REP PC 055 02/28/2006 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Communication 679 Bill 219 Page 3 of 5 existing businesses to expand and diversify. • The approval of the Change of Zone Request will not be violative of Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes. The property is not situated within the Special Management Area and is located approximately three (3) miles from the nearest coastline and outside of the tsunami inundation area. • It is not anticipated that endangered or threatened species of flora or fauna are located within the subject properties, and the area has not been identified as a significant botanical or biological habitat. The property and surrounding areas have been extensively developed with residential and commercial uses and therefore, protection of traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights in the area does not apply. • Parcels number 30 and 33 are classified as Zone "X" (areas determined to be outside the 500-year flood plain.) The eastern portion of parcel number 32 is located within Flood Zone AE, as designated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). A condition of approval will require that Applicant conform to Chapter 27, Flood Control, of the Hawaii County Code, for any construction activity within the flood zone. 6. Requisite of the Planning Director's favorable recommendation for the Change of Zone request are approximately seventeen conditions contained in Bill No. 219 that outline specific requirements for the proposed project. At the February 28, 2006 Planning Committee meeting, no public testimony was received, however, Applicant's representative, Sidney Fuke, was present and available to answer questions. Council Member Holschuh states his support based upon Planning Commissioner Graham's statements that this request conforms to the General Plan and also to adjoining uses. He stated Mr. Graham is a very environmentally responsible person who he has known for many years, and therefore supports his opinion that the request should go forward. Mr. Fuke, representing Applicant stated although objections were raised at the Planning Commission hearings by a neighbor and her father who live away from the subject property, nevertheless their concerns resulted in a number of mitigative conditions that were subsequently accepted by the Planning Commission. Mitigation measures relate to time of construction, building height and property setbacks. Council Member Jacobson stated he was not really excited working with this, having watched the area evolve over the past two years with nice places across the street for lunches, but no adequate parking. The proof is on the ground there is not enough parking and that this mixed use area will not be mixed use for too long. Stated area will become more urban and we will lose a nice neighborhood so, will not be supporting this. PC REPORT NO. 55