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

Home

Communication 953 Bill 305 Page 7 of S on an individual basis, not through calling a meeting and inviting neighbors to participate. Mr. Fuke explained that the issue was density and infrastructtue and that a project this size would require applicant to obtain insurance in an amount close to a million dollars. Therefore, applicant's new proposal is to reduce the number of units by one and therefore compromise discussions between residents and applicant failed. Mr. Fuke is now looking to the council to decide on applicant's revised proposal. Mr. Fuke gave background details of a prior change of zone involving Dr. Ching who lives on the block. Mr. Fuke said Dr. Ching's zone change required that he construct curb, gutter and sidewalks fronting his property which, to date, has not been done. Mr. Fuke said that applicant is hopeful that if Dc Ching completes his portion of the improvements and Mr. Mochida agreeing to improve the remainder, this would complete infrastructure improvement for a full block. Mr. Fuke said the new proposal limits the number of units to 24, provides two parking stalls per unit and requires improvement to the entire length of Laukapu Street (extending improvements from Dr. Ching's property to Council Chair Higa's property.) Mr. Fuke stated that an additional five feet along the road right of way is also required and, if improvements extend the entire length of Laukapu, Mr. Higa and other affected landowners would have to agree to give up five feet of their property to allow these improvements to be made. Should other landowners refuse to give up five feet of their property, then proposed improvements along the entire length of Laukapu Street would have to be made within the existing road right-of--way. Council Vice Chair Isbell stated she sees an attempt being made to put infrastructure in place and noted this would set the parameter for any future development in the area. Mr. Yuen stated it would in fact set a standard for the area and also be an improvement. He therefore remains in favor of the project. Mr. Nekoba stated that regardless of the sidewalk, curb and gutter improvements, there still remain impacts as a result of increased density. Council member Safarik noted that the Planning Commission did not support the Director's rationale for recommending approval Mr. Yuen stated his support is primarily to increase housing opportunities in Hilo. He said people will agree that more multi-family units aze needed, but tend to disagree where it should be built. He concluded there has always been hesitancy about this kind of a project when it's being proposed to neighborhoods such as this for the first time. Council Chair Higa stated he views Mc Mochida's new proposal as a template for the entire area and should the proposal succeed, he would need to declare a financial interest as this project impacts him directly. Mr. Higa stated he needs to study the situation more closely. Council Member Jacobson noted there were 69 petitioners who opposed this proposal and that approving the application is somewhat of an insult to the people who chose to live in this area and therefore will again vote against proposal. Committee Vice Chair Hoffmann noted that at the Planning Commission level strong community opposition was due to density issues and therefore the Commission decided not to accept the Director's recommendation. Mr. Hoffmann said that he was sorry no compromise was brokered and because of that suggested adding some kind of timeline for the improvements to be completed as outlined in Condition J. Mr. Fuke noted that the new proposal from Mr. Mochida was the result of unsuccessful compromise attempts with neighbors. Council Chair Higa stated he would like to see every street in his district have curbs, gutters and sidewalks and will be voting kanalua "no" at the present time until he gets more information and reserved PC Report No. 119