2019-02-07 Hearing Transcript - Wailani Development Amend REZ 10-117

Home

So, getting to the staff's recommendation, the Applicant requested ten basically amendments. Of these, the Director favorably recommended seven, and we thank you very much, unfavorably recommended three and proposed seven amendments of its own. So, from the Applicant's standpoint, of course, you know, they accept the seven favorable recommendation, the Director's seven proposed amendments even, you know like we don't want to, the developer doesn't wanted to be in between that question about should there be connection with the surrounding neighborhood streets or not. I mean, they're proposing it. If they want to stand up and say and stand the jerk, then the developer is saying that's fine. You know, we're not quibbling with that, but it ultimately has to be the Commission and the Council decision on that. And, of the three that is recommending denial, the Applicant is saying, okay, fine, we'll accept, you know, the idea about the Director's recommending denial on the condition to say no additional access aside from whatever you already have. The reason why the Applicant had proposed that was merely more from a planning perspective. It was to give the Public Works or the County the opportunity to allow for additional access points in the event you find, or the government finds, that there is a need to relieve congestion at the Mohouli-Komohana or the Mohouli-Ponahawai Street Extension, and the example that I had used, you know, to the staff was, you know, look at KTA and the Puainako Street. You know, for the longest time, the State Highways had refused to allow another access to the KTA Shopping Complex. At some point in time, I guess somebody saw the light and said like we should allow at least a right -in, right -out to relieve congestion at the Volcano Highway and Puainako Street intersection. So, that was the genesis behind that thought. The staff is saying that based on Public Works recommendation, we don't want it anyway, so the Applicant is saying, that's fine, you know, we can accept that. The other condition that the staff is recommending is that all roads within the project be built with curb, gutters, and sidewalk. Whether it's for the commercial area or the residential area, what the Applicant is saying is that for the commercial area, that's fine, you know, we can understand the need for curb, gutter, sidewalk. However, when you come into the residential component, let the existing Subdivision Code prevail. So, the Subdivision Code right now allows for private streets in situations where you have six or less lots. The right-of-way would be like a maximum of 20 feet. The Subdivision Code also says that, you know, all other streets if you have lots that are more than six, then you have to have like a County dedicable standard roadway. That's a 50 -foot wide right-of-way with a 20 -foot pavement, paved swales. It's the developer's option of whether he wants to dedicate that to the County or not, but those are all outlined in the Subdivision Code. So, we're saying that let the Subdivision Code prevail. Sure, it may be as the staff had indicated at some point in time, we should have curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, you know, in all subdivisions, but let that be addressed separately through the Subdivision Code revision process. And, whatever is the Code—if the Code is amended to say whether you're a 6 -lot or 600 -lot subdivision, you shall have curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, and if that project hasn't been developed, they will have to comply. So, that's all we're saying. Let the Subdivision Code prevail, and that's the request. EXHIBIT B 13