|
requirement to say there shall be no access, you know, between the primary medical complex
<br />and, and Punahele Street. So, this is the program that they'll still kind of like maintain.
<br />So, there's no access—so essentially what you'll see is like, you know, along Punahele Street,
<br />you'll have like traffic that will come during the a.m. and the p.m. Some were during the day.
<br />You know, but no more than 24 or 25 movements during the time.
<br />In addition to that, when the staff had originally recommended approval, they had recommended
<br />that because Punahele Street currently has a right-of-way of only 40 feet, the staff had
<br />recommended, wisely so, that they'd be a 10 -foot wide additional future road widening setback
<br />taken from this property and within that area curbs, gutters, and sidewalks be constructed.
<br />So, you know, it's similar to a lot of the kind of conditions that the Commission has imposed on,
<br />you know, projects like in the Waiakea area where, you know, the roadways are narrow and so
<br />then there's an obligation on part of the developer to put curb, gutters, and sidewalks fronting the
<br />street.
<br />There was this added concern about like, you know, which I think the Hala`i Hill Community
<br />Association raised like, and rightfully so, in saying that well, you know, zoning cannot restrict
<br />only for parking. You know, you have to look at zoning categories and its commercial
<br />neighborhood, so what if they don't use it for a parking lot and instead like tomorrow a bar
<br />comes in or they use it for a gas station, but it's very unlikely. But, you know, there's always
<br />that kind of possibility, so what we're suggesting is that no, it would not be used as that, and then
<br />we would—we would require that if there is a use any other than what is limited only for
<br />parking, if there's a use other than parking, then they would have to go back to the Planning
<br />Commission, and the Commission at that time would have the opportunity to, you know, with
<br />the public hearing to, you know, weigh in and recommend to the Planning Director, appropriate
<br />mitigations to address the use because the mitigation that is being proposed right now, you know,
<br />relate to a parking lot. So, if you have a different kind of use, then obviously the mitigation
<br />would probably be varied.
<br />So, the other thing, too, is like that, you know, we tried our best, you know, to reach an
<br />agreement with the neighbor. We developed this memorandum of understanding and it was kind
<br />of like just about a year and, you know, I'm sorry that, you know, we couldn't kind of get over
<br />the—you know, at the one yard line and we couldn't kind of push it over, but, we tried our best
<br />to address the concerns.
<br />One of the additional concerns that was raised by some of the neighbors were that well, they
<br />don't want to be put in a position where, you know, there are all these conditions of approval
<br />and, you know, they don't enforce it. The landowner doesn't comply with these conditions of
<br />approval, then what do you do? And, so, they are saying, okay, if they don't do it, and so the
<br />memorandum of understanding is saying like we would set up, the association would set up like
<br />a revolving fund that the neighbors can use to then contact that person, you know, mutually
<br />whether it's going to be an attorney or whomever, and let that person take the responsibility of
<br />seeing that the conditions are, you know, appropriately enforced. And, so you remove the
<br />EXHIBIT C
<br />
|