REP PC 119 07/31/2006 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Communicalion 953 Bi11305 Page 3 of 8 • Requisite of the Planning Director's favorable recommendation for the Change of Zone request, aze twenty-one (21) conditions contained in Bill No. 305 that outline specific requirements for the proposed project. At the July 31, 2006 Planning Committee meeting there were four persons who presented testimony in opposition to the proposed project. Lloyd Nekoba, stated there is no affordable housing element for this project since the parcel that the affordable units were to be built on was taken out of the application. Ms. Keoni Heraldi's opposition was due to current road conditions, major accidents that have occurred in the azea and cars speeding throughout the day and night. Mrs. Victoria Abe's opposition was primarily because of lack of infrastructure in a houselot community of this size, and that the project does not provide adequate open space for yards or parks. Mrs. Abe said if an Improvement District process meant it would cost the community money to correct the current lack of adequate infrastructure, then she wants the area left the way it is. Mrs. Miriazn Hamakawa presented opposition testimony on behalf of herself and three sisters. She stated Waiakea Houselots is an old subdivision created before rules were in place to address flooding roads and parking. She requests denial of applicant's request, however, if the Council should approve the rezoning, she believes the applicant should have to provide on-site drainage for 20- year storm and pave all shoulders. She also stated the 10-year storm limit should be increased to a 20- year limit. Council Member Arakaki asked Planning Consultant Fuke if applicant would prefer to postpone this matter for a while, talk to the community again and re-configure the project. Applicant, Ivan Mochida stated that due to construction deadlines and availability of supplies, etc. he would prefer the council move forward with his application. Mr. Arakaki stated that if at some point during the discussion Mr. Mochida decides he wants a postponement, Mr. Arakaki would make the request. Applicant's planning consultant Sidney Fuke stated that applicant's decision for the proposed project was made about two years ago after determining what could be done in the azea pursuant to the General Plan designation of medium density. Mr. Fuke said that azound 1991/1992 portions of area were redesignated into low density however, in 1997/1998 the General Plan changed the area back to a Medium Density designation upon which Mr. Mochida relied upon in making his decision for the proposed project. Mr. Fuke stated that even without the change of zone, Mr. Mochida could still subdivide his property into a b- lot residential subdivision with `Ghana dwellings on each lot. With respect to the traffic concerns, Mr. Mochida stated that all traffic from his project will occur inside the development not on the streets. Mr. Mochida said that although he is allowed to build 40 units, he did reduce the number of units to 25 units and designed the project to look like a mansion (split into six units) unlike a condo project and provides six entry and exit points to the project. With regard to flooding, Mr. Mochida said water is not going to the Mrs. Abe's side of the street, just on one side of Laukapu Street and that he will perform a massive drainage assessment to keep water "on-site". Committee Chair Pilago noted extraordinary testimony from neighbors in the community and recognizes qualifying strong values of both sides. Mr. Nekoba, stated he lives across the street from the proposed project and that Laukapu Street is a narrow street only 20-feet in width and, regazdless that curbing and sidewalks are required, it's only for the area fronting the project, and the rest remains unimproved. He said although it's a well designed project, there is no playground or recreational component to the project. Additionally, he reiterates that the affordable housing element has been removed and explained that a mortgage based on the proposed unit sale price of $400,000 would require a mortgage payment of approximately $2,500 per month. In response to Committee Chair Pilago's question whether they were PC Report No. 119