REP PC 054 02/14/2006 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Communication 362 Bill 123 Page S of 13 acquired. Proposal is not reassuring. Although sincere, given that Applicant doesn't control 213rds of the land it makes it very difficult for Applicant to carry it through. Wonders whether Applicant is committed to carry through and build the project and not turn around and sell it to somebody else. Council Vice Chair Virginia Isbell stated she has real difficulty and is certain she's not going to support this. She stated Applicant's working with KSBE would most likely be very difficult In response to Council Member lsbell's inquiry regarding graves located on the subject property, Ms. Song responded that an extensive archaeological survey found no evidence of graves on the property. Council Vice Chair Isbell stated her major concern is that congestion in the area is very bad and the proposed road may not come in for years. It is very difficult to base her decision on working with Kamehameha Schools. At 48 units, the number of cars would be doubled and with the commercial aspect, more cars and more congestion. She cannot support the proposal especially if a mauka/makai road will not be built. Council Chair Higa inquired if under the current zoning of the adjoining KSBE property what would the County get should KPC go ahead with its application "as is?" Planning Director Yuen stated zoning of the KSBE property is RM-1 similar to what Applicants can do on their property. KSBE had an SMA permit that expired, and would need to apply for a new one. Director Yuen stated he did meet with KSBE and if KPC's application is approved will try to work with KSBE for the road easement, but the County would have to pay for it. He stated under the 1960 zoning there is no affordable housing requirement. if KPC's request for 67 units was approved, affordable housing would apply, but only to the number of units over the original 48. Applicant stated the way things are now, she has no control over the road. Initially KSBE seemed very interested in working with them, but now they are working on something else. At this time Applicant has no power to build a road. If KSBE was at the table today and Applicant had the 67 units, they would be looking at the road remnant on their property. Council Member Hoffman clarified with Director Yuen the application doesn't have any affordable housing because it was done a number of years ago. Director Yuen stated that they have only been applying affordable housing and fair share to the increase in the number of residential units. The draft Ordinance does provide fair share and affordable housing but only for the 19 additional units. If Applicant sticks to original 48 units, no fair share or affordable housing applies. The only thing Applicant is getting out of this is the ability to put some commercial square footage into the project. Committee Chair Pilago stated he sympathized with Applicant in working with KSBE however would not give that possibility or that option any credence because he doesn't think KSBE will help with the road at all. Chair Pilago is very uncomfortable that the County is being saddled with having to build the road. Gives the appearance the County has to build the road for Applicant and Applicant would allow the land. Applicant stated if they could build the road they would, but they can't. Right now Applicant is setting aside the dedication for the road so that in the future their building wouldn't be in the middle of the road and the County could move forward. They're PC REPORT NO. 54