2007-12-07 TIIDA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

whole question about like precedent. You know, and I don’t necessarily believe that, you know, because if approve one area or one parcel then you’re legally obligated to approve all of the other properties. Because if you take that notion, then if you have a Resort zoned property along the Bayfront or whatever have you, then it stands to reason that the whole island is going to be one zone, I mean, if you take the precedent notion. I think that decision makers like yourselves or the Council, you know, were given this responsibility to think independently and look at the facts, and then kind of make a decision accordingly. The other thing is like from a planning perspective, you know, not withstanding the so-called precedent issue is that, you know, the whole concept of zoning that we have on this island is predicated on a segregation of land uses. That’s why you have like commercial uses here, you have industrial uses and residential uses, and, you know, you can’t have that co-mingling. And in regards to that, it also was predicated upon the automobile. You know, you had to drive every place to get to that -. Today on the other hand we’re kind of like almost philosophically becoming more like full circle. And to say like, you know, the days that we used to have like plantation communities where people could walk to commercial areas or walk to your parks, so on and so forth, you know, creating walkable communities, that’s, you know, the kind of trend that we’re trying to get back on, you know, not the trend towards having everything become like a Los Angeles type, very automobile dominated. And if you look at the way the City of Hilo has grown, we’ve become very automobile dominated. And so my personal philosophy is that, well, I think that having -. You know., like the General Plan is correct, we should allow consideration for some type of commercial uses within a residential area; but if we do, we’ve got to be mindful about what the impact it has on the neighbors. And if you can provide appropriate mitigation, then I think you’ve got the problem solved. You create walkable communities. And I think this is, to me, the kind of, what his request is really all about. Tied in with that that’s why it goes back -. I appreciate what Commissioner Domingo is saying that, you know, give the developer, give the applicant the maximum land use flexibility. But if you’re trying to really foster walkable communities, being mindful of an area that’s in transition, then maybe you ought to have a condition like this. And so that’s why we’re saying that, you know, this is a condition that it’s as represented by the applicant. The applicant wants to, he’s saying that believe me, trust me. And so we’re not saying that just put it unilaterally, we want it. ALAMEDA: Okay. Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: On that note, then wouldn’t it make sense to complete the frontage requirements, improvements, so that it would be more walkable and that people from the neighborhood could walk, you know, safer to the salon. FUKE: I agree with you. The only problem, however, becomes one of financing because they’re just starting off right now. And so if you tear down a building and -. You know, from a financing perspective you want to take out a loan. So when you take out a loan then you’d be able to roll in the cost of $100,000 to $150,000 of curb, gutter, sidewalk improvements fronting it. But if on the other hand all you’re going to do is just kind of do some interior renovation, you know, to the property then it’s not going to cost you that much. So that’s why, you know, the condition which was considered for the other application, something along that line, is really workable; but it’s still restricted to personal services type. So at some point in time, you know, if, I hope that her business becomes successful if the project is approved, you EXHIBIT B 12