Laserfiche WebLink
YUEN:We recognize that the properties could be developed as separate <br />TMKs. But we try to make the whole area, including the Kitagawa property, work <br />together and in coordination as much as possible. <br />FUJIKAWA:So, in other words, we still have to consider that as two separate <br />TMKs, not as one whole project, if according to the County they are separate TMKs. <br />Right? <br />YUEN:They are two separate TMKs for residential use, you can put two <br />houses on it. But it's being applied for rezoning, both lots are coming in together for <br />rezoning. <br />FUJIKAWA:So this firewall is still, the property line is still considered the <br />firewall? <br />YUEN:If they developed back to back buildings, there would have to be a <br />firewall. <br />FUJIKAWA:Which is -. <br />YUEN:Between the two. <br />FUJIKAWA:Right. <br />YUEN:While as long as these are separate TMKs. <br />FUJIKAWA:Okay. So -. Okay. <br />KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman? <br />GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota. <br />KUBOTA:In answer to Mr., Earl's, Fujikawa's query, the Background Report <br />clearly states that the Applicant has no intention of consolidating the two lots. <br />GALDONES:Thank you, Mrs. Kubota. Mr. Yuen, in light of the Appl <br />request, taking into consideration the Department's position, is there a way you feel that <br />the Department might be able to mitigate their concerns? <br />YUEN:Yes. We, what we've agreed to is that there be one access <br />Laukapu Street but it be, there be consolidated access between, that would be located at <br />the boundary between Lots 37 and 38 so that there would be one access, but, one access <br />point. But it, the lots could be developed separately with that access. <br />GALDONES:Mr. Fuke, would that be acceptable to the Applicant? <br />17 <br /> <br />