2020-11-05 Exh A Ikaika Ohana (Amend REZ 09-103)

Home

I'll just go over a little bit about the favorable with modifications, the unfavorable, and the Director's proposed amendment for the parking here. First, is the favorable recommendation with modifications to Condition P and Condition R. Ultimately the Director is not supporting the requested deletion of these conditions. But in order to support the proposed affordable housing project which we do, the Director is recommending relief from fair share and impact fee requirements should the project be developed as represented by the Applicant and that's this affordable housing project with rents between 30 and 60 percent of the area median income. Just to be clear, although, the Applicant is proposing this at this point the RM zoning would allow any development that would be permitted in the zoning district. So, should for whatever reason the projects fall through we wanted to retain our standard conditions just to cover that eventuality as well. Pardon me. The unfavorable recommendation for Condition J and this is the requirement to install streetlights and traffic control devices. The Applicant was initially concerned that having this requirement be in place could add significant price increase on their project. There was some misunderstanding I think that streetlights meant like signalized traffic signals, where in this case it's just streetlights for lumination and had other concerns about the cost of traffic control devices. So, they asked for the ability to delete that condition. We did hear back from DPW on this and ultimately what DPW said is at this point those determinations are made once they get a set of construction plans to review against County Code to ensure public safety. So, even though we put this as a standard condition in most of our rezoning ordinances even if we were to delete this condition other sections of County Code would require that review and possible installation or possible requirement to install these traffic control devices in the like. Traffic control devices could be from striping to stop signs or those types of things. So, ultimately based on all of this, the Director is not supporting the deletion of that conditions. Finally, this got a little bit involved the Director is proposing an amendment to Condition E related to additional parking requirement. As we stated before the Applicant originally requested deletion of that language which ultimately said that the Applicant would be required to develop additional parking spaces up to a maximum of 60% of the required spaces for the total residential units to be built with the proposed development. That condition language was added by the County Council at the time of the original ordinance in response to the Police Department and neighbor concerns over the possible shortage of on-site parking for the then proposed 100-unit project. The Police Department also commented on the current request, this amendment request with the same concerns that the eighty (80)parking spaces that will be required. Our Zoning Code requires one and a quarter(1.25)parking spaces for each dwelling unit in the RM zoning designation. The Police then and now are concerned that it will be insufficient, and it may negatively impact their operations. Their concern is because there is not sufficient on-street parking available in the area. If there was a shortage of parking on the project site, then residents or guests may come and park in the Police Department Headquarters parking lots across the street. The Applicant in their initial application an initial site plan proposed a hundred and seventeen (117) spaces which would have worked out to approximately forty-five (45)percent of the required parking spaces. At 45% additional spaces of the required but they subsequently updated this site plan to remove reference to that specific number and in response to the Police Department's comments EXHIBIT A 4