COM 0018.001 2020-2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

looking at other affordable housing projects in the County of Hawaii. The parking ratio that we actually see today like in our properties and around the County it's about one to one. Some of that might be economically driven, some of it might be socially driven, where they prefer just taking mass transit or riding a bike. Whatever the conditions may be the adverse is one to one. So, as a County's threshold having 1.25 as a site requirement that just seems to make sense. You are not going to go too low where you are going to harm your residents for not providing sufficient parking but also you are not going to high where I'm over parking my site at the very real cost of open -space and community center and the opportunities forbids to play on the site. And so, for our balancing effectively at 116 stalls I think the ratio iso gN1round 1.8 which is the recommended minimum. That becomes problematic because what=happens if I have to go to a hundred and fifteen (115). So, we mentioned traffic controls deCes=vhat was the spacing again needs to be increased coming off the street. I might lose another couple -m -parking stalls and in that case if I have the zoning ordinance requiring 1.8 then-- of ire proj6ffl§_now in jeopardy. So, I lose the ability to go to a hundred and fourteen (04) stalls or a hundreZMd thirteen (113) stalls. For our standpoint, we do want to provide sufficient parking ^for theWresidents, for guests, and reality, we think that that number to provide parking for residents plus additional units is probably somewhere between 1.25 and 15_ But. again, establishing a fora at 1.8 it really ties our hands and makes it much more difficult v he if we had these continuing conversations with the rest of the County department that should sorriehg-change I'm very -restrictive on what I can do and respond. All of our financing is tied to the produc &W 64 units. I don't have the opportunity of going to sixty-three (63) and somehow redue ng that side of it and it also just seems contrary to the County=s_go_als of providing -affordable=;housing. So, in general the parkrig_we ha and we do have a degree Wo onf continue our discussions witl_th affordable hour and the antic. immediat6"concerns requirements. RAFFIPIY- =;Thank you a look at itu e_do prefer the range of results approach ;hat as wegTthrough Plan Approval we will be able to - Department. And show that the existing uses for uses for parking on site it should be able to address our ting, onsite and satisfy the County that we met their Any other questions from the Commission? AU: Chair Raffib%Uhave a -Juestion. RAFFIPIY: Go AU: So, Mr. Rock just want to clarify your original proposal for Condition E was for 1.25 stalls is that correct? ROCK: Right, I believe the original proposal is to set the minimum and that's the County Code 1.25 stalls per unit and our intent is to do more than that. EXHIBIT A (DRAFT) 18