Laserfiche WebLink
FUKE: And, I'm Sidney Fuke, assisting the Applicant. <br />HENKEL: Thank you. Go ahead. <br />TAKASE: Yes, so Mr. Chair and Members of the Planning Commission, we're here today on a <br />remand from the County Council. When we appeared before the County Council and taking into <br />account the testimony that was previously presented to the Planning Commission, we had <br />presented some conditions to the County Council for, to be considered with this application. <br />Since the matter went forth with an unfavorable recommendation, there were no conditions <br />attached to the rezoning ordinance at the time, and the County Council felt that they wanted to <br />give the Planning Commission an opportunity to weigh in on these conditions before taking any <br />action on it, and that's why they're, I guess, back here before you. <br />With respect to, I guess, the presentation by the Department, you know, yes, there is currently a <br />planning [sic], planting screen easement across the boundary between the subject parcel and the <br />medical center parcel. The primary purpose for that was to prevent access onto Punahele. The <br />origin of this parcel really was when we had first gone in to seek rezoning of the medical center <br />parcel, the County had recommended that we create a driveway to go through the parcel and go <br />out to Punahele and that's why this parcel was acquired at the time. Through the rezoning <br />process, there were objections by the neighbors, and so the driveway was abandoned at that point <br />in time, and it's kind of sat ever since. <br />The parcel has, I guess, still remained there and due to the increased use of the medical center, <br />you know, parking has now become a problem up there. You know, I don't think anybody <br />anticipated the amount of use that it would get, but with the surgery center being I guess very <br />efficient in their operation now, the women's imaging center, there's much greater use of the <br />center then was originally anticipated, and that is the reason for the—for the request for the <br />parking now. <br />As to the issue of contract zoning, yeah, I would agree that in general property owners should be <br />given as many of the rights as possible to use their property, and that's kind of a general tenet of <br />land use operation. In this case, I don't know that contract zoning should become an issue <br />because contract zoning is an issue for the landowner to bring up, but in this case, we're the ones <br />proposing the—the conditions upon the land, so it's not a situation where you typically have in <br />contract zoning which Maija was talking about where the County or the Planning Commission <br />would be the ones limiting the amount of use or limiting the uses by imposing conditions upon <br />the zoning. You know, we will give you the zoning with these conditions. Ifif we weren't in <br />agreement with this, then I think you have a true contract zoning situation, but in this case, <br />we're—we as the applicants are proposing it. We would be hard pressed to file any type of <br />action saying that the County can't do this to us because I think the County's answer would be <br />you're the one that asked for it. We didn't impose it upon you. So, you know, it's there, but I <br />think it's wrongly applied in this case. <br />As to Conditions F and G, those were also proposals that we proposed to try and alleviate the <br />concerns by the surrounding neighbors. It has always been our intention to use the lot only for <br />4 <br />EXHIBIT F <br />