Laserfiche WebLink
Communication 362 <br /> Bill 123 <br /> Page 10 of 13 <br /> the original 48 units, and we wanted to preserve the area for the road, we'd have to buy the road <br /> portion from the Applicant. Do we give up completely at this point and, if we do, it doesn't make <br /> a difference. <br /> Council Member Safarik stated if the County is serious about preserving road corridors, we <br /> should go through condemnation, take the two properties and build a regular road. Director <br /> Yuen responded the County would have to pay fair market value for the entire parcel when the <br /> only public importance would be a road and nothing more. The property is not high on the <br /> acquisition list and would be very expensive. Council Member Safarik stated from a shart term <br /> perspective, this project, situated somewhere else would be a righteous project. When looking at <br /> overall property and traffic densities, we're trying to put a round thing in a square hole. There is <br /> no affordable housing. The project will be a "trophy project" which means the average person <br /> cannot afford to live there. Based on his colleagues concern and more importantly community <br /> concerns, issues such as concurrency and admittedly traffic problems, he has major concerns <br /> about this proposal. <br /> Council Member Ikeda stated he would not be in support if all Applicant is offering the County is <br /> a portion of land for a road and nothing else. He could support the project if Applicant <br /> contributes money to build the road. Ms. Song stated the road is not all the Applicant is offering, <br /> they are also willing to construct a 12" water line 1,200 feet along Ali`i Drive. Ms. Nee stated <br /> she couldn't consider Mr. Ikeda's proposal without a dollar number. Council Member Ikeda <br /> stated cost to construct a 500-foot road could be obtained from Public Works by the next Council <br /> meeting. If Applicant's contribution could be made up front and placed into a fund for use at the <br /> time the land for the road becomes available, at least there will be some money to do the road and <br /> then he could support the project. However, at this point it looks like Applicant is getting <br /> something for nothing. <br /> Committee Vice Chair Hoffmann noted that the 1,200-foot water line was predicated on 67 units <br /> not 48, however, even if Applicant goes back to 48 units they are still willing to construct water <br /> line. <br /> Council Member Fred Holschuh stated Council Member Ikeda's idea is reasonable and Applicant <br /> would still give the land. He asked Director Yuen if allowing the project at 67 units plus <br /> condemnation proceedings, would that get the road built. Director Yuen responded it's <br /> reasonable to ask for dedication ofright-of--way in conjunction with zone approval. The <br /> Department is not making project by project negotiations to get the maximum he can possibly get <br /> far public benefit. He's just trying to treat all Applicants fairly. He stated this connector road is <br /> one of the projects that was part of bond float a year or so ago and that there's a million or <br /> million and a half dollars for it. They just have not been able to get it going. Part of the strategy <br /> <br /> was to get the right-of--way dedicated for free and use the remainder of the funds to acquire the <br /> KSBE property. The road itself makes KSBE's property more valuable as a commercial site. <br /> Stated he made a deal for the road and 67 units with dedication of a road reserve and is sticking <br /> <br /> to that. He noted the only thing Applicant is getting out of this is a small 13,000 square foot <br /> PC REPORT NO. 54 <br /> <br />