COM 0798.001 2018-2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The current zoning for the property is Multiple-Family Residential with a mimusee m building site of 1,500 square feet. That's shown in the darker brown color. And then you incanthe surrounding community to the south and to the west is Sinle-Familyntesidential - 7,500 square feet, which is shown in the yellow color. There is also Dougble-Residal density that is in the lighter brown color to the east, as well as Multiple-Family Residential - 1,000 square feet where the police station is located. The General Plan designation for the property is Medium Density Urban, which is shown in the orange, and then east of Kapi'olani Street is High Density Urban-1 as rezoned twice from its original zoning of Single-Family Residential - The subject property W Vincent Tai. In 2010, it wasrezonedI I from RS-7.5 to RM-2.5, and 7.5 by the current landowner, - 11--with Ordinance 14-05 6. then in 2014 it was rezoned again from RM-2.5 to RM Ordinance 14-056 states, "Should any of the conditions not be met,or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Planning Director may initiate zoning of the area to its original or more appropriate designa ion. So, there are two reasons the Director is initiating procedures to rezone thepropeThat condition . The first reason is that the landowner is not complying with Coiiditionl of the ordmance states, "The applicant shall comply With all-applicable C40fify, State and Federal laws,rules, the landowner has,not complied with Chapter 20 regulations and requirements." Specifically, -unsafe flora. The second reason for initiating Article 2 of the Hawaii County Code related to sale and does not intend rezoning of the property is that the landowner has the-property ral o develop the property-with the multiple-family resid6ntiunits asepresented to the County -th property Was_previously rezoned in 2010 and 2015. Council and the commission whene I'll o through a few-slides and talk about the first reason, compliance with Condition R, and So, g development on the pnsafe acWi ides after Wilthen the fol10 09 sl that I discuss the lacCondition RJhe Department,of Public Works has issued two flora of comp4apee With-- 117 on June 2 I't of last year, and then one was violation letters to the landowner. One was issued on the property -2s� of this!Y These letters indicated that trees recently issued on January - quired thatStateey be to 6411 neighboring propertes, anPW re pose an imminent danger awai'itherti certified d. The eletters said that in-lieu of tree removali , a letterd from a H remove arborist could be provided, stating that the trees are deemed safe and healthy. nt and Rsk uctio On January 7th of 2020, the I I andowner provided a Tree Risk Assessor e subject tns o the Assessment Report by a ce, . d arbonst. The report evaluated the trees that wereiRed -On February 4th, that was just a few days ago, the arborist submitted June 2 Is'unsafe flora letter. ruary 4h letter a letter indicating that if their recommendations of the assessment and the Feb , perties. The from the arborist are implemented,that would negate any hazards to neighboring pro- report and the February 4th letter recommended trimming the branches of trees 0, 1,1.and And the 3 through 6, and then removing several trees, tree 2, 7 and 5 1, I'm sorry, 7 through 5 Department of Public Works went through on the property and tagged ndrnumbered all of the sometime in December. They also, the at also recommended trees. I believe that occurred removing roots that were encroaching onto neighboring properties as well as providing on-going annual maintenance. DRAFT 2