REP PC 055 02/28/2006 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Communication 679 Bill 219 Page 4 of 5 With regard to parking Mr. Fuke responded that perhaps the County and Planning Commission should take a close look at parking requirements within the zoning code. Mr. Fuke stated that from a commercial developer perspective, it behooves the developer to provide more parking than what the zoning code stipulates because to the extent you do not provide more than adequate parking, you lose out on potential business. He stated that Council Member Jacobson raised a very good point with regard to no adequate parking. Currently, the ratio is one stall for every 300 square feet and if you try to just satisfy minimum parking requirements, in the end you may lose out. One solution may be to amend the code with respect to number of required parking stalls for various commercial establishments if a developer does not elect to provide more than the required parking. Council Chair Higa is aware of parking situation noted by Council Member Jacobson. The area is in his district and agrees that if there's going to be restaurants in the area then there has to be more parking. Mr. Fuke stated Applicant is the owner of a flower business, however she will not operate her business out of this commercial area. Council Chair Higa stated he realizes the area is more commercial in nature, the houses there are getting older and no new homes are being built in the area. He supports office spaces in the area and tends to favor the project. Council Vice Chair Virginia Isbell stated it's become impossible now to live anywhere near where one works and feels the need to look at "mixed" uses. She noted some cities on the mainland are going back to mixed area zonings that allow people to live and work in the same place and that's been very successful. She felt as long as there's good parking this project should work out and she can support this. Committee Vice Chair Pete Hoffmann stated, as he's said before, there is more than enough commercial space in Hilo and we don't need more. However, because he did not see an overwhelming amount of opposition to the project and the fact that the Council Member of that district feels it's a good idea, his vote will be lost even if he votes no. He stated he doesn't see the purpose of this, but it's fine. Council Member Donald Ikeda inquired how Condition "C" relating to setbacks and RS-10 height limits came about. Mr. Fuke explained Ms. Black testimony before the Planning Commission was not so much complaints about Ms. Oshiro's project, but of her recollection about the construction of a massive 3-story office building adjoining Ms. Oshiro's property. Ms. Blacks concerns were obstruction of views, its enormous size, property setbacks and the fact that construction was taking place all hours of the day, every day ofthe week. Mr. Fuke stated in recognizing that Applicant's neighbor to the rear of her property is residential, in deference to that fact Ms. Oshiro agreed to Condition "C" and be bound to single family residential height limits and setbacks. Therefore, even though Ms. Oshiro would hold a CG zoning allowing buildings up to ten stories, she has agreed to residential requirements for height limit and property setbacks. Council Member Bob Jacobson would like to ban all left "in and out" turns because this is a very PC REPORT NO. 55