the retail use. Now I submit to you, is that reasonable? No. And why isn’t it reasonable? For example, if we look at the intersection of Lanikaula and Kilauea where Subway Restaurant is and all those restaurants are, that area meets the Zoning Code; and that area is a bottleneck with parking when people come to those restaurants. So I’m saying, I submit to you that if 7 EXHIBIT B