Laserfiche WebLink
started negotiations with the current Coconut Grove owner. He said that the volleyball court was not <br />currently maintained to a playable level, collecting things coming down from the upper parking lot. <br />He testified that there were problems on property around bars, but there had never been any incidents <br />involving the volleyball court. He opined, while recognizing the rights of the applicant, that security <br />should not be an issue, because the site had frontage on a busy street and the area was adequately lit <br />by a lot of torches and lights in the area. He concluded by saying that the two parties would need to <br />come to an agreement. In response to Commissioner Stanbro’s question, he said that he had testified <br />at the BLNR hearing on October 31. <br />Lastly, Dick Leander pointed out that the applicant’s representative had not directly answered some <br />of the questions from the Commission. He demonstrated his opposition saying that if his young <br />children asked why they could not go in the volleyball sand court, he would tell them that is because <br />some adults had put up the fence. <br />The Vice Chair asked the staff whether there were any parking requirements for the volleyball court. <br />Mr. Childs said that the proposed project did not trigger a review of parking requirements by the <br />Department; however, if any new activities were proposed, that would have to be addressed then. <br />Mr. Anderson was called back up by the Commission. In response to Commissioner Saito’s <br />questions, Mr. Anderson stated that the applicant was not going to fence along Ali‘i Drive, because <br />his intention was to keep the area open to the public and he was more concerned about the rock wall <br />area in the back. He also stated that having a fence along the walkway so as not to block off the path <br />would not serve the purpose, because the applicant’s liability starts where the property line is. Also <br />in response to Commissioner Saito’s suggestion on possibly matching the design with an existing <br />railing nearby, he said that since the fence would be up only for six months, the applicant wished to <br />keep the cost down. Commissioner Stanbro inquired what the applicant’s plan for the parcel after six <br />months was. Mr. Anderson stated that the applicant’s goal was to keep it a passive park, if feasible, <br />although he wanted to review other development options during the six months. Commissioner <br />Stanbro said that she couldn’t understand the need for a chain-link fence for six months, as there <br />seemed to be other solutions, such as solar lights, that could address the safety concern for even a <br />longer period. Mr. Anderson responded that the six months would basically be for the applicant to <br />try to work with his neighbor to find a solution, so that hopefully he could keep the area as a passive <br />park. Commissioner Dunlap asked whether people falling off the rock wall would still be an issue <br />after six months. Mr. Anderson responded that it would not be, once the applicant was able to secure <br />a meter and light the volleyball court at night, and mentioned that it had never become an issue for <br />eleven years while the area had been well lit. He also stated, in response to Commissioner Saito’s <br />inquiry, that there was necessary infrastructure in place in the area for electricity. Commissioner <br />Saito commented that even though he understood the applicant’s concern over trespassing, the <br />proposal would not fully address that since the front of the property would still be open for people to <br />come in, and that based on the information provided so far, it seemed to him that there was a bigger <br />picture that the Commission was not responsible for. Mr. Anderson agreed that it was a multi-facet <br />issue, and said that he wished the Coconut Grove tenants would give their input to their landlord as <br />well. Commissioner Saito further commented that he would not recommend a chain-link fence, and <br />that he would like to see a compromise where the walkway would remain unblocked while still <br />mitigating the risk of the rock wall. Commissioner Stanbro also suggested that if a fence were <br />necessary, it be put up on the makai side of the walkway. Mr. Anderson reiterated that the applicant <br />wanted to protect the entire property, questioning why the neighbor should be allowed to use <br />someone else’s property. Commissioner Au Hoy asked whether the applicant had been consulted <br />when the walkway was constructed in the current location. Mr. Anderson said that he himself had the <br />walkway put in eleven years ago, but things were different now so they wanted to block it. He <br />4 <br /> <br />