|
will come back. And so having a farmers’ market there is really going to be a benefit to us. It’s
<br />going to be a benefit to everybody in the community, I think, too. But I thought I could really kind
<br />of talk about how it’s a benefit to us.
<br />
<br />I don’t think that the original problems of drainage and flood hazards are going to be exacerbated or
<br />increased by the farmers’ market there. When there is a heavy rain, the farmers’ market will close,
<br />customers won’t come, the vendors will, you know, we’ll close the market obviously. Mind you
<br />this is not Hilo, so people here don’t go out to market or something like that in heavy rains. But,
<br />and also, the onsite drainage mitigation has really taken care of, I think, anything, any storm runoff
<br />that’s generated by the site itself.
<br />
<br />The only thing, I mean, I wonder about the language of the recommendation that why we couldn’t
<br />just say that the, going back to the original County Council language, the amendment to change the
<br />district classification of property is limited to a visitor center and a farmers’ market, you know, for
<br />the purpose of the condition, or biweekly farmers’ market permitted, blah, blah, blah, and leave it at
<br />that, without having to specify exactly what improvements will be required, should we desire to
<br />make any other, have any other kind of activities on there. And I’m not sure that, it just seems like
<br />we are, we have been locked into a really precise definition of what will be required, if we want to
<br />do anything else, whereas we would certainly have to come back to the Public Works Department
<br />or the Planning Department, if we want to do anything else anyway and, you know, times change.
<br />We might, you know, there’s, we don’t, we lose any kind of negotiation opportunity we might have
<br />by specifying exactly what would be required to do, if we wanted to do anything else, whereas if we
<br />just leave that out, of course we will be required to come back and find out what it is we have to do,
<br />but we won’t be pinned down to the one condition. And that’s more of a question; it’s not an
<br />objection or a deal killer on my part. It’s just sort of like why can’t we just leave it at a visitor
<br />center and a farmers’ market without including all those specifics. And I’m not sure how the, what
<br />is the process for determining whether in this new condition, a land use will generate over 50 peak
<br />hours. Do we have to, like, submit a proposed land use to, whom? To the Planning Department, I
<br />guess. And they work it out with the Department of Public Works, and then they determine, they
<br />determine 50 trips per hour. So, you know, anything we are thinking about doing, we have to come
<br />back to the Planning Department to do it, or -. So anyway, those are a couple of questions.
<br />
<br />BOWMAN: Okay, staff, thank you.
<br />
<br />ARAI: Okay, I’ll do my best to respond to all of your concerns. Thank you, Mr. Van Dyke. The
<br />reason why we are proposing the revised language to Condition E is that Bill 255, which was
<br />introduced by Mrs. Ford, basically -. Let me back up. When the 2008 amendment to the change of
<br />zone ordinance was going through to accommodate the proposed visitor center, there were concerns
<br />brought up by Councilperson Ford regarding drainage in the area. Based on those concerns, the
<br />Councilperson and the rest of the Council saw it fit to limit uses only to a visitor center, as indicated
<br />by the Condition E, which is struck out there below. We do not support that type of condition
<br />because it restricts uses that are normally permitted by the Neighborhood Commercial zone district.
<br />As you look at the Zoning Code, there is a whole range of uses allowed in the Neighborhood
<br />Commercial zoned area – farmers’ market, laundromats, retail stores, offices – a whole range of
<br />uses. So to restrict it to one particular use within the whole category use, you are actually defeating
<br />the purpose of zoning; you are almost as if you are treating this like a special permit or a use permit,
<br />which only defines one particular use. That is like a contractual type of zoning. That I believe the
<br />proper word is illegal. So we are in some ways glad to get rid of the old condition because it really
<br />6
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />
<br />
|