Laserfiche WebLink
HENKEL: Mr. Ikeda? <br />IKEDA: If I'm not mistaken, on the Iida property, didn't we deny the—we didn't approve it <br />because of that one particular condition, and I believe the Director had put in the reason why we <br />denied the, the rezone. <br />KAY: Is that correct? Yeah? I believe this was yours? <br />JACKSON: Yeah, when the Commission heard the Iida rezone, the Director and the <br />Commission recommended an unfavorable recommendation, and then it went up to Council and <br />there was some discussion of just modifying the condition to do some type of pro rata <br />arrangement, and the Department worked with Council on fine tuning the language so that Public <br />Works, Planning, and Council all agreed on this common language. <br />In this particular case, Public Works didn't suggest that language. They didn't suggest using a <br />pro rata share. They wanted—they recommended the improvements be in place prior to any <br />commercial use on the property which has been consistent with past practice of Public Works <br />and Planning for several years until the Iida situation. <br />CLARKSON: Well, but the just the next previous case, the first parcel we talked about today, <br />had simply a road widening strip subdivided and dedicated but with no requirements for <br />improvements to be made. <br />JACKSON: That's correct. So, for that case, that was similar to the Iida case, and the reason <br />Public Works made that recommendation is because the right-of-way along Pahoa Village Road <br />is very irregular and there's several encroachments and it's already a somewhat mish-mash <br />situation for pedestrians. So, Public Works felt like it would be better not to widen and create <br />more, you know, block widened areas with sidewalks and to do a comprehensive sidewalk <br />improvement project it wants and then use that opportunity to determine the right-of-way that's <br />needed. <br />So, we just <br />CLARKSON: —Well, my question would be, wouldn't that same reasoning exactly apply to <br />this case? Here, we're gonna have a roadway with the pedestrian walkway suddenly move to the <br />right, well, depending on which direction you're going, move ten feet one way, go one block, <br />and then move ten feet the other way, creating as you said a mish-mash of road widths. <br />JACKSON: Yes, that is what would happen. So, as you suggested, an alternative would be to <br />use that pro rata language that we used in Mr. Ogasawara's rezone if the Commission would like <br />to do that or another thing that could be done if the Applicants are agreeable to this is for <br />Condition F [sic], instead of saying, "A ten foot wide future road widening strip... shall be <br />subdivided and dedicated, at no cost to the County, prior to [the] issuance of a Certificate of <br />6 <br />EXHIBIT C <br />