HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 1002.000 2006-2008
+tV Of
Harry Kim Dixie Kaetsu
Mayor Managing Director
Barbara Kossow
Deputy Managing Director
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street, Room 215 • Hilo, Hawai'i 96720-4252 • (808) 961,8211 Fax (808) 961-6553
KONA: 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 103 Kailua-Kona, Hawai'i 96740
(808) 329-5226 Fax (808) 326-5663
February 1, 2008
w
0
y
T
Q n rII
M,
Honorable Pete Hoffinann, Chairman _4 M
and Members of the County Council t
County ofHawai'i -o
3
333 Kilauea Avenue Z f 7t
Hilo, HI 96720
cn
N
Dear Chairman Hoffinann and Members:
Change of Zone Application (REZ 07-000073)
Applicant: Jin Soo and Ran Hui Iida
Request: RS-10 to CN-20
Tax Map Key: 2-2-40:121
As required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6-4.3(C), Hawai'i County Charter, transmitted herewith for the
County Council's consideration and action are the Planning Commission's letter and enclosures
regarding the above-referenced request.
Sincerely,
CJHa" rry Kim
Q Mayor
Enclosures
cc: Planning Department
a39 ~
Comm. No. 16c)
Ref. To- PC,
Ref. Date B 0 5 21108
rr or q
f
County of Hawaii
PLANNING COMMISSION
Aupuni Center r 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 r Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Phone(808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742
February 1, 2008
Pete Hoffinann, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawaii
333 Kilauea Avenue, 2nd Floor
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chairman Hoffmann and Council Members:
Change of Zone Application (REZ 07-000073)
Applicant: Jin Soo and Ran Hui Iida
Request: RS-10 to CN-20
Tax Map Key: 2-2-40:121
The Planning Commission, after a duly held public hearing on December 7, 2007, voted to
recommend for your approval the proposed legislative bill for a change of zone from a Single
Family Residential - 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to a Neighborhood Commercial - 20,000 square
feet (CN-20) zoned district for 23,559 square feet of land. The property is located along the west
side of Kilauea Avenue, approximately 420 feet south of the Kilauea Avenue-Puainako Street
intersection, Waiakea Homestead House Lots, South Hilo, Hawaii.
The Planning Director had recommended denial of the application. The Commission, however,
voted to send the County Council favorable consideration of the change of zone for the following
reasons:
The Commission always considers the Director's recommendations with all due
respect. Occasionally, the Commission, exercising its discretion as the community-based
board charged with advisory review of rezoning applications, finds itself making a
recommendation contrary to the Director's recommendation. This is one such case. The
Director recommends against the rezoning primarily based upon his perception of
inconsistency with the general plan. This perception arises largely from the fact that in the
General Plan LUPAG Map, the subject lot is in a Low Density Urban area. However, it is
Hawai `i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
Pete Hoffmann, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 2
right across Kilauea Avenue from a Medium and High Density Urban area. The Director
interprets Kilauea Avenue as a hard, impenetrable line between Low and Medium
Density Urban, sharply and immovably separating them on a lot-specific basis. In the
Director's view, if your lot is on one or the other side of the street, this largely determines
your rezoning potential, specifically lot by lot.
The Commission carefully considered the Director's recommendation, along with
the nature of the surrounding LUPAG map designations, the General Plan's policies and
objectives, and the trend of existing uses. The General Plan itself states plainly that the
LUPAG map is not intended to draw hard, lot-specific lines. It is only a general guide.
"The land use pattern is a broad, flexible design intended to guide the direction and
quality of future developments in a coordinated and rational manner. The General Plan
Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map indicates the general locations of
various land uses in relation to each other." (General Plan p. 14-7). Nowhere in the
General Plan is it mandated that streets that happen to be used as LUPAG district
boundaries are to be used as hard lot-specific zoning restrictions. The LUPAG map is
clearly a general guide, leaving the final zoning decision in the legislative discretion of
the Council.
This is especially important in this case. Here, the record reflects that the subject
property is right on the LUPAG Map boundary between Low and Medium designated
areas. Directly across the street is designated Medium Density. This lot could not be any
closer to Medium Density without actually being in it. It is just such lots on the margin
which should be eligible for legislative zoning discretion.
Such discretion should be applicable particularly where the proposed uses also fall
within the margin of permitted uses between designations. There is a considerable overlap
between the types of commercial uses allowable in both Low and Medium Density Urban
areas. Significantly, the General Plan provides that "neighborhood commercial" uses are
allowed in both Low and Medium Density Urban areas. The subject Low Density area
also allows for "convenience-type" commercial uses (General Plan p. 14-7). The GP
doesn't define "neighborhood" or "convenience" commercial uses. However, the Zoning
Code in "Neighborhood Commercial" ("CN") zones, allows "personal services"
including "beauty shops." (HCC 25-5-102(a)(27); 25-1-5). So the proposed beauty shop
is arguably within the general range of "neighborhood commercial" uses consistent with
Low or Medium Density LUPAG designation.
Ironically, the Planning Department noted that if a convenience store were being
requested, that may be allowable for a rezoning to CN-20. The volume of traffic and
Pete Hoffmann, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 3
variety of uses that might arise from a convenience store would seem to be of greater
impact and disruption to the neighborhood than the proposed small beauty shop.
Moreover, this area appears to be in the process of a natural expansion of small
urban commercial uses. Just north of the site (and surrounded by Low Density lots) are
Kai Store, a chiropractic office, and Macho Noodle Factory. Also nearby are the KTA and
Puainako Town Centers. There remain substantial residential areas adjacent, which are
well served by these incremental commercial additions. The testimony from the
community was entirely positive and supportive, reflecting the appropriateness of the
request in the eyes of the community.
The following reasons for approval were stated by the Planning Commissioners
and the applicant:
• In the General Plan, Low Density Urban does allow for neighborhood and
convenience-type commercial uses.
• The proposed use is convenient to the area and the zoning would be limited to
specific "personal service, residential and residential-related" uses. The use is
similar to a home occupation and non-offensive. Any other uses would be subject
to an amendment to the ordinance. A condition has been added that states, "As
represented by the applicants, the site shall be restricted to personal services,
residential, and residential-related uses as described in the CN district (Section 25-
5-102). Any other uses would be subject to an amendment. Restrictive covenants
in the deed of the subject properties shall give notice of this restriction."
• There has been a lot of support and no opposition from the surrounding property
owners.
• The proposed use will not create a burden on public agencies to provide additional
infrastructure.
• The proposed use creates more of an "in-filling" of commercial uses in the
immediate area rather than creating strip or spot zoning.
Based on all of the foregoing, the Commission respectfully transmits the subject
rezoning request to the County Council, with a positive recommendation, under the
conditions proposed.
Pete Hoffmann, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 4
For your favorable consideration, an amendment to Section 25-8-33 (City of Hilo Zone Map), of
the County Zoning Code is transmitted.
We are enclosing copies of the staff Background, Planning Director's Recommendation, and
transcripts of the hearings for your information.
Sincerely,
William Graham, Chairman
Planning Commission
Liida02PC
Enclosures
cc: Jin Soo and Ran Hui Iida
Department of Public Works
Department of Water Supply
DOT-Highways, Honolulu
Lincoln Ashida, Esq., Corporation Counsel
MinsooIida-REZ07-073-jwd 10-22-07
COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND REPORT
JINSOO AND RAN HUI IIDA
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 07-000073)
JINSOO AND RAN HUI IIDA have submitted an application for a Change of Zone for
23,559 square feet of land from a Single Family Residential - 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to a
Neighborhood Commercial - 20,000 square feet (CN-20) district. The property is located along
the west side of Kilauea Avenue, approximately 420 feet south of the Kilauea Avenue -
Puainako Street intersection, Waiakea Homestead Houselots, South Hilo, Hawaii, Tax Map Key:
2-2-40:121.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1. Request: The applicants are requesting a change of zone for 23,559 square feet of land
from a Single Family Residential - 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to a Neighborhood
Commercial - 20,000 square feet (CN-20).
2. Proposed Development: The applicants currently operate Lani's Beauty Salon located
at the Puainako Town Center. They are proposing to convert an existing 768 square-
foot, 1-bedroom/1-bathroom dwelling into a beauty salon and relocate their business to
this new location. The project would include four (4) sitting chairs in the living room and
the bedroom would be converted to a waxing room. There would be four (4) parking
stalls for the use.
3. Project Timetable and Cost: The project is proposed to be completed by the end of
2007 or early in 2008. The estimated cost of the renovation would be approximately
$30,000.
4. Supportive Information: The applicants, who are the landowners, have submitted a
Change of Zone Application in support of the request. (Planning Department Exhibit 1
- Change of Zone Application)
STATE AND COUNTY PLANS
5. General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map: Low Density
Urban. In the application, the applicant incorrectly states that the General Plan LUPAG
designation for the property is Medium Density Urban. A color map showing the
ATTACH: Comn. 1002
Bill 239
LUPAG map boundaries in relation to the property is attached as Planning Department
Exhibit 2. These boundaries are not exact, as explained by the Planning Director's Staff
Memo No. 07-19 attached as Planning Department Exhibit 3. However, the Planning
Director, consistent with the GIS mapping of the LUPAG map, interprets this side as
"low density urban" because (1) it appears that Kilauea Avenue was intended as a
boundary between low density urban and medium density urban, and (2) the medium
density urban at the comer of Puainako Street and Kilauea Avenue was meant to create a
small commercial area at this corner where Kai Store and Maebo Noodle Factory are
located, rather than spreading out along Kilauea Avenue to the south.
6. State Land Use District: Urban.
7. CountyZoning: Single Family Residential-10,000 square feet (RS-10).
8. Hilo Community Development Plan (CDP): The Hilo CDP was adopted by the
Planning Commission, Resolution No. 1, on May 21, 1975. The Plan reflects this area
for residential uses (RS-10).
9. Chapter 205A, CZM Program: The subject development is not contrary to Chapter
205A, Hawaii Revised States, relating to Coast Zone Management Area. The proposed
development will not adversely impact recreational resources, including access to and
along the shoreline or to mountain areas, scenic and open space vistas, visual resources to
the shoreline, coastal ecosystems and marine ecosystems.
10. Special Management Area (SMA): The property is not within the SMA boundary. It is
located more than two (2) miles from the nearest coastline.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA
11. Subject Property: The property is located at 2064 Kilauea Avenue. The property is a
rectangular-shaped lot consisting of 23,559 square feet with frontage along Kilauea
Avenue. According to the applicant, there are two dwellings located on the property.
12. Building Permits for the Property: The following structures were permitted for the
subject property:
• Building Permit No. 870118: Conversion of an existing carport to a 1-
bedroom/1-bathroom dwelling (768 square feet). Finaled on 10-15-87.
• Building Permit No. 871776: Addition of an open porch to the existing dwelling
-2-
(add 256 square feet). Finaled on 10-15-87.
• Building Permit No. 960592: New detached garage with 1-bathroom and open
covered area (552 + 48 square feet). The permit has not been finaled.
13. Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning: Surrounding properties are zoned RS-10 and CN-10.
Uses consist mainly of existing single family dwellings and several businesses. On the
adjacent property to the north is a property zoned RS-10 with several dwellings. Further
north are properties zoned CN-10, which are the locations for Maebo Noodle Factory and
Kai's Store. To the west are properties zoned RS-10 consisting of single family
dwellings. To the south are properties zoned RS-10. The adjacent property to the south
is Klein's Chiropractic Center, which was approved under Use Permit No. 39. To the
east is Kilauea Avenue with single-family dwellings across the street. Further east is the
Puainako Town Center zoned CN-10.
14. USDA Soil Survey Report: Alaa extremely stony silty clay loam 0 to 20 percent slopes
(OID).
15. Land Study Bureau's Detailed Land Classification System: Existing urban
development.
16. Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) Map: Existing
urban development.
17. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): The property is classified as Zone X, areas
determined to be outside the 500-year flood plain. The property is also located outside of
the tsunami inundation area.
18. Flora/Fauna Resources: No professional flora or fauna study was submitted with the
application. The property has been used for residential purposes since 1989. According
to the applicant, the site has a lawn and other introduced landscaping, such as pine trees.
19. Archaeological/Historical/Cultural Resources: No commissioned archaeological
survey was submitted with the application based on the property being utilized for
residential uses since 1989. There are no known historic sites on the property as listed on
the State or National Register of Historic Places. The applicant has submitted a request
for a "no-effect" letter from the Department of Land and Natural Resources-State
Historic Preservation Division issued dated July 9, 2007. There has been no response as
-3-
of the date of this writing.
20. Neighborhood Commercial Rezonings in the Vicinity:
a. TMK: 2-2-39:31, 57, 68 and 69 (88,317 square feet) ---REZ 06-000052
Applicant: Ginger Patch DP, LLC
Request: Change of zone from RS-10 to CN-40 by Ordinance No. 07-105
effective August 14, 2007 to develop two pads of commercial real estate or
business center ranging in size from 9,600 to 10,132 square feet and 130 parking
stalls.
b. TMK: 2-2-40:3 (1 Acre) ---REZ 965
Applicant: PTC Partners
Request: Change of zone from RS-10 to CN-20 by Ordinance No. 01-57 effective
July 15, 2001 to construct approximately 100 additional paved parking stalls to
accommodate employees of the existing Puainako Town Center and also serve as
overflow parking for customers during special sales events.
C. TMK: 2-2-40:7 (2 Acres) ---REZ 868
Applicant: K. Taniguchi LTD.
Request: Change of Zone from RS-10 to CN10 by Ordinance 97-105 effective
August 13, 1997 to to construct an additional 211 paved parking stalls to
accommodate employee and customer parking for the existing KTA Shopping
Center.
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
21. Access: Existing access to the property is from Kilauea Avenue, which has 30-foot wide
pavement within a 60-foot wide right-of-way. There are two lanes of traffic with a
middle lane reserved for turning (left or right). According to the City of Hilo Zone Map,
Kilauea Avenue is proposed to be increased to a 80-Foot wide right-of-way.
22. Water System: County water is available to the property.
23. Wastewater System: The dwellings currently utilize an existing cesspool.
24. Solid Waste: Solid waste will be handled by the applicants and disposed of at the
approved County landfill.
25. Police, Fire and Emergency Services: The property will be served by the Hilo Central
-4-
Fire Station located on Kinoole Street or the 24-hour substation at Waiakea and
supported by the additional substation at Kawailani.. The Hilo Medical Center is located
approximately 4 miles from the property.
26. Other Essential Utilities: Telephone, electrical and cable services are available to the
subject property.
AGENCIES' COMMENTS
27. Department of Environmental Management: (Planning Department Exhibit 4 -
September 27, 2007 Memo)
28. Police Department: (Planning Department Exhibit 5 - October 2, 2007 Memo)
29. Fire Department: (Planning Department Exhibit 6 - October 5, 2007 Memo)
30. Department of Land and Natural Resources-Land Division: (Planning Department
Exhibit 7 - September 27, 2007 Letter)
31. Department of Health: (Planning Department Exhibit 8 - October 2, 2007 Memo)
AGENCIES - NO RESPONSE
32. Department of Public Works, Department of Water Supply, Department of Land
and Natural Resources -Historic Preservation Division and the Department of
Transportation.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
33. As of this writing, the Planning Department has not received any written comments or
objections from the general public or adjacent landowners on the subject application.
-5-
h, ,f
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(Type or legibly print the requested information)
APPLICANT: \ Y\S U.v,,C~ ~tJ.Ht tt T
APPLICANT'S SIGN
zz ATE: ; C
ADDRESS: 1 \O.-
13 10
LIST APPLICANTS INTEREST IF NOT OWNER:
LIST PRINCIPAL(S) INCLUDING NAMES OF MAIN OFFICERS:
PHONE:(Bus.) 993~ - 545q (Res:) q, i~ - oo4q (Fax) 95Q - 5~~~
LANDOWNER(S):
LANDOWNER SIGNA "e DATE:k~?/
vv (May, by letter)
LANDOWNER(S). ADDRESS:
<Sbw.e us At~c~l,ca,n~
REQUEST: t2~S - iO TO C N - ;L0
TAX MAP KEY: (Existing zoning) 2. -AO - 11.1 (Proposed Zoning)
STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ci~bAk VQA0,\ -ee Nvt- •
SIZE OF PROPERTY OR AFFECTED AREA(S) TO BE REZONED:
AGENT:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:(Bus.) (Res.) (Fax)
Please indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sent.
ORIGINAL~iv~p tw.a \XW Z'&`COPIES:
(See Instructions on Reverse Side) Planning D6pt.
Exhibit I _
APPLICATION
FOR
COUNTY REZONING
(RS-10 to CN-20)
APPLICANT: JINSOO P. AND RAN HUI
P. IIDA
2064 Kilauea Avenue, Hilo, Hawaii
TMK: (3) 2-2-40:121
June 2007
ATTACHMENT
Commercial, RM, Resort, & Industrial
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF HAWAII
APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE
1. if your request is approved, do you intend to subdivide
the subject land in accordance with the approved change
of zone? No
If mss, please answer the rest of question I and then to
question 3.
a. How many acres of the requested area do you intend to
subdivide? N/A
b. Into what lot sizes?
C. if your request is approved, approximately how long
after the date of approval do you expect to submit
your subdivision plans to the Planning Department
for preliminary approval? N/A
If you intend to subdivide, please submit a preliminary
schematic subdivision plan together with your change of
zone application form.
2. If you nave no firm plans of subdividing the subject area,
do you intend to:
a. Sell or lease the land to someone who has firm
plans? No
b. Sell or lease the land to someone who has tentative
plans? No
c. Sell or lease the land to someone who has no plans? No
6. Keep it? Yes
e. other (please state)
f. If you intend to do either a, b, or c, please elaborate
on the kind of plans the other party has. Please, also,
j include in your answer approximately how soon after
approval of your rezoning do you expect to transfer the
subject land to another party.
3. What specific building plans do you have for the subject land?
Include in your answer the following: type of building
(apartment, office, launderette, etc.); financing arrangement;
timetable for construction; and any other information which you
feel might help us in evaluating your request.
Develop a beauty salon.
4. Have you performed any study which would demonstrate a need for
your proposed building and/or development? No
if so, please elaborate on your findings in the space provided
below.
-2-
5 Have you performed any study which discusses the
environmental impacts your request would nave on the
surrounding area and/or the County? Yes
If so, please elaborate on your findings in the space
provided below.
Please refer to accompanying planning and environmental report
6. Are there any buildings on the subject area? Yes
If so, what kind?
768 sgft house with one bedroom and one bathroom. Also, 500 sgft storage building.
What do you intend to do with those buildings if your
request is approved?
We are intend to change these two buildings to a beauty and a nail shop.
7. Is the subject land currently being used for any
agricultural activity? No
if so, please list the kinds of products grown on and
how many square feet or acres of land per product?
-3-
8• To your knowledge, has there been any flooding and/or
drainage problem on the subject area? No
If so, please describe the problem.
9. Do you think that the roads leading to the subject area
needs improvement? No
If so, what kind?
Is the road adequate for the proposed traffic volume
or load? Yes
10. What sort of governmental assistance and/or improvements
do you feel will be needed in the subject area when
developed?
yes ap
a. Schools x
b. Roads x
c. Sewer x
d. Drainage x
e. Police Protection x
f. Fire Protection x
x
9• Recreational Facilities
h. Recreational Facilities x
i.
-4-
For those checked "yes," please elaborate what type or kinds of
improvements and/or assistance are needed.
11. Have you performed any historic sites study and/or survey of the
subject area? If so, what were the results? Please, also,
submit a copy of the study together with this change of zone
supplement.
No.
Signatu
Address.1 Hoohoaloha st. Hilo, Hi 96720
Telephone: 896-6484
Date: May 31, 2007
-5-
6338A/50A
P. D. 5/84
COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
APPLICATION FOR COUNTY REZONING REQUEST (RS-10 to CN-20)
Jinsoo P. and Ran Hui P. Iida
2064 Kilauea Ave, South Hilo, Hawai'I
TAX MAP KEY: (3) 2-2-40:121
I. INTRODUCTION
The applicant, Jinsoo P. and Ran Hui P. Iida, recently purchased the subject
property consisting of 23,559 square feet with the intent of relocating their
beauty shop called Lani's Beauty Salon to this site. As such, the applicants are
requesting the rezoning of the subject property from Residential (RS-10) to
Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20).
IL PROJECT LOCATION
The subject site, consisting of 23,559 square feThe et is located on the east side
of Kilauea Ave, approximately 300 feet south of the Puainako Street intersection.
There is a chiropractic office adjacent and to the south of the subject site. A
noodle-pastry making factory is located one lot away to the north. More
specifically, the property, located in the City of Hilo, is situated within the
Waiakea Homestead Houselots, South Hilo, and is identified by TMK:3-2-2-40-
121.
M. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Project Concept and Components
The applicants would like to convert an existing one bedroom and one bathroom
house into a beauty salon. The dwelling has an area of 768 square feet with a
height of less than 20 feet. If approved, the applicants would have four(4) sitting
chairs in the living room, and the bedroom would be used as a waxing room.
There would be 4 Parking stalls, including one handicapped, adjacent to the
house. The other dwelling on the property would continue to be used as such. At
some point in time in the future, the dwelling may be converted into an office
space. There is an existing temporary container on the property that may be
either removed or relocated to another within the property.
B. Project Timetable and Cost
The applicant would like to start the renovation as soon as the rezoning is
approved. The occupancy is tentatively scheduled for
the end of 2007 or early 2008.
The applicants estimate the cost of renovation to cost $30,000. This
cost would include making the necessary changes to the structure
to accommodate handicapped access and other building code
compliance. Other improvements would include painting,
furnishing, and additional pavement and stripping for the required
parking.
IV. INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. State Land Use
The subject properly is designated Urban. As such, a boundary
amendment to cover the requested CN-20 zone is not needed.
B. County General Plan
The County General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide
(LUPAG) map designates the site Medium Density. As such, a
General Plan amendment to the LUPAG map would not be
required.
Relative to the Medium Density designation, the General Plan
allows consideration for "Village and neighborhood commercial and
residential and related functions (3-story commercial, residential -
up to 35 units per acre." The requested zoning and planned use
would be consistent with the uses envisioned within the Medium
area.
C. Hilo Community Deveioament Plan
The Community Development Plan (CDP) attempts to further define
the General Plan and serves as a guide for decision-makers. It
was adopted by the Planning Commission in 1975, over 25 years
ago. Although reviewed by the County Council, the CDP was never
adopted.
The CDP's Land Use Concept map identifies a RS-10 designation
for this area. Having a residential use on the balance of the
property with the proposed commercial use would be somewhat
consistent with the residential concept. Notwithstanding the
technical inconsistency, however, it is acknowledged that the
growth of Hilo and its outlying areas like Puna and Hamakua, have
made some of the planning assumptions of the CDP obsolete. An
updated CDP would be timely.
2
Absent the availability of a relevant intermediary planning
document, one must rely only on the General Plan LUPAG map
and policies. In the end, the General Plan is more critical, as the
County Charter requires all zone changes to be consistent with A.
C. County Zoning
The County zoning of the requested area is single-family residential
(RS-10). All required parking and related requirements for the
conversion would be fulfilled.
D. Other Permitting Considerations
The site is not located within the County Special Management Area
(SMA). As such, no SMA Use Permit would be required.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. General Description
The house was built in 1987 with living area of 768 square feet.
The house is single story with one bedroom and one bathroom.
There is another dwelling on the property and a temporary trailer
that is being used for storage. The balance of the property is a
lawn and related domestic landscaping.
B. Climate. Soil and Topography
According to the State Commission on Water Resource
Management, the nearest rain gauge in this area is the Hilo Airport.
The rainfall data of this gauge notes that over the past 37 years, the
annual median rainfall for this area was 131.1 inches. The wetter
months tend to occur between October through April. The average
daily temperature ranges from a minimum of 61 degrees to a
maximum of 79 degrees Fahrenheit. Wind patterns are generally
tradewinds (easterly) during the day and westerly or mountain
winds during the evenings.
The property's elevation is approximately eighty (80) feet above
mean sea level. It is fairly flat. There are no perceptible
topographic or geologic constraints on the subject site.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (now
known as the Natural Resource Conservation Service) Land Study
Bureau Overall Master Productivity Rating designates this site
Keaukaha Series (rKFD), which is extremely rocky muck, well
3
drained, thin organic soils overlying pahoehoe lava bedrock.
Runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard slight.
Because the site is part of a built up urban area, the University of
Hawaii Land Study Bureau Overall Master Productivity Rating map
does not classify this site and immediate surrounding areas.
Likewise, the site is not classified under the Agriculture Lands of
Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) classification system.
Thus, the State's classification system does not recognize this site
as being agriculturally important.
C. Natural Hazards
1. Drainage
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) identifies the subject site Zone
X (areas outside of 500-year flood).
As there will be an added level of impervious surface
resulting from the proposed development, there may be an
issue relating to potential increased run-off. In that event,
drywell(s) or similar type of accommodations will be
implemented, subject to the review and approval of the
Department of Public Works and State Department of Health
via the Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit process.
With the proposed on-site drainage improvements, and since
none of the proposed improvements will occur within any
Floodway (AE) designated area, all potential drainage and/or
flooding issues could be reasonably addressed and
mitigated.
2. Tsunami Hazard
It is located outside of the Civil Defense's Tsunami
Evacuation Zone.
3. Volcanic and Earthquake Hazards
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) classifies the
subject site as Lava Flow Hazard Zone 3, on a scale of
ascending risk, 9 to 1. This designation applies to all of Hilo
4
There is very little that can be done to protect structures and
improvements on the site from lava flows. Relative to
protection of life, however, this would be achieved through
the evacuation routes and warning systems provided by the
County Civil Defense agency. Such notices will be
prominently placed within office building.
The entire island of Hawaii falls within Earthquake Zone 4,
according to the County Building Code. As such, all
structures built on the site will have to meet with the more
restrictive seismic hazard structural requirements of the
Building Code.
D. Fauna Resources
As the site is within an urban area, no professional survey
conducted of the faunal resources of the site. The applicants do
not believe that rare or endangered faunal resources are likely to
be found within or proximate to the subject site. This is due to the
already developed state of the subject area and its immediate
surrounding area. One may thus find bind species such as the
Spotted Dove, Japanese White-eye, House Finch, Common Myna,
and the like. Domestic animals such as cats and dogs, and other
animals like rats and mongoose are also common.
None of these are endangered animals. As such, it is unlikely that
the development of this property would cause any adverse faunal
impacts.
E. Flora Resources
As with the description of the site's faunal resources, no
professional botanical survey was done of the subject area. The
site has a lawn and other introduced landscaping material, such as
pine trees, on the subject site.
F. Historic/Cultural/Archaeoloalcal Resources
No commissioned archaeological survey of the site was made.
Again, this is due to the built up nature of the subject site. A letter
requesting a "no historic properties affected" letter is being
requested of the State Historic Preservation Division.
G. Valued Cultural Resources
In view of the recent Hawaii State Supreme Court's "PASH" and
5
"Ka Pa'akai O Ka Aina decisions, the issue relative to native
Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights must be addressed.
Specifically, there must be a discussion of the cultural, historical,
and natural resources and associated tradition and customary
practices of this site.
In this situation, the subject site is not adjacent and/or proximate to
the shoreline. As such, gathering of marine life and coastal access
is not an issue.
In the unlikely event that legitimate gathering claims are made by
native Hawaiians, the applicant intends to respect and honor such
claims and provide the needed access within the site.
Based on the above, it does not appear that the project would have
any potential adverse impact relative to the cultural and historical
resources of the area.
H. Water and Coastal Resources
The subject site is located over 3 miles from the coastline. As
such, coastal impacts resulting from discharge of drainage systems
from the site should not be significant. Being a non-coastal
property, no coastal access will be affected.
1. Noise. Air Quality, and Dust
The existing background ambient noise level in this area is wind,
foliage, birds, and the like. However, the significant manmade
noise is influenced by the traffic associated along both Kilauea
Avenue and Puainako Street.
The proposed development should not generate any direct air
ual' impacts. As the project itself is not expected to have uses
that generate adverse air pollutants, the only discernible air quality
impact would be associated with vehicular traffic to and from the
site. While the added traffic will have an impact to the ambient air
quality, the impact should not be significant. This is due in part to
the higher EPA standards for vehicular air emissions and the
prevailing tradewinds.
All of the required parking area within the project site is paved with
an all-weather, dust free surface. Some minor improvements may
be needed to accommodate a handicapped stall.
6
J. Scenic and Visual Considerations
In the Natural Beauty element of the General Plan, there are sites
or areas listed as scenic resources. The subject site is not listed as
a scenic site. However, there were a few examples cited in the Hilo
area. The most notable is the backdrop of Mauna Kea and the Hilo
Bay.
The proposed development would not have any visual impacts on
Mauna Kea or Hilo Bay. No new structure will be built that would
have an adverse visual impact to the mountains.
V1. SOCIAL AND RELATED CONSIDERATIONS
A. Surrounding Land Uses
The surrounding land uses in this area are a mixture of low to
moderately dense residential, semi-agricultural, and commercial
uses.
There are several commercial uses within 300 feet of the site.
These include KTA Super Market generally on the east side of the
subject site; a convenience store on the comer of Puainako Street
and Kilauea Avenue; a chiropractic office adjacent and to the south
of the subject site; and a bakery/noodle factory less than 100 feet to
the north.
The requested zoning would be generally consistent with the
evolving mixture of commercial and residential land use pattern in
this area.
B. Economic Impacts
The requested zoning would have some measure of economic
impact, as it would provide short-term employment opportunities for
those in the construction and related industries.
A commercial rezoning would also increase the tax revenues to the
County.
C. Auriculturallmoacts
The subject site has not been used for agricultural purposes. The
impacts should thus be non-existent.
7
VII. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS
A. Road and Traffic
The subject site is located on the west side of Kilauea Avenue. At
this point, Kilauea Avenue has a right-of-way of 60 feet with three
lanes. The middle lane is a dedicated left/right turn lane. As such,
movements in and out of the site should not significantly affect the
traffic flow in this area.
B. Water
The dwellings are hooked up to the County Department of Water
Supply's water system. The proposed beauty parlor should not
require water more than a conventional dwelling.
C. Wastewater
The existing dwellings currently utilize a cesspool. In the event a
cesspool is not allowed by the State Department of Health, the
applicants will make the necessary upgrade, such as a septic
system, prior to occupying the structure.
D. Solid Waste
Solid waste will be handled by the applicants and disposed off in an
approved County landfill. The volume of waste should be no
different than a typical residence.
E. Other Govemment Services
As this area is already part of an urban area, it already has access
to a number of services. All of the required police, fire, and related
services are available. Police protective services are provided from
the main station along Kapiolani Street, less than 3 miles from the
site. Likewise, the nearest fire station would beat Kawailani
Street, less than 2 miles from the subject site. Emergency medical
and paramedical services are also provided from this station.
The Hilo Hospital is located approximately 4 miles from the site and
is managed by the State. This facility is one of 5 licensed hospitals
on the island.
As this project is a commercial one, it should have little or no direct
impacts to schools, parks, and other related facilities. As the
project may indirectly generate a school demand, it should be noted
8
that the site is proximate to the K-12 Waiakea Complex and K-5
Waiakeawaena complex, which are less than 2 miles from the site.
There are also a number of public parks within a 3-mile radius.
Thus, no extension of government services would be required, and
existing facilities should be sufficient to accommodate the demand
expected from this project
F. Other Utilities
All other utilities such as telephone and electrical services are
available to the site.
VIII. IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS
A. Relationship Between Local Short Tenn Uses of Environment
and Maintenance and Enhancement of Lona-Term Productivity
The short-term use of the site would probably be the same as the
current residential use. This will continue until the required
improvements are made, which will hopefully commence upon
approval of all necessary permits and completed later this year or
early next year.
This project should not result in any significantly adverse short or
long-term impacts that cannot be properly mitigated. There will be
direct and indirect economic benefits resulting from the construction
and implementation of this project. There will be marginal
construction jobs created in the short-term; and upon completion, at
least 2 full-time equivalent positions. Relatedly, the project will
generate increased tax revenues that can supplement the State
and County's fiscal resources.
Because of its location, this project will provide a service that can
be made reasonably accessible to the immediate neighborhoods.
The required infrastructure - if needed - will be implemented by the
applicants to mitigate potential impacts of this project.
B. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commibnent of Resources
The area of the requested rezoning has already been extensively
disturbed. As such, the commitment of natural or other resources
(such as botanical, archaeological, and avifaunal) would not appear
to be significant.
9
C. Mitigative Measures
The applicants intend to provide reasonable off and on-site
infrastructure in conjunction with the development of this project.
These will include, if required, on-site drainage system,
landscaping, and wastewater improvements..
If any inadvertent archaeological discoveries are made during any
phase of this project, the Planning Department will be notified and
appropriate mitigation wi8 be taken before work is resumed.
While the site is already landscaped, should additional landscaping
be required, they could be incorporated within the project site, as
well as along its boundaries. The landscaping would be consistent
with the Planning Department's landscaping rules.
D. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
1. No Project
Under the status quo alternative, the site would remain in its
present residential use. However, the building proposed to
be converted would, because of its size, probably be limited
to a single person or a couple.
Under this scenario, the site would not be utilized to its
highest and best use, as envisioned by the General Plan and
the commercial and residential growth of the general area.
2. Development Based on Existing RS-10 Zoning
Under this altemative, the area of the requested zoning
could be subdivided into two lots. Each lot could then have
another single-family dwelling constructed via the Ohana
Zoning provision.
3. Residential Rezoning
Another option could be to utilize this site for a denser
residential project. While that would still be consistent with
the General WPAG's map Medium Density designation, it
may not be too feasible, given the need for potential off-site
infrastructure improvements, such as road and wastewater.
to
4. Evaluation of Alternatives
There would be diminished tax revenues and less service to
the neighborhood.
While alternative residential densities are possible, those
uses may not be really desirable, given its proximity to
Kilauea Avenue and the pastry/noodle factory and the
potential added cost to provide the required off-site
infrastructure improvements.
IX REGULATORY ANALYSIS - County and State Land Use Policies
A. General Plan LUPAG Map
The General Plan provides for the long-range comprehensive
development of the island of Hawaii. It provides direction for
balanced growth in the County.
The LUPAG map designates the site Medium Density, a
designation that allows the requested CN-20 zoning. Accordingly,
this request would be consistent with the LUPAG map.
B. General Plan Policies
The requested zoning would be consistent with the goals, policies,
and standards of the Economic and Land Use Elements of the
General Plan. Specifically, the more pertinent ones follow:
Economic Element
Goals
• Provide residents with opportunities to improve their
quality of life.
• Economic development and improvement shall be in
balance with the physical and social environments of the
island of Hawaii.
• The County of Hawaii shall strive for diversity and
stability in its economic system.
• The County shall provide an economic environment
which allows new, expanded, or improved economic
it
opportunities that are compatible with the County's
natural and social environment.
Policies
• The County shall provide an economic environment
which allows new, expanded, or improved economic
opportunities that are compatible with the County's
natural and social environment.
• The County shall strive for an economic climate which
provides its residents an opportunity for choice of
occupation.
• The County shall strive for diversification of its economy
by strengthening existing industries and attracting new
endeavors.
• The County shall encourage the development of a visitor
industry which is consistent with the social, physical, and
economic goals of the residents of the County.
Land Use Element (Commercial)
Goals
• Provide for commercial developments that maximize
convenience to its users.
• Provide commercial developments that complement the
overall pattern of transportation and land usage within the
island's regions, communities, and neighborhoods.
Policies
• Commercial facilities shall be developed in areas
adequately served by necessary services, such as water,
util"fies, sewers, and transportation systems. Should
such services not be available, the development of more
intensive uses should be in concert with a localized
program of public and private capital improvements to
meet the expected increased needs.
• Distribution of commercial areas shall be such as to best
meet the demands of neighborhood, community and
regional needs.
12
• The development of commercial facilities should be
designed to fit into the locale with minimum intrusion
while providing the desired services. Appropriate
infrastructure and design controls shall be incorporated
into the review of such developments
Standards
• Commercial developments shall be located in areas
adequately served by transportation, utilities, and
amenities. Commercial developments shall provide for
adequate internal circulation amongst commercial
facilities in the area.
• Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be provided.
• Commercial development shall maintain or improve the
quality of the present environment through the
consideration of visual, access, landscaping, and other
design elements in their development.
• Preference shall be given to commercial lands with a
reasonably level topography.
Discussion
If approved, the project would provide the service to the
immediate and surrounding communities.
Relatedly, all required infrastructures are there or, if not, can
be provided by the applicants without taxing government's
servicing ability.
Relatedly, because of the developed nature of the property,
the conversion of an existing dwelling would not remove a
critical habitat. Then, too, there are alternative areas that
would be more suitable for any habitats.
Furthermore, if there are inadvertent archaeological features
found on the site, work will stop and the State DLNR and
County Planning Department will be consulted before further
activities occur within the affected area.
13
Finally, all structures will be built to comply with the Zoning
Code standards, such as parking, setback, height,
landscaping, and so forth.
C. Zonina
If the request were approved, a portion of the site would be used for
a beauty salon. All improvements would be developed consistent
with the Zoning Code. No variances from the Code are anticipated.
D. Hawaii State Plan
Chapter 226, Hawaii Revised Statutes, outlines the long-range
goals and policies of the Hawaii State Plan. Said Plan is intended
to serve as a guide for the growth and future long-range
development of the State.
Pursuant to said requirement, a discussion of the pertinent policies
and goals and the project's relationship follows:
Goals
• A strong, viable economy characterized by stability, diversity,
and growth that enables the fulfillment of the needs and
expectations of Hawaii's present and future generations
• A desired physical environment characterized by beauty,
cleanliness, quiet, stable and natural systems, and uniqueness
that enhances the mental and physical well-being of the people
• Physical, social and economic well-being for individuals and
families that nourishes a sense of community responsibility and
caring of participation in family fife.
Discussion
The proposed project would achieve these goals. It would provide
both some measure of direct and indirect employment
opportunities. for current and future residents of the island; it would
add to the overall tax base and hence, increase both State and
County revenues; and complement and support other economic
uses and in turn, contribute to the stability, diversity, and growth of
local and regional economies.
This employment opportunity would come without adversely
affecting the environment. There is no known wildlife or plant Iffe
14
listed as either endangered or threatened on the subject site.
Then, too, because of its historical residential use, the likelihood of
finding archaeological features on the site is quite remote.
Impacts to the surrounding areas would also not be significantly
adverse. All required infrastructures are either existent or where
not, will be in place by the applicants prior to occupancy of any
portion of the project.
G. Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program
The objectives of the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management (CZM)
Program are outlined in Chapter 205a, Hawaii Revised Statutes.
The principal goal is to assure the protection and maintenance of
the State's coastal resources. Although the entire State falls within
the CZM area, the permitting process is geared for those areas
proximate to the coast and identified by the County as the Special
Management Area. Nonetheless, a general review of a project's
consistency to the CZM policies - regardless of its location - must
still be made.
In that regard, please note the following:
• The proposed project will not have any substantial adverse
environmental or ecological effect. Any effect that may result
will be minimized to the extent practicable and will be clearly
outweighed by public interest.
• The proposed development would be consistent with the
objectives of the CZM program. Specifically:
• there would be no impact to the area's recreational
resources. This is not a shoreline property;
• the project will not affect any scenic and open space
resources;
• the coastal ecosystem will not be impacted;
• there will be more employment opportunities, and hence
furthering the economic uses of the site;
• the site is more than a mile from the shoreline, and thus
there would be no coastal hazard or beach erosion or
marine resource impacts; and
15
• public participation will be achieved through the hearings
on this request.
The proposed development is consistent with the County
General Plan and other appropriate regulatory tools, such as the
Zoning Code.
16
Harry Kim g!, William Takaba
Mayor Finance Director
•0 • Nancy E. Crawford
Deputy Dnector
M~
County of Hawaii
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE - REAL PROPERTY TAX
Aupuni Center . 101 Pauahi Street • Suite 4 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4679 • Fax(808)961-9415
Appraisers (808) 961-8354 • Cleaical (808) 961-8201 • Colicaions (808) 961-8282
75-5706 Kunkini Highway • Suite 112 • Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 • Fax(908)327-3538
Appraisers(808)327-3542 • Clerical(808)327-3540
REAL PROPERTY TAX CLEARANCE
(Rev. 07/99)
August 9, 2007
TMK: (3) 2-2-040-121-0000
This is to certify that the real property taxes due to the County of Hawaii on the
parcel listed above have been paid up to and Including June 30, 2007.
This clearance was requested by IIDA, JINSOO P & RAN HUI (owners of record),
for the County Planning Department and is issued for the above referenced
parcel only.
Reference:
Byl
Toni Ann q0xiano, Tax Gerk
Collections
REAL PROPERTY TAX DIVISION
County of Hawaii is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Address
2064 Kilauea i
{ Hilo, HI 96720
~ PySYk
Lokahi Park
N' prr" _
2 Kuft Fula€3_
[I'
f1
~o#r;[PekAfi
Lid ptiiaak4 S~ V,
i( P~fSNFaS~ SP 'wePFai Si'
} Pane
c ca. Park
3 v ~
a
,t caaAs4nrLl .~a1 Ohl K.,4wkfb"!
Plav~tcuiyd a~
hUp://www.google.com/maps7q=2064+K.ilauea+Ave,+Hilo,+HI+96720,+USA&sa=X&oi=... 7/9/2007
A N N -
Drn n d N D0 Z C7 om -D Z
O
q"1.35' PROPERTY LINE -Zi y m ? rrn ro m 3 ° d A 70
zzU) (0 dJa me
0> u)o :2 Nrnrn NOrn ODU =1 N
O
r NSA NA-0 yr3 rior>
SETBAG LINE Z
N-=A ~0A rnrnrn
N 9 ?N t=nA7c N7C rn0A A N
>D
1 O N OZrn I ~q ~_0 -1z- Tm
c I NUN ~DN O A
rnrn-4 Ur -i rn D -00
-C z D rn D QA DX
z?
8.I I I A Z prnz 1~
2 N3 NON
I10gb A VAD rn{D mAA
I nr mTrn rmD
N N O I D`N p0N
n d= Ax
N 2q? rn A A
rn
N Drn
~ Irn O
d o q OOO 7C
rn 10' A I r r rn
m m rn
70 5.8. N k k k
Z Z
j N Im Im N N
Z;
rn~ ~ I z z
Z I ID 10' rn A ~ rnn
fC~ S.B. rn >
Q~ rn
V
7~ I ? m
r
o p I i 00
I i m Qp
x N
I X
cj)
I °y D
l SE=BAGK LINE A
Z N N A Z
rn gT.35' PROPERTY LINE D
D r
* K I A U I- A AVE r
r
0 15' 30' 60' TMK: (3) 2-2-40-121
TOD SITE ADDRESS: 2065 KILAUEA AVE, HILO, HI
PRITCHM PROPERTY GLASS: GOMMERGIAL
I)rnftinri 1" = 70'-0" OWNER: IIDA
LOT 13-11, BLOCK 502
WAIAKEA HOMESTEAD HOUSE LOTS
PORTION OF GRANT 8975 TO ALBIN A. HARTMAN
Land situated at Waiakea, South Hilo, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii
Beginning at the southeast comer of this parcel of land, also being the northeast corner of
Lot 13-A, Block 502, and on the west side of Kilauea Avenue, the coordinates of said point of beginning
referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "HALAI" being 8,570.69 feet South and 9,735.36
feet East and thence running by azimuths measured clockwise from true South:
1. 850 40' 00" 242.00 feet along Lot 13-A, Block 502;
2. 1750 40' 00" 97.35 feet along Lot 14, Block 502;
3. 265° 40' 00" 242.00 feet along Lot 15, Block 502;
4. 3550 40' 00" 97.35 feet along the east side of Kilauea Avenue to the point of
beginning and containing an area of 23,559 Sq. Ft., more or
less.
Subject to and together with items, such as easements, and other restrictions, if any, not given here.
Prepared from record documents (see County of Hawaii Subdivision Number 5397).
UC€NS`D
PROFESS? AL
LtND
* SURVEYOR
No. 1.
~ WA 4i t! S~
~
Niels Christensen
Licensed Professional Land Surveyor 9077
The Independent Hawaii Surveyors
2043 Kinoole Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Page 1 of 1 August 21, 2007
JOB 8112
' y Z
Dmo aDo Zorn
't-7,55, PROPERTY LINE Z -p 0 D r O . 2010 :2 n 0
010 ZZN nNN lUl~MA ;a rn M2 ~y~1-7y~
p143 rnrnIF rn zr SJ- 11 111
r
SETBACK LINE z 0 1 D D rn N 1 r .
N- 13:A rgp rnrn pN
J S rN AAZ ~NZ rn00 T
I J O Orn M>01 C\NP _,Z-n nrn
NZC I I NON ~DN Oi1'a r'o
j~
mrnD mr D T p D N
0. zu]
G, 0 B.I I I mco Z(3(p OrnZ -i
d~2 N 0> NON
I lO.gB' p p rn
I -nr rn jrn 13
_ x
N N N O I ~ N ?a
2q.I rn A x
m
u rn
~ O I Ea
N N
rn
O I 000 T
d 1110, p I m
r
rn S.B. N rn Irn x x x
~~77 j N 1 1 y
duo
10' p D 0 rn
Z S.B. m rn
> rn L p
(~i n I
o p I ? 00
Ii
x N
I x
m
I SETBACK LINE ~ A A
111 Z N N D Z
A ~ ~ 7pc ~
D Z N
A rn gT.35' PROPERTY LINE O >D
U) F
1m D r
= K I A U E A AVE r
r
TMK: (3) 2-2-40-121
0 15' 30' 60 51TE ADDRESS: 2065 KILAUEA AVE, HILO, HI
ODITCHEff PROPERTY GLASS: GOMMERGIAL
Draffina = 20'-0" OWNER: IIDA
LIST OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS
TMK OWNER SITUS ADDRESS
3-2-2-040-028 SCHUWER JAMES O 2050 KILAUEAAVE.
3-2-2-040-020 DART FAMILY TRST 1927 KINOOLE ST.
3-2-2-040-079 AOKI FAMILY TRUST 1905 KINOOLE ST.
3-2-2-040-022 IMATA DAVID TSUYOSHI 1895 KINOOLE ST.
3-2-2-040-078 ARAKAWA HERBERT K 1887 KINOOLE ST.
3-2-2-040-122 AOKI ESTELLE N NA
3-2-2-040-099 KINO RICHARD K 1887 B KINOOLE ST.
3-2-2-040-023 AKI JULIETTE A 1879 KINOOLE ST.
3-2-2-040-107 HIRATA MICHELLE Y 1865 B KINOOLE ST.
3-2-2-040-105 CHENG PAI-HO 1869 KINOOLE ST.
3-2-2-040-106 OGAWA MORIAKI 1865 A KINOOLE ST.
3-2-2-040-055 NICOLAS THEODORE TR 1859 KINOOLE ST.
3-2-2-040-081 NELSON ELOISE M 1857 KINOOLE ST.
3-2-2-040-082 MAEBO BLANE 2036 A KILAUEA AVE.
3-2-2-040-027 MAEBO NOODLE FACTORY 2036 KILAUEAAVE.
3-2-2-040-029 KLEIN ROERT E/BARBAR 2070 KILAUEA AVE.
3-2-2-040-068 SUBICA TRUST 2078 KILAUEA AVE.
3-2-2-040-030 NAGAI ICHIRO 2078 A KILAUEAAVE.
3-2-2-040-067 WATKINS LUKE ELI 2088 KILAUEAAVE.
3-2-2-040-047 VOLIVAR NOEL JOHN 2096 KILAUEA AVE.
3-2-2-040-007 K TANIGUCHI LTD 2083 KILAUEAAVE.
3-2-2-040-013 K TANIGUCHI LTD 54 E PUAINAKO ST.
3-2-2-040-009 K TANIGUCHI LTD 2063 KILAUEAAVE.
3-2-2-040-080 YOSHIDA NOBUKO 2053 KILAUEA AVE.
3-2-2-040-010 YASUHARA HERBERT 2045 KILAUEAAVE.
3-2-2-040-011 CHIKASUYE CLESSON Y 2031 KILAUEAAVE.
July 9, 2007
Ms. Melanie Chinen, Administrator
State Historic Preservation Division
Department of Land & Natural Resources
601 Kamokila Boulevard, Room 555
Kapolei, HI 96707
Dear Ms. Chinn:
Subject: Request for "No Historic Properties Affected" Determination
Waiakea Houselots. South Hilo, Hawai L TMK: 2-2-040:121
As part of the permit submittal requirements, the County Planning Department is
requesting either an archaeological inventory survey or a letter to your office requesting a
"No Historic Properties Affected" determination. In this situation, we are requesting
such a determination of the subject property.
The site is a 23,559 square foot site located on the east side of Kilauea Avenue in
the City of Hilo. It is located south or Puna side of Puainako Street, where there is a
convenience store. A chiropractic office is located adjacent and south of the subject site.
Our property has two homes on them and is fully developed with landscaping, paved
parking, and lawn.
We are enclosing a copy of the site and related plans and excerpts of the planning
and environmental report for your information. We trust that the information is sufficient
for you to make such a determination. Alternatively, if you need more information or
have questions on this matter, please feel free to contact us. Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Jinsoo and Ran Hui Iida
11 Hoohoaloha Street
Hilo, 11196720
Enclosures
Copy - Planning Department w/o enclosures
HI CR
LOKAHI P
W
Planning Dept.
Exhibit.. -
~4Y GS Po4
Harry Kim Christopher J. Yuen
Mayor - _ Director
ay , o .y .
Q+a 0,Brad KeFPOkawB, ASLA
LEER®AP
T$rurtil L71 Par att Deputy Director
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4224
(808) 961-8288 • FAX (808) 961-8742
MEMORANDUM
NO. 07-19
September 18, 2007
TO: PLANNERS AND EM's
FROM: CHRISTOPHER J. Y gN .
PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN LUPAG MAPS
This staff memo is to discuss when land use applications should be rejected for
inconsistency with the General Plan LUPAG map. The alternative is to process the
application for final decision by the Planning Commission or the County Council, but
with a negative recommendation. This memo mainly applies to rezonings and SMA
permits. It is an issue that sometimes comes up when staff is doing an initial review of
such applications.
The county charter, sec. 3-15(b), says that "no public improvement or project, or
subdivision or zoning ordinance, shall be initiated or adopted unless the same conforms
to and implements the General Plan." Attached to this staff memo is a Corporation
Counsel memorandum giving the legal basis for the Planning Director refusing to process
a rezoning application and SMA permit application based upon inconsistency with the
General Plan.
The 2005 General Plan makes it clear that any rezoning must be consistent with the
LUPAG map, on p. 14-4. With respect to the SMA, the case of Gatri v. Blane, 88 Haw.
108(1998) makes it clear that an SMA permit must be consistent both with the General
Plan and with the zoning. So, for example, we have areas in Puako which are zoned V-
1.25, allowing one unit per 1250 square feet of land, potentially 35 units per acre, but
which are "low density urban" in the LUPAG map. Any SMA permit would be limited
to the 6 units/acre limit under the criteria for "low density urban". To take another
Planning Dept.
Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Exhibit-
PLANNERS AND EM's
Page 2
September 18, 2007
example, Punalu'u is a "minor resort" in the General Plan, with a limit of 500 visitor
units, so any SMA permit would have to be limited to that, although the zoning
potentially allows more units.
The problem with determining consistency with the LUPAG map comes up because in
most cases, the boundaries on the LUPAG map were not meant to be exact. Attached to
this memo is letter dated April 27, 2001, explaining this and giving examples. This letter
was also made a part of Staff Memo 2001-40. This letter remains valid with the 2005
General Plan. All planners should read and try to understand it.
To give a typical example, the General Plan will show an area of low density urban or
alternate urban expansion around a town like Hawi or Waimea. This gives the general
guidance that further urban development should grow outward from the existing
developed area of the town, or in vacant infill areas, and gives an idea of the extent and
scale, but it was not meant to be exactly scaled off to create an absolute boundary. The
fact that the LUPAG is now on GIS and shows exact locations gives a false precision to
j the map. The GIS was digitized from the 1989 LUPAG map, which is at a scale of about
l 1"= two miles, and was not, in most cases, meant to depict absolute boundaries. This
means that it is often possible to reasonably interpret an area as being in low density
urban or medium density urban, for example, and either could be correct.
There are exceptions to the concept that the LUPAG map lines are not absolute
boundaries, which are discussed in the April 27, 2001 letter: for example, when they go
along identifiable streets or when the property was originally put into the LUPAG map by
a specific metes-and-bounds interim amendment.
This being the case, we should reject applications for inconsistency with the LUPAG map
only in very clear cases where there are no boundary issues. An example would be an
industrial zoning in an area where there was no industrial designation on the LUPAG, or
residential zoning within what is clearly an industrial area. Otherwise, we should process
the application, with an unfavorable recommendation, explain our reasons for concluding
that the application is not consistent with the LUPAG, and let the Council or Planning
Commission make the final decision. We should also explain other land use reasons, if
any, for denying the application. If the Council eventually decides to approve the
rezoning, or the Planning Commission decides to approve an SMA permit, against our
negative recommendation, they will have to make a finding that it is consistent with the
LUPAG. We should not reject an application just because it is a few hundred feet from
the proper LUPAG line, except in the unusual case where the line was meant to be exact.
f
I
PLANNERS AND EM's
Page 3
September 18, 2007
If we do reject an application because of LUPAG inconsistency, we should include the
standard language stating that this can be appealed to the Board of Appeals, because this
is a final decision.
When it looks like a rezoning or SMA permit is not consistent with the LUPAG as shown
on GIS, but we interpret the LUPAG to be consistent, we should explain why we are
interpreting the LUPAG in the background of the rezoning or SMA permit.
The LUPAG does not answer all land use questions. A rezoning may not be a good idea
in a particular location, because of poor road access, traffic congestion, incompatibility
with neighbors, historic sites, flooding, natural resources, and many other reasons, even if
it is basically consistent with the LUPAG. The work that we do in making
recommendations on rezonings and SMA permits calls for informed judgment and often a
weighing of competing factors.
CJY:pak
Wpwin60/Chris 07/Staff memo re LUPAG consistency
Attachments
cc: Office of the Corporation Counsel
E
Ja.v,or ~qW
harry Kim Chris[op} er J. Yue
Mayor Director
Roy R. Takemoto
DeputyDireotor
cKounft~ of nfun[l
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
25 Aupuni Street, Room 109 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252
(808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8^742
April 27, 2001
Lincoln Ashida, Esq.
Corporation Counsel
Office of the Corporation Counsel
101 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Mr. Ashida:
SUBJECT: PLAN INTERPRETATION
The County Council has requested that Corporation Counsel issue an opinion about the
scope of the Planning Director's discretion to make "map interpretations" that particular
parcels are within specific categories on the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide
(LUPAG) maps in the General Plan. This is in connection with a specific rezoning
request-the property on the Panaewa corner of Puainako and Kanoelehua, across
Puainako from Blockbuster, but it is something that is of great general significance. For
that reason I wanted to share my thoughts before your office issued an opinion.
The difficulty is that the LUPAG maps were, in most cases, only meant to show the
general locations of particular uses. I have been told by Norman Hayashi, who worked
on the original 1971 GP, that the maps were not meant to be precisely scaled. For
example, the maps may show an industrial area that corresponds to an existing location,
like a mill site, but if you were to try to scale the map location from fixed points, like a
street intersection or the shoreline, you would not necessarily arrive at the actual existing
location. The Planning Department simply did not try to make the maps have this kind of
accuracy, in part because it did not intend that they be used with this degree of precision.
The 1989 maps are on a scale of one-inch equals two miles, so a sixteenth of an inch is
about 650 feet. This may be very significant in dealing with a particular property if one
attempts to precisely scale off the map.
In many cases, the designations are inherently imprecise. For example, there is often a
band of "Low Density" or "Urban Expansion" surrounding existing towns. This signifies
t ; ° i i!
Lincoln Ashida, Esq.
Corporation Counsel
Office of the Corporation Counsel
Page 2
April 27, 2001
that the existing town can expand in that direction, and it may give a general indication of
the ultimate size, but it does not indicate a precise boundary for the town. There is a band
of "Open" designation along the shoreline which could be scaled off at 300-500 feet
wide, but this does not designate a policy of a 300-500 foot wide shoreline setback. It
signifies that there is a shoreline setback, but given the scale, it is not possible to
delineate an exact width on the map.
I have found many instances where zoning has been allowed that is not precisely
consistent with the LUPAG, if you try to precisely scale the map. For example, the Kona
Industrial subdivision is partially within the "High Density" urban core of Kailua-Kona.
Industrial uses are not permitted within "High Density." The Ritz-Carlton Hotel is
located at least partially, and maybe completely, on an "Open" LUPAG designation,
although there is a "Resort" designation in the immediate vicinity.
( I must conclude, as have previous planning directors, that there must be some discretion
to interpret the map. There have been a number of formal "map interpretationsmore
often zoning has proceeded without this being raised as an issue.
That being said, the key question is the extent of discretion. Unfettered discretion makes
the LUPAG map completely worthless. I agree with an opinion orally given by Pat
O'Toole that there is no discretion when the map area in question was enacted by an
ordinance which specifies metes and bounds, or by a specific parcel, as has sometimes
been the case for interim amendments. I also feel that there are circumstances where the
intent of the map is clear. Among these are the "conservation" designations that appear
to coincide with the state land use conservation district boundaries or forest reserve
boundaries. I don't think the director has the discretion to "map interpret" those areas to
include adjacent properties. Another example would be where the map clearly covers an
existing facility, like a mill site being shown as industrial. In those circumstances, the
map would be interpreted to cover the existing mill area, and perhaps something larger,
depending upon the size of the area shown on the map,
I also think that in where a road appears to be the boundary between markedly different
LUPAG categories, the road ought to be respected as a boundary. For example, if an
urban use is only shown on one side of a road, one should not interpret it to be on the
other side of the road. I think that where an urban use is clearly shown on one bay it
should not be extended or moved to the next bay.
Lincoln Ashida, Esq.
Corporation Counsel
Office of the Corporation Counsel
Page 3
April 27, 2001
Areas where the map can be interpreted would include examples like a future resort
shown on a particular bay. The map was not done to exactly locate the hotel site, which
could be determined in the zoning process, but still be consistent with the LUPAG map.
Where the boundary is inherently imprecise-for example, where an area of urban
expansion or low density has been drawn around an existing residential area-if a
proposal comes forward to rezone the property somewhere near or past the apparent
fringe, the more cogent question may be whether it is right to rezone the fringe before the
adjoining land closer to the existing urban area has been developed.
I also feel that there should be some ultimate limit in map interpretation vs. the exact
location shown on the LUPAG-something between five hundred and a thousand feet, in
my opinion.
On the specific question of the Puainako St. property, my office has extensive files which
give a chronology of what happened. In brief, the question is whether the 1989 General
Plan amended the map to include this property within the "High Density" area of Hilo,
even though the map itself did not change to include it. Because the original amendment
creating the High Density area at Prince Kuhio Plaza was by metes and bounds, it is clear
that this area was not High Density before the 1989 amendments. I would be happy to
share what we have in response to any question that may come from the council.
Sincerely,
CHRISTOPHER J.ZN
Planning Director
CJY:pak
Wpwin60\Chris\Plan Interpretation letter
cc: Patricia O'Toole, Esq.
Mr. Roy Takemoto
Mr. Rodney Nakano
Mr. Norman Hayashi
Nis. Alice Kawaha
l
o °SC of y4
~L 4
,f:j- 'Y' lam 3obby Jean Leithead-Todd
Harry Kim - _ •i :a Director
Mayor-,
Nelson Ho
Ora oFwrd Deputy Director
Cauniv af'ttfvai'!
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720
(808) 961-8083 Fax (808) 961-8086
htto://co.hawaii.hi.us/directory/dir envmne.htm
MEMORANDUM
Date : September 27, 2007
To . CHRISTOPHER YUEN, Planning Director
From: BOBBY JEAN LEITHEAD-TODD, Director 4~1_
Subject: Change of Zone Application (REZ 07-000073)
Applicant: Jinso and Ran Hui Iida
Request: RS-10 to CN-20
TMK: 2-2-40:121
We have reviewed the subject application and offer the following recommendations:
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:
WASTEWATER COMMENTS:
( ) No comments
( ) Require connection of existing and/or proposed structures to the public sewer in accordance with
Section 21-5 of the Hawaii County Code.
( ) Require Council Resolution to approve sewer extension in accordance with Section 21-26.1 of the
Hawaii County Code. Complete D.E.M. Sewer Extension Application. .
( ) Require extension of the sewer system to service the proposed subdivision in accordance with
Section 23-85 of the Hawaii County Code.
~~55 ( ) Other: ,h
t) J TECHNICAL SERVICES COMMENTS: (~"1t ~4
-04
SOLID WASTE COMMENTS:
( ) No comments
(~j() Commercial operations, State and Federal agencies, religious entities and non-profit
organizations may not use transfer stations for disposal.
()C) Aggregates and any other construction/demolition waste should be responsibly reused to
its fullest extent.
(X) Ample and equal room should be provided for rubbish and recycling,
Greenwaste may be transported to the green waste sites located at the Kailua and Hilo transfer
stations, or other suitable diversion programs.
( Construction and demolition waste is prohibited at all County Transfer Stations.
(?O Submit Solid Waste Management Plan in accordance with attached guidelines.
( ) Existing Solid Waste Management Plan is to be followed. Provide update to the department on
current status.
( ) Other: bwyQ o~ Cabrnt,etvars WMRZk_ W Ase6 G stIbA1 1) 3i 2 0
1! aQ
cc: SWD, TSS, WWD ]oofllanning Opt.
County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Exhibit / -
~tV oa k
~''."4~s Lobby Jean Leithead-Todd
ldn~,. Director
Harry Kim 's<
A9qj", Nelson Ho
P~••.+ a'•>~' Depury Director
TE 06•Xk•'I'E
(9aunfV IT ~t 2~Y`t
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
25 Aupuni Street • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252
(808) 961-8083 s Fax (808) 961-8086
September 14, 2007
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Guidelines
INTENT AND PURPOSE
This is to establish guidelines for reviewing solid waste management plans, for which
special conditions are placed on developments. The solid waste management plan will be
used to: (1) encourage recycling and recycling programs, (2) predict the waste generated
by the proposed development to anticipate the loading-on County transfer stations,
landfills and recycling facilities, and (3) predict the additional traffic being generated
because of waste and recycling transfers.
REPORT
The consultant's report will contain the following:
1. Description of the project and the potential waste it may be generating: i.e. analysis
of anticipated waste volume and composition. This includes waste generated
during the construction and operational phases. Greenwastes will be included in
this report for both construction grubbing and future operational landscape
maintenance.
2. Description and location of the possible sites for waste disposal or recycling. We
will not allow the use of the County transfer stations for any commercial
development; commercial development as defined under the policies of the
Department of Environmental Management Solid Waste Division.
3. Since the Department of Environmental Management promotes recycling, indicate
onsite source separation facilities by waste stream; i.e. source separation bins of
glass, metal, plastic, cardboard, aluminum, etc. Provide ample and equal space
for rubbish and recycling.
4. Identification of the proposed disposal site and transportation methods for the
various components of the waste disposal and recycling system, including the
number of truck traffic and the route that truck will be using to transport the waste
and recycled materials.
Solid VVaste Management Plan Guidelines
Page 2 of 2
5. The report will include any impacts to County waste and recycling facilities, and the
appropriate mitigation measures. All recommendations and mitigation measures
will be addressed.
6. Description of the waste reduction component that analyzes techniques to be
employed to achieve a reduction goal.
7. Analysis will be based on the highest potential use or zoning of the development.
REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS
1. A solid waste management plan will be done for all commercial developments, as
defined under the policies of the Department of Environmental Management, Solid
Waste Division.
2. We will require the developer to provide or resolve all recommendations and
mitigation measures as outlined in the report; besides any conditions placed on the
applicant by the Department of Environmental Management.
3. A licensed environmental or civil engineer will draft and certify the solid waste
management plan.
If you have need additional information, please contact Michael Dworsky, P.E., Solid
Waste Division Chief at 808-961-8515.
CONCUR:
e 26-4e-01-
Bobby RJean Leithead-Todd
DIRECTOR
10/13/03
Revised 09/14107
Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.
oJaSYOi Nq{,,9
Harry Kim Lawrence K. Mahuna
Mayor Police Chief
ar a p. Harry S. Kubojiri
~ti oi='a•~ Depury Police Chief
I
County of Hawaii
POLICE DEPARTMENT
349 Kapiolard Street • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3998
(808)935-3311 • Fu(808)961-8869
October 2, 2007
TO HRISTOP R J. YUEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR
M. 1
FROM J MES M. DAY, SSISTANT POLICE CHIEF
REA I OPERATIONS BUREAU
SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 07-000073)
APPLICANT: JINSO AND RANHUI IIDA
REQUEST: RS-10 TO CN-20
TAX MAP KEY: 2-2-40:121
Staff, upon reviewing the provided documents and visiting the proposed site,
does not anticipate any significant impact to traffic and/or public safety concerns.
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment.
KV:IIi
Planning Dept.
Exhibit -
"Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer' 0 3 4 0 3 2
J,,.Y Of qg 9
O LL
llamf 1'.r £ct - tom. Darryl T. ®lfvelra
Ifapor - FireCNf
°„E oF.Np.~e Glen P.I. Honda
Depuop Fire Chief
Countp of aMiuaf 4i
HAWAII FIRE DEPARTMENT
25 Aupuni Street • Suite 103 • Hilo, HawaN 96720
(808) 981-8394 . Fax (808) 981-2037
October 5, 2007
TO: CHRISTOPHER J. YUEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: DARRYL OLIVEIRA, FIRE CHIEF
SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 07-000073)
APPLICANT: JINSO AND RAN HUI IIDA.
REQUEST: RS-10 TO CN-20
TAX MAP KEY: 2-2-40:121
In regards to the above-mentioned Change of Zone application, the following shall be in
accordance:
Fire apparatus access roads shall be in accordance with UFC Section 10.207:
"Fire Apparatus Access Roads
"Sec. 10.207. (a) General. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained
in accordance with the provisions of this section.
"(b) Where Required. Fire apparatts access roads shall be required for every building
hereafter constructed when any portion of an exterior wall of the fast story is located more
than 150 feet from fire department vehicle access as measured by an unobstructed route
around the exterior of the building.
"EXCEPTIONS: 1. When buildings are completely protected with an approved
automatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions of this section may be modified.
"2. When access roadways, cannot be installed due to topography, waterways,
nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions, the chief may require additional
fire protection as specified in Section 10.301 (b).
®3 4 3 0 6 ,1,A~,~,~
Planning Dept. 4
HawaN County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. EXIT i b `
Cl6stopher J. Yuen.
October 5, 2007
Page 2
"3. When there are not more than two Group R, Division. .3 or Group M
Occupancies, the requirements of this section may be modified, provided, in the
opinion of the chief, fire-fighting or rescue operations would not be impaired.
"More than one fire apparatus road may be required when it is determined by the chief that
access by a single road may be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic
conditions or other factors that could limit access.
"For high-piled combustible storage, see Section 81.109.
"(c) Width. The unobstructed width of a fire apparatus access road shall meet the
requirements of the appropriate county jurisdiction.
"(d) Vertical Clearance. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical
clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches.
"EXCEPTION: Upon approval vertical clearance may be reduced, provided such
reduction does not impair access by fire apparatus and approved signs are installed
and maintained indicating "the established vertical clearance.
"(e) Permissible Modifications. Vertical clearances or widths required by this section
may be increased when, in the opinion of the chief, vertical clearances or widths are not
adequate to provide fire apparatus access.
"(f) Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the
imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-
weather driving capabilities." (20 tons)
"(g) Turning Radius. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be as
approved by the chief." (45 feet)
"(h) Turnarounds. All dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length
shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus.
"(i) Bridges. When a bridge is required to be used as access under this section, it shall be
constructed and maintained in accordance with the applicable sections of the Building Code
and using designed live loading sufficient to carry the imposed loads of fire apparatus.
"(j) Grade. The gradient for a fire apparatus access road shall not exceed the maximum
approved by the chief." (15%)
Christopher J. Yuen
October 5, 2007
Page 3
"(k) Obstruction. The required width of any fire apparatus access road shall not be
obstructed in any manner, including parking of vehicles. Minimum required widths and
clearances established under this section shall be maintained at all times.
"(1) Signs. When required by the fire chief, approved signs or other approved notices shall
be provided and maintained for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads and
prohibit the obstruction thereof or both."
Water supply shall be in accordance with UFC Section 10.301(c):
"(c) Water Supply. An approved water supply capable of supplying required fire flow for
fire protection shall be provided to all premises upon which buildings or portions of
buildings are hereafter constructed, in accordance with the respective county water
requirements. There shall be provided, when required by the chief, on-site fire hydrants and
mains capable of supplying the required fire flow.
"Water supply may consist of reservoirs, pressure. tanks, elevated tanks, water mains or
other fixed systems capable of providing the required fire flow.
"The location, number and type of fire hydrants connected to a water supply capable of
delivering the required fire flow "shall be protected as set forth by the respective county
water requirements. All hydrants shall be accessible to the fire department apparatus by
roadways meeting the requirements of Section 10.207.
Portable fire extinguishers shall be in accordance with UFC Standard No. 10-1.
L40AIVEA
Fire Chief
PBE:lpe
<E OF q LAURA H. MIELEN
LINDA LINGLE P a a v CHAT RSON
rt'p(.-'_ , % ~i BOAYp VFLM'D AND NAR9(p1 P.F.WI@fES
GOVDANON HAWAII !Ft'; r_~- t3 1~ 1 A COMM6SIONrNJ WATER pFSOVR[E MauAGGAENf
1
A
o, hand ana Nex _ ~~aat8di~
c 1
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
LAND DIVISION
Stateof"03* POST OFFICE BOX 621
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809
September 27, 2007
County of Hawaii
Planning Department
101 Pauahi Street Suite 3
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Attention: Mr. Norman Hayashi
Gentlemen:
Subject: Change of Zone Application (REZ 07-000073) Jinso and Ran Hui Iida,
Hilo, Hawaii, Tax Map Key: (3) 2-2-40:121
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject matter. The
Department of Land and Natural Resources has no comment to offer on the subject matter.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call our office at 587-0433. Thank you.
Sincerely,
AaL" , :
Z~p~.ll tr Tsuji
Admi
_ Administrator
Planning Dept.
Exhibit
033922
LINDA LINGLE a. „ CHIYOME L. FUKINO, M.D.
GOVERNOR A~ ,y sa Oirecdord Health
f" it
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
P.O. BOX 916
HILO, HAWAII 96721-0916
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 12, 2007
TO: Christopher J. Yuen
Planning Director, County of Hawaii
FROM: Newton Inouye V4
Acting District Environmental Health Program Chief
SUBJECT: Change of Zone Application (REZ 07-000073)
Applicant: Jinso and Ran Hui Iida
Request: RS-10 to CN-20
Tax Map Key: 2-2-40:121
Health Department rules specify the amount of sewage that can be treated with an onsite disposal
system to be 1,000 gallons per 10,000 sq. ft. Based on the property size, the maximum sewage
allowed is 2,355 gallons per day. However, the calculation should be done on the net square
footage of the property which is the total square footage of the property subtracting the foot print
of the building. Using the net square footage requirement, the sewage allowed would be less
than 2,355 pgd.
The Department of Health does not have any objections to the proposed change in land uses.
However, existing or planned land use activities adjacent to the proposed residential area should
be compatible with a residential neighborhood.
We recommend that you review all of the Standard Comments on our website:
www.state.hi.us/health/environmental/env-nlanningnanduse/landuse.html. Any comments
specifically applicable to this project should be adhered to.
WORD:REZ 07-000073.my
Q34M
Planning Dept.
ExKibitL6--
Rhnsoolida-REZ07-073-jwd 10-22-07
COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RECOMMENDATION
JINSOO AND RAN HUI IIDA
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 07-000073)
Upon careful review of the request, the Planning Director recommends that an
unfavorable recommendation of the Change of Zone request be forwarded to the Hawaii
County Council, primarily because it does not conform to the General Plan LUPAG Map.
Since this recommendation is made without the benefit of public testimony, the Director reserves
the right to modify and/or alter this position based upon additional information presented at the
public hearing. This unfavorable recommendation is based on the following findings:
The applicants are requesting the change of zone for 23,559 square feet of land
from a Single Family Residential -10,000 square feet (RS-10) to a Neighborhood
Commercial - 20,000 square feet (CN-20) district. The applicants currently operate
Lani's Beauty Salon located at the Puainako Town Center. They are proposing to
convert an existing 768 square- foot, 1-bedroom/I-bathroom dwelling into a beauty salon
and relocate their business to this new location. The project would include four (4)
sitting chairs in the living room and the bedroom would be converted to a waxing room.
The County Charter, under Section 3-15(b), states that "no public improvement or
project, or subdivision or zoning ordinance, shall be initiated or adopted unless the same
conforms to and implements the General Plan."
In considering a zoning amendment initiated by a property owner which proposes
to change the district classification of any property, the Planning Director shall consider
the purposes of the existing and proposed district and the purposes of the Zoning Code,
and shall recommend a change in a district boundary only where it would result in a more
appropriate land use pattern that will further the public necessity and convenience and the
general welfare, and be consistent with the goals, policies and standards of the General
Plan.
The proposed rezoning action from Single-Family Residential to
Neighborhood Commercial is not consistent with the applicable goals, policies,
standards and courses of action of the General Plan for this area. In order to
consider an area for any type of zoning designation, the zoning amendment needs to be
consistent with applicable goals, policies, standards and courses of action of the General
Plan. The current use of the property is consistent with the goals, policies and standards
of the Land Use (Single-Family Residential) Element of the General Plan and should not
be amended. The location of designated single-family residential lands in this area is
important in that they are located in close proximity to centers of employment, shopping
and other conveniences, and have the basic improvements and amenities necessary for
development.
The Land Use and Commercial Elements requires that a change of zone request
be evaluated for a particular area in relationship to the following goals, policies,
standards and course of action:
Land Use
• Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in
keeping with the social, cultural and physical environments of the County.
• Zone urban- and rural-types of uses in areas with ease of access to community
services and employment centers and with adequate public utilities and facilities.
• Allocate appropriate requested zoning in accordance with the existing or projected
needs of neighborhood, community, region and County.
• Encourage the development and maintenance of communities meeting the needs
of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment.
• Zoning request shall be reviewed with respect to General Plan designation, district
goals, regional plans, State Land Use District, compatibility with adjacent zoned
uses, availability of public services and utilities, access and public need.
Commercial Develooment
• Provide for commercial developments that maximize convenience to users.
• Provide commercial developments that complement the overall pattern of
transportation and land usage within the island's regions, communities, and
neighborhoods.
• Commercial facilities shall be developed in areas adequately served by necessary
services, such as water, utilities, sewers, and transportation systems.
-2-
• Distribution of commercial areas shall be such as to best meet the demands of
neighborhood, commercial and regional needs.
• Encourage the concentration of commercial uses within and surrounding a central
core area.
The request is contrary to the Land Use goals and policies of the General Plan.
The General Plan is intended to be used as a policy guide for the coordinated growth and
development of all sectors of the County. It sets forth goals, policies, standards and
courses of action to accommodate growth without congestion, to designate and preserve
lands for residential use, commercial and visitor services, industry, agriculture and open
space. Land Use is one of the principle focal points of public concern and policy. The
Land Use element, which also includes a Commercial sub-element, provides the basis for
control and guidance of public and private resources.
The request is not consistent with the Land Use - Commercial Development goals
and policies of the General Plan, which state:
• Encourage the concentration of commercial uses within and surrounding a central
core area.
• Provide commercial developments that complement the overall pattern of
transportation and land usage within the island's regions, communities, and
neighborhoods.
The proposed request fails to address the fundamental problems associated with
the development of commercial property in this particular area, which is the inability to
establish an effective land use pattern. Effective land use planning requires a regional
perspective towards establishing a proper land use pattern within a given area. The
proposed request would be better located within the established commercial area of the
Puainako Town Center, which is located within close proximity to the property, or within
other commercially-zoned sites, rather than spreading into residential neighborhoods not
planned for such commercial uses.
Another consideration is the potential for encouraging strip commercial
development should the request be approved. Approval of the request may attract the
"in-filling" of lands between the established commercial areas by other commercial
-3-
developments or could extend commercial development further south creating strip
development in this area. Such strip development would create rapid growth increase in
adverse impacts to traffic as multiple access points would be required for such
developments along Kilauea Avenue.
Therefore, from a land use perspective, to allow higher density commercial uses
through the CN zoning in this area would be inappropriate at this time. Allowing this
change of zone would undoubtedly serve as a precedent for future rezonings for
commercial uses along Kilauea Avenue in this area. Based on the above, a CN-20 zoning
is not appropriate for this property.
The proposed rezoning action from Single-Family Residential to
Neighborhood Commercial does not conform to the LUPAG Map, which designates
the area for Low Density Urban Development. The Land Use Pattern Allocation
Guide (LUPAG) Map component of the General Plan represents the document's goals,
policies, standards and courses of action to guide the coordinated growth and
development of the County. It reflects a graphic depiction of the spatial relationships
among various land uses and the expressed policy statements of the document itself. The
LUPAG Map, in essence, establishes the basic land use pattern for areas within the
County. This area is designated as Low Density Urban, which may allow residential,
with ancillary community and public uses, and neighborhood and convenience-type
commercial uses; overall residential density may be up to six units per acre. In the
application, the applicant incorrectly states that the General Plan LUPAG designation for
the property is Medium Density Urban.
Rezoning is the primary method for changing the allowed uses of land. Rezoning
must be consistent with the General Plan, including the Land Use Pattern Allocation
Guide (LUPAG) Map. The problem with determining consistency with the LUPAG map
comes up because in most cases, the boundaries on the LUPAG map were not meant to
be exact. The broad-brush boundaries indicated are graphic expressions of the General
Plan policies, particularly those relating to land uses. They are long-range guides to the
general location and will be subject to the existing zoning and the State Land Use
District.
-4-
There are exceptions to the concept that the LUPAG map lines are broad-brush
boundaries. For example, when they go along identifiable streets or when the property
was originally put into the LUPAG map by a specific metes-and-bounds interim
amendment. In this particular situation, the boundary between Medium Density Urban
and Low Density Urban runs along Kilauea Avenue with the applicant's property located
along the side designated for low density urban uses.
Based on the above, the proposed site would not be suitable to allow for
Neighborhood Commercial uses, as it is designated for low density urban uses in this
specific area. The rezoning reclassification would not result in a more appropriate land
use pattern and would not be a reasonable expansion of the existing commercial uses in
the area.
To summarize, in reviewing this zoning amendment request against factors listed
above for approval, the greatest weight is placed on the request's consistency with the
General Plan, including the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map. In this
case, although the proposed request met certain factors that consider the suitability of the
property for approval, such as its close proximity to roads, utilities and public safety
services, it did not meet the main factors, which include 1) consistency with the goals,
policies and standards of the General Plan, which considered the existing residential use
of the property as more appropriate and conformance with the Land Use Pattern
Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map, which designates this property as Low Density Urban.
Please note that if the beauty salon operator lived in the home, it could operate as a
"home occupation" with a maximum of one employee, in addition to the occupants of the home.
Based on the above findings, the Planning Director recommends that the Planning
Commission send an unfavorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council for this change
of zone request from Single Family Residential (RS-10) to a Neighborhood Commercial
(CN-20). A draft bill to amend Section 25-8-33 (City of Hilo Zone Map) of Chapter 25, Zoning
Code is provided for your information. Please note that due to the unfavorable recommendation,
there are no conditions attached to the draft bill.
-5-
~~atv os k~+
16r~;
COUNTY OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII
+ri of w.N
BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 25-8-33 (CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP),
ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983
(2005 EDITION), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 10,000 SQUARE FEET (RS-10) TO NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL 20,000 SQUARE FEET (CN-20) AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII,
COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY 2-2-040:121.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1. Section 25-8-33, Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii
County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), is amended to change the district classification of property
described hereinafter as follows:
The district classification of the following area situated at Waiakea, South Hilo,
Hawaii, shall be Neighborhood Commercial 20,000 square feet (CN-20):
Beginning at the southeast comer of this parcel of land, also being the northeast corner of
Lot 13-A, Block 502, and on the west side of Kilauea Avenue, the coordinates of said
point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "HALAI" being
8,570.69 feet South and 9,735.36 feet East and thence running by azimuths measured
clockwise from true South:
1. 85° 40' 00" 242.00 feet along Lot 13-A, Block 502;
2. 175° 40' 00" 97.35 feet along Lot 14, Block 502;
3. 265° 40' 00" 242.00 feet along Lot 15, Block 502;
4. 355° 40' 00" 97.35 feet along the east side of Kilauea
Avenue to the point of beginning and
containing an area of 23,559 Sq. Ft.,
more or less.
-1-
All as shown on the map attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and by reference
made part hereof.
SECTION 2. In accordance with Section 25-2-44, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005
Edition), the County Council finds the following conditions are:
(1) Necessary to prevent circumstances which may be adverse to the public
health, safety and welfare; or
(2) Reasonably conceived to fulfill needs directly emanating from the land use
proposed with respect to:
(A) Protection of the public from the potentially deleterious effects of
the proposed use, or
(B) Fulfillment of the need for public service demands created by the
proposed use.
SEE ATTACHED CONDITIONS
SECTION 3. In the event that any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other parts of this ordinance.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval.
INTRODUCED BY:
COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII
Hawaii
Date of Introduction:
Date of 1st Reading:
Date of 2nd Reading:
Effective Date:
-2-
N
g
RS-10 C 40
W
Y
W
W PUAINAKO ST E PUAINAKO ST
RS- 0 CN-10
RS-10 CN-10
RS-10
SINGL FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
C11-10 SQUARE FEET (RS-10)
TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CG-20
20 0 -SQUARE FEET CN-20
23,559 SQ. FT.
RS-f0
RS- 0
3°
a
N -lQ
RS-10 W
00
z 0
~ 8,570.69 S a
9,7 5.6E 5
"HALAI'a r
CG-20
RS- 0
CN-10
RS-10
N W
a
x
W F
RS-10 W E go s
a
CN-10 a
S
RS-10
CN-f0 N-10
RS- 0 10 RS-10
290 145 0 290 580 870 1,160 1,450
Fee
AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE
AMENDING SECTION 25-8-33 (CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP)
ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE
1983 (2005 EDITION), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION
FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 10,000-SQUARE FEET (RS-10)
TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 20,000-SQUARE FEET (CN-20)
AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII
PREPARED BY: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF HAWAII
MK: 2-2-040:121 Date: October 22, 2007
EXHIBIT "A" (Jinsoo P. & Ran Hui P. lida:1237)
PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
DECEMBER 7, 2007
A regularly advertised hearing on the application of JINSOO AND RAN HUI IIDA (REZ 07-
000073) was called to order at 9:45 a.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference
Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with First Vice-Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding.
PRESENT: William Graham ABSENT & EXCUSED: Andrew Iwashita
Kimo Alameda
Takashi Domingo
Shelly Ogata
Alvin Rho
Rene' Siracusa
Rodney Watanabe
Rell Woodward
Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Managher
Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner
Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner
And approximately 12 people from the public in attendance
APPLICANT: JINSOO AND RAN HUI IIDA (REZ 07-000073)
Change of Zone from Single Family Residential 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to a Neighborhood
Commercial 20,000 square feet (CN-20) for 23,559 square feet of land.
The property is located along the west side of Kilauea Avenue, approximately 420 feet south of
the Kilauea Avenue - Puainako Street intersection, Waiakea Homestead House Lots, South Hilo,
Hawaii, Tax Map Key: 2-2-40:121.
ALAMEDA: Okay, Agenda Item No. 2, I'd like to just turn it over to our staff.
Mr. Darrow?
DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, this is a continued action on this
application. At our last hearing a motion was made to send a favorable recommendation to the
Hawaii County Council. This was moved by Commissioner Iwashita, at which time he had
made standard conditions for the approval. The motion did not pass with three ayes and three
noes.
If I can do a brief background for this application for the Commissioners that were not with us at
our last hearing. The area of this application is in the South Hilo District. More specifically
we're looking at Kilauea Avenue. Why don't I come to the location map. Kilauea Avenue
running in a north-south direction. This wide gray line running through the middle of the map in
a north-south direction is Kanoelehua. Running parallel with that, we have Kilauea and Kinoole
Streets. Running in an east-west direction, gray lines, we have Puainako Street and Kahaopea
1
Street. At the corner of Puainako and Kilauea you might be aware of Kai Store, as well as the
Maebo Noodle Factory. This pink area identified on the corner of Puainako and Kanoelehua is
the KTA Shopping Center. The area of the application is identified with a blue dot. Next to the
application on the south side we have Klein's Chiropractic. You might be familiar they were
approved through a Use Permit some time ago when they allowed for those particular types of
uses to be permitted through the Use Permit process.
The applicants in this case, Jinsoo and Ran Hui Iida, are requesting a change of zone from Single
Family Residential 10,000 square feet to Neighborhood Commercial 20,000 square feet. The
property is identified with a blue line. Kilauea is on the right side of the map. We have an
entrance identified in brown. There will be one entrance to the property from Kilauea Avenue.
The applicants are requesting this change of zone to be able to operate their beauty salon, in what
is called Lam's Beauty Salon, within the existing single family dwelling identified in red.
Additionally, they've already done improvements on the property. There are paved accesses as
well as parking stalls. There is another structure on the property identified by a No. 1. This was
originally constructed as a garage. It is in the process of being permitted as an additional single
family dwelling.
Since our last hearing we have received quite a number of correspondence. We have received
letters of support from Lisa Pering, Kaopua and Arleen Sanborn-Cabasawa. Additionally,
we've received a letter from the applicants; and this morning we've received quite a number of
letters of support that were submitted by the applicants. They are letters from quite a number of
people identified on the first page. Additionally, we have received a portion of the General Plan
which was submitted by the applicant's representative.
The Planning Director based on reasons given in the recommendation recommends that an
unfavorable recommendation be forwarded to the Hawaii County Council. At our last meeting
we did go into a little bit of detail on that; and I'll briefly touch upon that. The main reason is
that in regards to this application's location it is not consistent with the General Plan LUPAG
Map for this particular change of zone. In most cases we look at the General Plan in a broad-
brushed manner. We do not look at it from an exact point of view. But in this particular case,
there are several times that we do look at it from a more exact perspective. One of those times is
if the General Plan is amended and there are metes and bounds for that amendment or if that
particular separation is along an identified roadway. In this particular application the separation
is along Kilauea. On the east side of the road we have Medium Density Urban. On the west side
of the road we have Low Density Urban with portions of Medium Density Urban. Are there any
questions?
ALAMEDA: Commissioner Rho?
RHO: There's a parcel above the blue dot. So do you know who owns that
parcel and what they're using it for?
DARROW: These parcels in this particular area are the Macho Noodle Factory, as well
as Kai Store. And there is a portion of Medium
RHO: No, no. But the, maybe I said the wrong color. The yellow parcel
2
DARROW: Oh, right here?
RHO: Above the blue dot? I'm assuming that there's a separate parcel.
DARROW: Yes, this one I'm sorry, right here.
RHO: So that's being used just for residential?
DARROW: Correct.
RHO: And I might ask the applicants when they come up, but do you know
whether or not they're one of the parties who submitted testimony?
DARROW: I'm not sure.
RHO: Okay. And then the parcel below that blue dot is that chiropractor?
DARROW: Correct.
RHO: And then there are all these yellow parcels below that. Any of the parcels
also have a business like the chiropractor has with the variance or whatever he got?
DARROW: Not that I'm aware of. This is the only one that I'm aware of, this
chiropractic business.
RHO: Thank you.
ALAMEDA: Commissioner Graham?
GRAHAM: Jeff, kind of, maybe it's a little bit of a technical question with the piece of
paper we got given to us today by the applicant's representative when it describes from the
General Plan Land Use Concepts, you know, what conforms to Low Density Urban. And one of
the things that are mentioned here in yellow says "neighborhood and convenience type
commercial uses." So the gist of my question is kind of the application is asking for CN-20. So
since the designation of the General Plan or LUPAG is Low Density Urban, and Low Density
does include neighborhood and convenience type commercial uses, then I'm presuming that CN-
20 is an allowed use in the Low Density Urban. But CN-20, that's not being directed towards
neighborhood convenience uses as perhaps not So the zoning designation in itself is not a
problem. It's just the specific use that's being proposed here doesn't properly conform. Is that a
correct reading?
HAYASHI: As far as that provision of the General Plan relative to allowing certain
neighborhood type of commercial uses or personal services type of uses, that may be permitted
within the Low Density Urban category. Basically the intent was to allow certain types of
neighborhood facilities or neighborhood stores such was Wiki-Wiki on Kawailani Street or
Ainaola Cash and Carry up on Ainaola Drive, to allow these types of uses within area that's
basically residential to cater to and service these residential communities. As far as this
particular use, basically what we're looking we're looking at, although the use is for barber shop
3
or a beauty shop basically what we're looking at is an expansion of the existing Commercial
areas along a heavily traversed road. And basically I think this would be a good case of allowing
strip commercial developments along these roadways that are not generally proposed for
Medium Density Urban type of developments, unlike for instance the Waiakea Houselots where
we are recommending these types of uses or zoning where these areas are already designated for
Medium Density Urban development.
ALAMEDA: Follow-up?
GRAHAM: Yeah, Norman, so, again, just trying to be a little more precise with my
question, so if it were something like a Wiki-Wiki Mart that was to be used by the neighborhood
residents you could recommend approval. But in that case they would also be applying for a
zoning similar to this, a CN, Neighborhood Commercial zoning, and you could recommend
approval for that zoning if it was for the use that conforms to what you just said. Is that correct?
HAYASHI: That's correct.
GRAHAM: Thank you.
ALAMEDA: Further questions before I ask the applicant or representative to come
forward? Mr. Darrow, anything else to add before I ask the representative to come forward?
DARROW: Not from our side. Thank you.
ALAMEDA: Okay. Okay, can I ask the applicant or representative to please come
forward. Good morning. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
now before the Hawaii County Planning Commissioner?
FUKE: I do.
ALAMEDA: Thank you. Sir, could you please state your name and address for the
record.
FUKE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is
Sidney Fuke. Happy Holidays. My business address is just across the street. It's 100 Pauahi
Street. Perhaps maybe it's in the spirit of giving, I'm here giving my support to the applicant,
more as a personal favor.
ALAMEDA: Okay. Ma'am?
R. IIDA: I'm Lani, 11 Hoohoaloha Street.
ALAMEDA: Thank you, Lani. Okay, Mr. Fuke, you've had a chance to look over the
minutes and the County's recommendation. Any thoughts?
FUKE: Yes, regrettably, you know, we differ. You know, from a professional
perspective I differ with the recommendation of the Planning Director in this particular instance.
4
I just kind of like to want to make several points, you know, for the Commissioners'
consideration.
I think we all know that planning and land use is not an exact science. It's not like math or
chemistry or something like that. It's really, there are a lot of subjective decisions along the way.
And thus it's understandable why the Commission differs many times from the Planning
Director, or even within the Commission itself there are varying points of view. And if planning
and land use were purely black and white then there really would not be a need for a Planning
Commission, or let alone any appellate process. Specifically if you look at one of the points that
the Director's recommendation refers to is the LUPAG Map. Several things, I think, needs to be
considered relative to the LUPAG Map itself. One is that by very definition the LUPAG is an
acronym for Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map and the critical term in that whole acronym
is really guide. It's not a zoning map per se. And because it's guide, it's designed to be
reasonably flexible just to provide the decision maker with some idea or some guide as far as
like which direction certain areas within the community should grow and which should not.
Likewise, because it's a guide and subject to interpretation you can have your own interpretation,
the Planning Director can have his own interpretation in terms of what its designation is. And
ultimately in zoning situations the one interpretation that ultimately counts, of course, is the
County Council, cause they're the ones that ultimately makes the determination on whether the
interpretation that you render or the Planning Director renders is one that they agree with.
But not withstanding the fact that it's a guide or not a guide, I think that, you know, as
Commissioner Graham pointed out like, you know, I passed that excerpt. If you look at that
excerpt it's clear that whether you call it in a Medium Density or call it in a Low Density area,
the fact still remains that certain types of commercial uses could be considered, not shall be
considered, but could be considered within a Low Density area. So I think that the whole issue
of whether it's a Medium Density or Low Density designation on the LUPAG Map, you know,
basically becomes a moot point relative to what they're proposing to have operating.
So if you look then, you know, you get away from the map question and then you just look at the
whole issue of, well, the kinds of things that nonnally the Planning Commission or the Planning
Department reviews in all applications of this nature, they look at infrastructure, you know like
does it create a burden to the community, is there a traffic problem, is there like a water problem,
are there wastewater issues? And in this particular situation I would probably conclude that
given what they're proposing for this site here, no. If you look at traffic, I think traffic may be
one of the more, I think the staff kind of pointed out that one of the things that they were kind of
concerned about is potential traffic impact by having more commercial uses along that area.
Well, that is true. But I think that if you travel along that area what is a major mitigating factor
along that section of Kilauea Avenue as opposed to looking at Lanikaula or Kekuanaoa, you
know, you have three lanes and you have a center lane in that area which is a dedicated turning
lane, you know, unlike those other streets. The application you just considered, for example,
because you have a dedicated turning lane in that area it does not necessarily impede the flow of
north and south traffic movements along Kilauea Avenue. The other kinds of issues, of course,
you look at is like, well, are there any on-site environmental issues, are there archaeological
concerns, are there drainage issues associated with the property, is there like a significant or
endangered plant species on the property? And the answer to that question is no. The property
has been historically used as a residence for over 50 years. There's no flooding, inspite of all of
the rain that we've had over here.
5
Then you also look again like, well, letting the community, I think this is one of Commissioner
Rho's question, well, let the community weigh in on it, what do the neighbors say? And as
evidenced by the petition, the petition reflects support by not necessarily only adjoining property
owners, but it also reflects those who are residents, and a good number of them are not. But it
also reflects support from a number of businesses. If you look at the petition, you see
representatives from KTA, representatives from the Puainako Town Center, you see the
adjoining property owner which is commercially used, Dr. Klein's Chiropractic, you see the
owner from Kai Store, they are all supportive of this project. And also you have adjoining
neighbors who are presently using their property in a residential manner also supporting the
project.
The other question, I guess, is like, well, you know, there is this pattern question. You know like
will it unnecessarily create a strip type of project by approving this zoning? And I think that
from my perspective it's no. I think that if you look on the ground condition versus looking at
the map, sure if you look at the map there is like all yellow on both sides of the property. But
that's not reality. The reality is on the Puna side of the property there's a commercial use, that's
Dr. Klein. And on the Hilo side one lot away, there's a quasi industrial use, and that's the
Macho Noodle Factory which burned down and rebuilt to an even larger structure. So I don't see
necessarily that you have really a situation where it will continue the pattern of further stripping
of commercial uses along this area. I consider this more in-fill.
The other thing finally is like, you know, looking at the use itself and petty much what
Commissioner Siracusa was raising on the other application the use that they have or they're
proposing is a relatively benign use. It's almost equivalent to a home occupation concept. And
they could shoehorn their way in. They could say like, well, I'm going to, she's going to just do
her stuff there and maybe sneak in one or two employees and thereby get around that. But, you
know, that's not the way that they want to operate. They want to be honest. You know, and so
they don't want to fudge it. So they're coming in before you just saying that I want to do this
beauty salon and I may have up to three or four employees, and I don't want to not violate the
law, I just want to do it all up front.
I think that, finally, I agree to some extent with what Commissioner Siracusa was saying that,
you know, it's too bad that sometimes that when you look at zoning decisions, you know, we
tend to be so preoccupied with just the map. You know, we don't want to create a map situation
where it strings out commercial uses. But at the same time, you know, if we can broaden the
concept of how decisions are made and look at it more in terns of how like other jurisdictions
handle zoning, and that's more like what they call performance conditions, performance zoning;
and they do that In the way when you guys handle like special permits and use permits, you're
looking at it purely as a performance zoning. And in that regard like if the nomenclature is a
problem, whether you call it CN or RCX, then I would like to suggest as to what the applicant
had suggested earlier, that you put a condition that would basically amount to having this
decision amount to like a performance zoning. And one of the conditions that they had
suggested which I would like to kind of repeat today is to say specifically that as represented by
the applicant the site shall be restricted to personal services, residential and residential-related
uses as described in the commercial neighborhood district, Section 25-5-101. Any other uses
would be subject to an amendment of this condition. Restrictive covenants in the deed of the
subject property shall give notice of this restriction." If you have this kind of condition then it's
6
clear that what they're proposing to do will essentially be what's happening on the property. So
it's not like tomorrow if they want to sell the property they want to put up a gas station or like a
Wiki-Wiki Mart operation that they can unilaterally do that. They would not be able to do that
without coming back before this Commission and the County Council and having that condition
lifted, and at which time the community and the Commission and the public, broader public,
would be in a position to weigh in on it. So I would like to make that suggestion and hopefully
the Commission can favorably consider this application.
ALAMEDA: Very good. Questions? Commissioner Siracusa.
SIRACUSA: Yes. Thank you, Sidney, for offering up that wording and that possible
condition because I have been sort of going back and forth in my mind about this one. On the
one hand, you know, the one blue dot in the sea of yellow, and my concerns about strip malls and
how, then what happens between the blue dot and the pink square that would be in-filled; and in-
fill can keep going forever, you know. On the other hand, it is what we, when we're talking abut
reducing traffic and neighborhoods and everything, we're talking about putting the kind of
services like a beauty parlor so that people and the residents can just walk to there and not have
to use their cars. And I think that I would be willing to support this with a condition the way you
spelled it out and Otherwise I would tend away from supporting it because that's part of my
big concern, is that, and always is with these types of things, is that people might start off with
something very nice, and she's a nice person and she has a lot of friends and people who support
her, and yet things happen in life, we all know that. Things happen in life, the unexpected should
be expected. Then she may have to sell the property, something may happen and she has to
leave and somebody else buys it, it's already zoned commercial. We know it, you know, we
know it happens there; and anything can go up which may be totally inappropriate, but then we
have no recourse. So I think that if we have an opportunity to have recourse now and be
proactive on this, I think we should grab it. And I hope that you, did you write down that or can
you
FUKE: It's actually contained in the letter that I think the applicant had submitted
to the Commission dated November 101h. I only
SIRACUSA: Okay, so we can just refer to that
FUKE: Except that I did add another, it could have been a superfluous condition,
sentence, but I just added "any other uses would be subject to an amendment of this condition,"
just to make it explicit that, and have that condition be made part of any CC&Rs or deed
covenants so that any future buyer would be well aware that if they want to have a use other than
what's, you know, personal services use, they would have to seek an amendment
SIRACUSA: Okay. I like that. And if somebody makes, decides to make the motion to
support this I hope that they will make it with, referring to Sidney's stated condition; and then I
would be able to support it.
ALAMEDA: Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa. Other questions? Commissioner
Watanabe?
7
WATANABE: Yeah. Mr. Fuke, assuming that there was support for this, there are other
conditions that need to be stated as well; and I'm not sure that we're prepared to have all the
conditions prepared. But I do, you know, there was a recommendation from the Department of
Public Works that the entire frontage, I believe, be improved on Kilauea Avenue. And I'd like to
make it clear that that would, if any of this went through, that would be one of the conditions. It
is rather a significant sum of money for a project of this scale, and I'm wondering if they're still
committed to doing that.
FUKE: I've had, you know, your staff had kind of informed me of that comment
made by the Department of Public Works. I discussed it with the applicant; and like in the
situation with the previous applicant should they tear down and rebuild, construct a new building
on the property, then from a financing perspective they will be in a position to roll in the cost of
the off-site infrastructure improvements, together with the basic building. And then so to that
extent that condition would be acceptable. However, at this point in time all they're doing is just
doing interior renovation to the existing structure. So they would not be looking at any type of
external type of financing to it.
WATANABE: So you're proposing deferral till new construction or an expansion of the
business operation?
FUKE: Correct, yes.
ALAMEDA: Commissioner Woodward, go ahead.
WOODWARD: I might bring your attention to the minutes from the last meeting.
FUKE: I remember.
WOODWARD: Okay, where Commissioner Iwashita set forth a number of conditions that
are outlined here on page 14 of the
WATANABE: In the minutes.
WOODWARD: Exhibit C, yeah.
WATANABE: Yeah. I remember that, and I also had some comment about, you know,
the evacuation plan and stuff like that.
WOODWARD: Right, right. Okay.
WATANABE: So I'm quite familiar with that. To be honest with you, I'm still kind of
conflicted though.
ALAMEDA: Let me ask, I'm curious, I know the Department, you know, may want to
weigh in on this. And so I could ask Mr. Darrow, has the Department, if we were to consider a
favorable recommendation would the Department want to weigh in on conditions as well, in
addition to Commissioner Iwashita's original conditions in the minutes? Mr. Hayashi.
8
HAYASHI: We haven't had a chance to speak with the Director, but I'm sure he
would like to keep his recommendation that was presented to you.
ALAMEDA: Okay. Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE: I have another question for either one of you, either Mr. Fuke since you
were formerly a Planning Director, as well as Corporation Counsel, and it appears that the
adjoining properties have commercial uses. Apparently these commercial uses were allowed
previously by special permit, so they're still zoned residential. Am I correct that?
FUKE: The property on the Puna side, Dr. Klein, was granted a use permit. And
the Zoning Code was subsequently amended to not allow medical or medical-related facilities
visa vi the use permit process. But that my understanding is, Dr. Klein's is considered a
legitimate non-conforming given that it was given a use permit. The property on the Hilo side of
the property is currently used residentially.
WATANABE: Okay. And that's the Macho Noodle Factory?
FUKE: No, there's another property beyond that, there's an intervening property.
So if you start from the intersection of
WATANABE: Okay, so the in-fill could be expanded to another lot on top of this one?
FUKE: The in-fill would be like on the Kai Store side, correct.
WATANABE: Yeah.
FUKE: Yeah, it would be right next to Kai Store.
WATANABE: Okay. And my follow-up question to that would be, okay, if for example
Dr. Klein has a special use permit that is grandfathered in, should something happen, God forbid,
where he elected to move away, would that then nullify the use permit and that revert back to
residential?
FUKE: The basic zoning would still be residential. So he was able to allow, you
know, that site is capable of supporting a doctor's office. So whoever wants to come in and
continue the same type of services would be able to do that. But not to have it utilized for maybe
like a service station or 7-Eleven, no, not without going through the zone change.
WATANABE: And with regard to the Maebo Factory, is that the same situation?
FUKE: The Maebo Noodle Factory is zoned Commercial Neighborhood. But,
again, you know, like that kind of little bit boggles my mind because Commercial Neighborhood,
I think that use kind of borders an Industrial; but, nevertheless, it was there for a number of years
and so it could have been grandfathered.
ALAMEDA: Let me ask, Mr. Hayashi, do you concur with the discussion so far from
the Department's standpoint?
9
HAYASHI: As far as the existing situation there?
ALAMEDA: Correct.
HAYASHI: Yes, I do.
ALAMEDA: Okay.
HAYASHI: I just wanted to also let you know that while the Planning Director is
recommending denial if the Commission decides to recommend approval of the proposed
rezoning the Department can assist you in preparing the proposed conditions of approval.
ALAMEDA: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Domingo?
DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In deference to Commissioner Siracusa, you
know, as I note there has been no opposition to this rezoning. And as you look at the trend in the
development of, and rezoning of commercial properties that's extending out further on the
northern part of the existing zoned properties, the one thing that we see is that there's a street
that's dividing the residential and the existing mixed uses of commercial zoning and other uses.
You know, I can go either way; but I prefer not to have a condition that would just limit them to
that particular use to which they're doing right now. You know, when you look at a commercial
zoning and a specific zoning you know already what can be permitted. But in the event, I don't
foresee any or know of any plans that they would upon acquisition of the rezoning just decide to
change their plans and sell it as a commercial property. But in view of the fact there are mixed
uses right now, I would prefer just, if we're going to give them and entertain a zoning, that
they're requesting for, as suggested I would be able to feel justified in granting it to them. And I
think as explained the issue of the LUPAG Map is very flexible and it can be interpreted to go
either way. And in this case, you know, the Department had decided to say, no, it's outside of
that part where they feel that the applied zoning is prohibited. So that's where my opposition
was in the last time when I voted on the application.
ALAMEDA: Okay, all right.
DOMINGO: Thank you.
ALAMEDA: You're welcome. Thank you, Commissioner Domingo. Commissioner
Watanabe, you have any other thoughts?
WATANABE: Yeah, the reason I'm conflicted is I respect both opinions and I realize that
it's a guide. Okay, in the previous application, you know, we've been talking about Houselots
area, Manono Street, etc. And in my mind 30 years ago this is exactly how it started. You
know, one exception here, one exception there and then pretty soon we littered the roadway with
various exceptions. And then we said, well, it has gone so far now that we may as well amend
the General Plan and make this all commercial and this is the main road so now we're going to
do that, you know, just like how we designated Manono and Kekuanaoa, etc. I'm not certain that
that's the route we'd like to go down at this point in this particular area. I think we're going to
create a Houselots here to some degree.
10
On the other hand from my perspective I think because we have another 30 days, I believe we
have another meeting that we could address this at, that we should have the Planning Department
reconsider if the limited usage that has been proposed by the applicant and their representative, if
that would sit well with the Planning Director and if then the Planning Department could come
up with some, you know, revised conditions, or if they still feel that, you know, they want to
draw a solid line right there and just make a stand here. That's only my personal opinion.
ALAMEDA: Okay. That sounds like the Department did think about it; and as
Mr. Hayashi pointed out if we were to move into the favorable arena that they will be ready to
submit a few recommendations. So I'd like to settle it here as soon as possible rather than
postpone it again. Commissioner Ogata.
OGATA: I have a question. Can you refresh my memory or go over what
improvements have already been made to the property thus far? Cause I think somebody
mentioned the parking stalls were put in and stuff like that.
FUKE: She just confirmed that it's just the parking area.
ALAMEDA: Commissioner Domingo.
DOMINGO: Thank you very much. Again, you know, with respect to Commissioner
Watanabe's comments, and I respect that very much, and I to a certain degree may have had
some similar kinds of concerns in the past. But as I look at the growth of this island taking place,
we find that the very thing that we're expressing concern about happened in the past with regards
to one use going into a particular area and then gradually similar uses or similar types of uses
coming in, we find after years that that particular area has changed with regards to the land uses
in there. You know, I think it's something that we experience as part of the growth and
development of our island. Now for instance look at Queen Kaahumanu Highway, you know,
when they first completed that project there were hardly any hotels or visitor destinations; but
now look at what has happened. In fact, just looking briefly at the West Hawaii paper, you
know, with the further anticipated growth that's going to take place, you know, with the homes
and other resort development So, you know, I look at this place and this particular application
and, you know, I ask what is Hilo to be in years to come? Along with residential properties it
will surely be other commercial uses that would be needed that are in demand now and that will
be in demand in the future. So I think what we're doing here or following is a common process
as we view development here on the island, and in other places for that matter.
FUKE: Mr. Chair?
ALAMEDA: Mr. Fuke, go ahead.
FUKE: I just kind of wanted to make several other points in response to, you
know, the comments rendered to date by the Commissioners. I think that, you know, I can
understand one of the concerns being like what Commissioner Watanabe raised about like so if
you approve this then, you know, there's a potential for properties further along the street
heading out towards Puna and all that stuff would be, you know, further commercialized and all
that stuff. Well, you know, that is true. You know, there's no question about it. But it's the
11
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
12
know, then she may want to tear down and rebuild; and then at which point in time it would be
financially very feasible for her to make the improvements.
ALAMEDA: Any other questions before I ask the applicant's representative to sit
down? Okay, thank you. You may be seated. All right, Commissioners, we have no testimony;
but I would like to encourage, just to get the ball rolling, a motion, either way. And we can take
as long as we need for discussion. But I think it will get us closer to our end goal. So I'll leave it
up to you.
SIRACUSA: Mr. Chairman?
ALAMEDA: Commissioner Siracusa.
SIRACUSA: I'm trying to find the right template here. Okay, I move, in the matter of
Jinsoo and Ran Hui Iida, Change of Zone Application REZ 07-000073, I move that a favorable
recommendation be forwarded to the County Council based on the conditions and reasons
discussed in the hearing today, including the condition suggested by applicant's representative
Sidney Fuke, and with recommendations that the Department will add for a favorable
recommendation.
DOMINGO: Second the motion.
ALAMEDA: Okay. So you know this is probably going to be a working motion cause
there are a lot of conditions, and we haven't heard the conditions made by the Department yet.
So motion made by Commissioner Siracusa, seconded by Commissioner Domingo.
Mr. Hayashi?
HAYASHI: Yes, Mr. Chair. In anticipation of that particular motion that was made
and by reading the transcript and looking at what Commissioner Iwashita had recommended at
the last meeting we had come up with some proposed conditions for your consideration.
ALAMEDA: Great.
HAYASHI: And we do have a condition which could be replaced with the applicant's
representative's proposed conditions relative to the restriction on the type of use on the property.
ALAMEDA: Okay.
HAYASHI: So I'll pass this out for your use.
ALAMEDA: Mr. Hayashi, would it be appropriate to give that also to the applicant for
their review?
HAYASHI: Yes.
ALAMEDA: Mr. Torigoe, I'd like to take a five-minute recess for the Commission to
review this particular document, as well as the applicant. Is that appropriate?
13
TORIGOE: Yes.
ALAMEDA: Okay, any objections to the five-minute recess?
DOMINGO: No objections.
ALAMEDA: Seeing none, five minutes.
RECESSED The Chair called a short recess at 10:30 a.m.
RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 10:40 a.m.
ALAMEDA: Will the Hawaii County Planning Commission now come to order. Thank
you for the recess. I wanted to give us some time to review the conditions, cause there's a lot,
and also I wanted to give the applicant some time. So if there's no objections, I'd like to ask the
applicant who has already come forward to respond to the conditions. Are there any objections?
Seeing none, Mr. Fuke.
Fi JKE: Okay. First of all, I'd like to thank the staff for being very proactive in
coming up with something like this. I appreciate it very much. It simplifies matters. The
conditions overall are acceptable.
We understand that proposed Condition D would be substituted by the language that I had
suggested earlier.
And relative to the curb, gutter, and sidewalk requirement that's Condition G, you know, hearing
what Commissioner Ogata had to say and discussing it further with the applicant, because it
provides like a five-year window within which those improvements have to be made, that would
be acceptable. They'll work within their means and save, you know, do a curb, gutter and
sidewalk fund and try to have it completed within the five-year period. So that condition is
acceptable.
Relative to Condition H, what we'd like to suggest is that the last sentence be changed to say like
"These improvements to Kilauea Avenue shall be completed," etc. Cause if it says like "All of
the roadway improvements," then it could imply that the curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements
also have to be in. So it kind of contradicts Condition G. So
And finally we don't know whether Condition Q relating to the submittal of an annual progress
report is still like a standard requirement or like in a project of this nature is necessary. And if
it's not, then we would respectfully request that that condition be deleted.
ALAMEDA: Okay.
FUKE: Thank you very much.
WATANABE: Well
ALAMEDA: Very good. Commissioner Watanabe?
14
WATANABE: Could you clarify for me, okay, Condition H, the revisions to Condition H,
was
FUKE: Just delete "All of the roadway" and just say, "These improvements,"
cause it makes specific reference to Condition H only.
WATANABE: Kilauea Avenue completed prior to, okay. Now the other revision you
were talking about was an annual progress report. But maybe the annual progress report is
something that we want because
FUKE: That's fine.
WATANABE: If we're deferring the roadway improvements and you're referring to this
five-year effective date that they're agreeing to on Condition G then maybe that's
FUKE: That's fine.
WATANABE: Okay. But then I have one more which, forgive me, Condition D, because
as worded Condition D seems to be conflicting to me where all uses limited to conversion of the
existing single family dwelling, so that comes out
FUKE: Yeah, so we're suggesting that the language that I had suggested earlier
which would be like "As represented by the applicant the site shall be restricted to personal
services, residential and residential-related uses as described in the CN District, Section 25-5-
102. Any other uses would be subject to an amendment of this condition. Restrictive covenants
in the deed of the subject property shall give notice of this restriction."
ALAMEDA: Commissioner Watanabe, follow-up?
WATANABE: My follow-up would be with staff. I noted that we have a condition here, I
circled it somewhere, oh, O, emergency response plan. Is that necessary for this scale, given the
location also?
HAYASHI: This is basically a standard condition that we use. It's up to you whether
you want to
WATANABE: Oh, it's a standard, excuse then. I stand corrected.
ALAMEDA: I have to follow-up on that. Is it a big plan? I mean is it like a document,
or is it a one pager, or
HAYASHI: I'm not too sure exactly what the Civil Defense Agency would
recommend but it's not Something like this it won't be a huge document. It probably could be
one or two pages.
ALAMEDA: Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner Siracusa.
15
SIRACUSA: Yes. This is a process question. Since these proactive changes by the
Department and Sidney's comments have come through after my motion, do we have to go back
and Can I just amend the motion and have the seconder agree to that amendment, or do we
want to cancel the motion and start from scratch? Ivan?
ALAMEDA: Mr. Torigoe?
TORIGOE: It sounds like, your original intent was to include the recommendations of
what the Planning Department would have anyway. So if you just want to clarify that, you
know, for the record, the conditions that have been proposed by the Planning Department as
amended on the record, it would be the recommendations that you wanted to have attached to
this motion, you could do that. Or if you feel like it would be cleaner, just for you to go back
and start all over, that's okay, too.
SIRACUSA: Yeah, well,
ALAMEDA: Not yet, but
SIRACUSA: The change to Condition D to incorporate what Sidney said, but I had
already said that. And then that minor change to Condition H, "These improvements," instead of
"All of the roadway improvements."
ALAMEDA: Okay, and there might be, I just want to make sure that Commissioner
Watanabe has all of his thoughts on the table, because we may have to have additional revisions.
Mr. Hayashi, go ahead.
HAYASHI: I just want to put it on the record that these conditions are not being
proposed by the Planning Department. These were prepared in anticipation that the Commission
was going to, again, come up with a favorable recommendation which did not pass at the last
meeting.
ALAMEDA: Right.
WATANABE: Yeah, we understand.
SIRACUSA: Yeah, we understand that and we do appreciate the fact that the
Department was proactive enough to come up with the alternative to save time and all of that. It
helps a lot. Thank you, Norman.
ALAMEDA: That's right. You saved us a good 45 minutes. I appreciate it.
Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE: I, you know, these address a lot of things that have been discussed. But I
think we should have whoever seconded the motion agree with the revisions or conditions.
ALAMEDA: Okay, Commissioner Domingo, you agree with the revisions?
DOMINGO: Yes. I agree with the revisions.
16
ALAMEDA: Very good. Let me remind the Commissioners, we have a motion on the
table by Commissioner Siracusa with the related conditions as discussed. We have a second by
Commissioner Domingo. Is there a discussion? Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE: Given the current conditions and the, l still have some reservations. But
given the current conditions and the proximity of this particular property to the intersection as
well as the restrictions that will be contained within the deed, I think I can support this motion
with some reservations.
ALAMEDA: Any other comments or questions before I ask for a roll? Seeing none,
Mr. Darrow?
DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to send a favorable
recommendation to the Hawaii County Council. This is with conditions prepared by the
Planning Commission with a revised Condition D, substituting the applicant's condition for the
condition listed, as well as revised Condition H substituting the wording "all of the roadway for
these." With that, I'll take the motion. Commissioner Siracusa?
SIRACUSA: Aye.
DARROW: Commissioner Domingo?
DOMINGO: Aye.
DARROW: Commissioner Ogata?
OGATA: Aye.
DARROW: Commissioner Rho?
RHO: Aye.
DARROW: Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE: Aye.
DARROW: Commissioner Woodward?
WOODWARD: Aye.
DARROW: Commissioner Graham?
GRAHAM: Aye.
DARROW: And Mr. Chairman?
ALAMEDA: Aye.
17
DARROW: The motion passes eight to zero.
ALAMEDA: Thank you.
The discussions ended at 10:49 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary
18
PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
NOVEMBER 2, 2007
A regularly advertised hearing on the application of JINSOO AND RAN HUI IIDA
(REZ 07-000073) was called to order at 11:49 a.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni
Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with First Vice-Chairman
C. Kimo Alameda presiding.
PRESENT: C. Kimo Alameda ABSENT & EXCUSED: William Graham
Takashi Domingo Rene' Siracusa
Andrew Iwashita
Shelly Ogata
Alvin Rho
Rodney Watanabe
Rell Woodward
Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Christopher Yuen, Planning Director
Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner
Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner
And approximately 12 people from the public in attendance
APPLICANT: JINSOO AND RAN HUI IIDA (REZ 07-000073)
Change of Zone from Single Family Residential 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to a
Neighborhood Commercial 20,000 square feet (CN-20) for 23,559 square feet of land.
The property is located along the west side of Kilauea Avenue, approximately 420 feet
south of the Kilauea Avenue - Puainako Street intersection, Waiakea Homestead House
Lots, South Hilo, Hawaii, Tax Map Key: 2-2-40:121.
ALAMEDA: So third agenda item and final agenda item for today. I'd like to
introduce Item 3, Jinsoo and Ran Hui Iida. It's Rezoning 07-000073. I'd like to turn it
over for Mr. Darrow to give an introduction. Mr. Darrow?
DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I can direct the attention of the
Planning Commission to the location map. Again, the area of our application is within
South Hilo. More specifically we're looking at this large gray line as Kanoelehua; and
this is running in a north-south direction. Running in an east-west direction, gray line, we
have Puainako Street; and running perpendicular with Kanoelehua is Kilauea and
Kinoole Street. Just for reference, this pink area is the KTA Puainako Shopping Center
area. It runs between Puainako Street and Kahaopea Street; and we also have on the
corner, the pink area is the location of Kai Store and Noodle Factory that you might be
familiar with. Recently we had a change of zone before the Commission, Ginger Patch.
That's located in this area on the corner of Kilauea and Puainako Street. The blue dot
1
represents the area of this application. The yellow signifies Single Family Residential
zoning. The applicants in this case, Jinsoo and Ran Hui Iida, are requesting a change of
zone from Single Family Residential 10,000 square feet to Neighborhood Commercial
20,000 square feet for 23,559 square feet of land. Referring to the applicant's plot plan
that is submitted, we have the parcel identified with a, outlined with a blue line. We have
Kilauea running on the right side of the map. Entrance is on the south side of the
property identified with brown.
The applicants are requesting this change of zone to be able to locate their beauty salon
identified as Lani's Beauty Salon within an existing dwelling identified in red. They're
proposing to have four chairs as well as a waxing room within this one-bedroom one-bath
dwelling. Additionally on the property there is another dwelling. The applicants at this
time are trying to correct a problem with the permitting to be able to permit this as a
second dwelling on the property. They're in the process at this time. There has been a
letter to that effect submitted to the Commission. The proposed layout is identified.
Entrance from Kilauea, a single location with parking in this general location, again, with
the salon identified in red. At this time the applicants are proposing to utilize the second
dwelling for dwelling purposes; but in the future, if approved, they may use this for office
space.
Since this application, well, let me speak to this application. This is a unique situation in
the sense that usually when we look at these applications in reference to the General Plan
LUPAG Map we look at it from a broadbrush perspective. These lines usually are not,
you know, exact. But in certain circumstances we do look at these lines as being, you
know, more exact in nature. And the instances that we will look at that is when these run
along an identified road or if those particular, that particular area was changed by metes
and bounds. In this particular application, the General Plan between Medium Density
Urban and Single Family, or Low Density Urban is identified with the separation through
Kilauea Street. And so at this point even though in the application it states that the
General Plan has identified it as Medium Density the Planning Director interprets it as
Low Density Urban based on that separation from Kilauea Street.
The Planning Director, mainly based on this particular issue but others spoken to in the
application, is recommending an unfavorable recommendation be sent by the Planning
Commission to the Hawaii County Council. Since this application was sent to the
Planning Commission, we have received several correspondence to bring to your
attention. One is a comment letter dated October 25, 2007 from the Department of Public
Works. Additionally, we've received a comment letter from Department of Water
Supply dated October 19, 2007. And, again, we've received a letter from the applicants
in reference to the second dwelling; and, additionally, this morning, there has been
another correspondence from the applicants that has been passed out to the Planning
Commission. Are there any questions?
ALAMEDA: Seeing none, will the applicants or representative please come
forward. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now
before the Hawaii County Planning Commission?
2
APPLICANTS: I do.
ALAMEDA: Thank you. I'm going to ask, maybe starting on my far left, could
you please state your name and address for the record.
W. IIDA: My name is Walter Iida. My address, too?
ALAMEDA: Sure.
W. IIDA: It's 899 Kulaloa Road, Hilo, Hawaii.
ALAMEDA: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Iida. .
W. IIDA: This is my son and
ALAMEDA: Okay, all right. Thank you. Sir
J. IIDA: My name is Jinsoo Iida, 11 Hoohoaloha Street, Hilo, Hawaii.
R. IIDA: My name is Ran Hui. You can call me Lani, same as Jinsoo,
11 Hoohoaloha Street.
ALAMEDA: Thank you, Lani. Who's going to be the spokesperson today?
J. IIDA: lam.
ALAMEDA: Okay. Sir, did you get a chance to look at the Department's
recommendation? Actually it's a negative recommendation. And do you have any
comments?
J. IIDA: Yes, I did. Not at this time.
ALAMEDA: Okay. Do we have any questions for our applicants or their
representative? Commissioner Iwashita.
IWASHITA: I guess we had a couple of letters, your neighbors, supporting your
application. Are there any neighbors that are, that you know of that's opposing your
application?
J. IIDA: Not at this time.
ALAMEDA: Let me ask, sir, I know you wanted to just be there as more of a
support.
W.IIDA: Yes.
3
ALAMEDA: But do you have anything to add to your son's application or
W. IIDA: No, we just put together some comments that was passed out this
morning.
ALAMEDA: Okay. All right, well, there's no testifiers. So
DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman?
ALAMEDA: Commissioner Domingo?
DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman. Am I to understand that you folks have a home
occupation permit already?
J. IIDA: Yes, we do.
DOMINGO: And that, are you on the premise doing business right now?
R. IIDA: Yes.
DOMINGO: For how long?
R. IIDA: It's been 2'/2 months.
DOMINGO: Two and a half months, I see. So actually you can still go ahead
and do what you're doing even if we deny this application, right?
R. IIDA: Well, I was in the place I was renting and I needed to move out;
and I don't know where else to go. And I went to County Building, and then I asking for
it, and then I got approved. So hopefully I'm there and doing my business. I just want to
say that this is my idea and I want to pursue my career, and this is one of my dreams.
And actually nobody was believing me, you know. Like everybody thought, oh, she
going nuts. But this is my dream. So we come this far. And when I was looking at the
location I was just looking around. Of course I didn't want to go to Downtown or up
Puainako, the rent is really, really high, and I do not want to go to Keaau; and I don't
know where else to go. And when that was on sale, I just falling in love. And finally
when I bought the property, actually a neighbor came down and say that, you know, I
mean, thank me that, I guess the use of the property was, there was drugs going on, and
trashes, and always fights, and motorcycles, you know, with gangs going on. And couple
of neighbors actually came down, cause my husband and I have to really clean, throw
away the trash. And there's so much dirt and dog, you know, everywhere; and we had to
work really, really hard.
And just looking at, you know, location and searching around, we have no idea. I
thought was perfect location. And my husband and I we have, everything we have we
4
put in this property. And then last week we got this bright yellow paper about General
Map Plan. My husband and I was sitting down and had deep breath, like wow, this is,
cannot be because we have no clue about the General Plan, the map and
ALAMEDA: Okay.
R. IIDA: Yeah, I just want to say that I'm not trying to make a, you know,
factory going on. I'm just, you know, doing my business; and I just want to stay and
making, you know, reasonable place and, then comparable and, you know, easy to get in
and easy to get out, and to my make a living. That's all.
ALAMEDA: Okay. Follow-up?
DOMINGO: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, again?
ALAMEDA: Sure.
DOMINGO: You folks have developed the property, cleaned the property and
paved the property? You've already paved it?
J. IIDA: For the safety of the customers. We cut down the trees that were
hanging and we have paved the ground. Like we had some cracks on the ground. It was
all for the safety of the customers. And we did a legal permit, we did.
ALAMEDA: Commissioner Domingo?
DOMINGO: That's all.
ALAMEDA: Okay. Well, let me just share, you know, when the Department
makes a negative recommendation that's basically telling us that they're not okay with
what they see in the application. And that's the kind of background information we have
in addition to the application. So I wonder if I could ask the Director if, you know, could
you summarize your premise on the negative recommendation for us? That would be
very helpful.
YUEN: Okay. Let's, probably the easiest place to start is with the General
Plan Map, which is Exhibit 2, and you have that in front of you. And you see the
intersection of Puainako Street and Kilauea? This is a map with various colors on it.
And Exhibit 2, and we see the subject property in blue. And there is generally some
flexiblity in interpreting the map; but we would not interpret this map, for the site to be
Medium Density Urban. One is that there does seem, and this mapping goes back I'm
fairly certain to even the 1971 General Plan. It has been mapped exactly like this. That,
first, there's a conscious idea of having Kilauea Avenue one side as Medium Density
Urban and the other side as, say is Low Density Urban, Low Density Urban meaning
predominantly single family in character. Low Density Residential you can have, you
know, some Multi-Family as long as the overall density is not more than six an acre.
5
Then if you go up to Puainako Street, there is a, the Medium Density Urban extends a
little bit south along Puainako Street, you know, in a direction down the page; and that
point there on the mauka corner there is Kai Store and the Maebo Noodle Factory. And
the zoning for those also goes back to the late sixties or early seventies. So we do think
that there was a conscious intention that the Commercial areas here be limited to the
other side of Kilauea Avenue and the corner of Puainako Street and Kilauea. And to say
otherwise leads you to a situation where you just potentially march down Kilauea with
commercial uses. And, you know, to relate this to the previous application as
Commission Member Iwashita was trying to do, in the Waiakea Houselots area it was
consciously, there was a decision, there was a General Plan Amendment to map the area
as Medium Density Urban. There is an actual decision to do that; and that's in the
General Plan Maps. In this area, it is a Low Density area.
Now the applicant in their letter does correctly point out that the wording of Low Density
does not completely prohibit commercial uses, but it's supposed to be commercial uses
that are related to the immediate neighborhood. Whereas this is really something that
would draw customers from wherever people found this, you know, made typically some
kind of relationship with a person who works there. At a certain low level the Zoning
Code does allow this kind of thing to be operated out of a home without a rezoning. The
limitation, the main limitations are that you're limited on your signage and you can have
only one employee, in addition to the occupants of the home. So essentially if only, say
only one of the occupant of the home works in the beauty business then they could have
one other employee on site as a home occupation.
The final thing I'd like to mention is that even if we were inclined to, the Commission is
inclined to rezone, then you have the question of conditions of zoning. And if you look
at the Public Works recommended conditions of road widening, curbs, gutters and
sidewalks, for a Commercial zone, which is their standard recommendation, you would
be looking at a very expensive improvement in order to establish a Commercial zone on
the site.
ALAMEDA: All right. I know that's a lot of words and let me just try to
summarize for the applicant. So what Mr. Yuen is saying is that what makes this
different than the previous application which the Department, see how it works is you
send in your application, the Department, they look at it and they make a
recommendation. And then they give their recommendation to us and then we consider
that and other evidence to make our decision. And so the Department said not good; and
so, because it's actually kind of like Low Density which means not too many people, not
too many traffic. So to grant it would actually increase the density; and that's why
they're saying not good for this application. But then, you know we may disagree with
that or we may agree. And so we don't know yet, that's where we're going to have this
talk story. So, Commissioner Iwashita, you have thoughts on this?
IWASHITA: I guess just to clarify, you just recently purchased this property? Is
that right?
6
J. IIDA: Yes. Back in April?
R. IIDA: April.
J. IIDA: April.
IWASHITA: Okay. And you're requesting this change, the change of zone so
that you can have more than two people work in your business?
J. IIDA: To grow the business.
IWASHITA: Yeah, okay. You understand that the last comment I guess made
by the Director was that if the Commission, you know considers approving your
application, that one of the conditions would be, you know, putting in a sidewalk and,
you know, widening the road along Kilauea Avenue in front of your property; and that's
an expensive, you know, proposition? You understand that?
J. IIDA: We do, yes.
IWASHITA: Okay. And that's something that's agreeable to you?
J. IIDA: I know that in order to improve the, I mean, grow the business, we
need to invest.
IWASHITA: Right. So you've got to make sidewalks like we have outside this
building, the road would have to be wider?
J. IIDA: If that's what come, our plan is we'll follow whatever the Planning
Department is asking, because we want to run as a legal business.
IWASHITA: Okay.
J. IIDA: Yes.
IWASHITA: Okay, thank you.
ALAMEDA: How about on this side? Let's go with Commissioner Domingo
and then Commissioner Watanabe. Commissioner Domingo?
DOMINGO: Yes. Can someone point to me where that old Food Fair shopping
center is? Is that the southernmost parcel?
WATANABE: No, it's in the middle I think.
OGATA: It's in the middle.
7
DOMINGO: Where is that?
WATANABE: It's in the middle.
OGATA: Right there.
DARROW: Food Fair. I believe that's, it's on Kinoole Street, correct?
DOMINGO: Yeah, Kinoole Street, okay.
DARROW: Yeah, that would be over in this area, I believe.
J. IIDA: Right, right above. Yeah, that one.
OGATA: Kahaopea.
J. IIDA: Yeah, yeah.
OGATA: The pink.
DARROW: Right here, the pink, okay.
DOMINGO: Okay, okay. And what's the pink beyond that?
DARROW: Here?
DOMINGO: Yeah.
IWASHITA: Kandi's Drive Inn.
OGATA: Kandi's.
DOMINGO: Kand's Drive Inn, okay, okay.
DARROW: Yeah, this would be here Pizza Hut and the little gas station and
Kandi's, and the gas station there.
DOMINGO: You know, I think in the very beginning you started to try to
describe the LUPAG map and where the lines are drawn; and I kind of understand that,
you know, it can be real flexible as to where you want to really delineate the extent of
where the boundary for Low Density and Medium Density is, yeah. As I look at that and
consider the existing land uses, and especially when you look at the old Food Fair being
as huge as it is and being given the land use approval to build that, and I compare it to
this small parcel that they're trying to develop, you know, I think, I find no reason
whatsoever why they should be denied, to deny the use of the land as suggested by the
application. And it's within, if you look at it, it's within the core of a similar land uses
8
and that I think it does not show Now there's Maebo and next to their property is a
chiropractor, yes, and Kai Store. So, you know, again, as indicated he can go one way or
the other; and I reflect on a comment somebody made to me many, many years ago that,
you know, in planning there's no right or wrong. I mean, of course, you have the
guidelines and everything, but there's a lot of flexibility that you can apply with this; and
that's my comment right now.
ALAMEDA: Let me, just real quick so I can get this back on track. Okay, so if
we have any questions for our applicants, then we can get into the talk story if you want
to make comments. So let me just ask Fellow Commissioners if you have questions, then
raise your hand and I'll call on you. But if you don't have questions, let me ask the
applicants and the representative to sit down, then we can talk stories. Seeing no further
questions for the applicants, thank you, you may be seated. We don't have any testimony
so Okay, Fellow Commissioners, thank you. Now we can talk story. So I was going
to Commissioner Watanabe and then I'll hit Commissioner Woodward right after that.
So, Commissioner Watanabe, go ahead.
WATANABE: Unlike Commissioner Iwashita, I see a difference between this one
as opposed to the Houselots area because of the amount of time that the Houselots area
has been changing. That said though I was wondering if Mr.Yuen could let us know if,
you know that chiropractor practice that they're talking about, is that zoned Commercial
or is he doing this just out of his home, you know, again, one employee or whatever?
YUEN: That's actually operated under a use permit. And at the time that
came in, you could have a medical clinic under a use permit. So there are several
medical clinics scattered around Hilo and in Residential zones that are done under use
permits. So it never was Commercial. It is probably beyond the scale of a home
occupation.
ALAMEDA: Follow-up?
WATANABE: Just comment. You know, to me it's a little bit different when you
change the actual zoning to Commercial when it's home use. She has a small operation
there. You know, I suppose that would go on unless there were complaints from the
neighbors because we don't have the manpower to go out and seek out every single
violation that may exist. So, you know, I don't see us taking her bread away, even if we
deny this. And, you know, to Mr. Iwashita's comments you know, I think we're kind of
spreading that syndrome if we approve this as a Commercial zoning.
ALAMEDA: All right. Then we're moving on down to my left side over here.
Commissioner Woodward, go ahead.
WOODWARD: Well, I would agree with Commissioner Domingo. If you look at
this map that we were supplied with and despite Director's Yuen's claim that there was
some rationale on how this was put together, it looks to me like a kindergartener threw
paint at the wall. If you see, there's an area down here that is disconnected from
9
everything else. The lot that they're talking about is right across the street from an area
where there would be no problem with rezoning; and it's two lots away from another area
that there would be no problem. You know, I think we take ourselves a little too
seriously sometimes thinking that we have a game plan; and I think this is one time where
this fits in with the community, there's no community objection to it; and I would be in
favor of their proposal.
ALAMEDA: All right, let me take it back to this side. Mr. Yuen?
YUEN: You know, if you don't stick to, if you don't follow the game plan,
then you have no game plan. This actually is an area where the General Plan, you can
actually see very clearly what the General Plan was trying to do. If you compare, and
let's take the pink area right there. That is the Food Fair, what was the Food Fair
shopping center, which has since closed and is now a group of government offices. That
corresponds almost exactly with the Medium Density area on the map here. The block
that's shown in the Kahaopea Street and Kinoole Street area is that block. That was
zoned as a commercial block at the intersection of two major streets consistently with the
General Plan. The other, if you go down south to the other block there and we didn't
run the map down that far, the General Plan map that's also Medium Density Urban in
the General Plan. That's a commercial area that's at the intersection of two major streets
and is zoned that way. The General Plan was followed. You created a commercial area
where you have a group of businesses at the intersections of major streets. Up at the
intersection of Puainako, and that's getting right where we are, you had, you know, even
before the General Plan was there you already had commercial. You had the noodle
factory and the Kai Store already there; and the General Plan followed what was there
and the zoning followed what was there. So you had these commercial clumps.
You know, naturally you have, you have an applicant who is trying to do a very small
project yet it is a Commercial rezoning. It's a CN rezoning. It permits a 7-Eleven, it
permits a commercial building, it permits a 20-unit apartment building under the zoning.
And if anybody else, then certainly anybody going down Kilauea Avenue on that side of
the street is, it's a precedent for a future rezoning on that side of Kilauea Avenue. So try
to, you know, we are supposed to follow the General Plan and there is a clear rationale
for what the General Plan is trying to do in this area.
ALAMEDA: Let me just ask for follow-up. Mr. Woodward, any follow-up to
that?
WOODWARD: Well, no, I take your explanation. But I think that's the place of
the Planning Commission, is in reasonable situations to grant essentially variances and
approve or recommend approval of zoning that while it may not fit exactly with the
General Plan it is within the general characteristic of the neighborhood; and that would be
my take on it.
ALAMEDA: I appreciate your take. How about Commissioner Watanabe?
10
WATANABE: Yeah, okay. You know, earlier we were emphasizing, what is that,
cross-easements; and when you're looking at shopping complexes as KTA and adjoining
complexes, they all have cross-easements. It's not like, you know, cause you have rather
large lots but you have only a certain amount of access to Kilauea Avenue from the back
portion of KTA and some of the other complexes there, as well as the I guess, the
County and the Fire Department has offices there. You know, as we go down this road,
all of these lots on the mauka side of Kilauea Avenue are all individually owned, so
you're not going to have the ability for cross-easements. So each individual lot is an
entry point into Kilauea. And this is where, you know, and I really have nothing against
the applicant or even the particular business the applicant is proposing to do. The thing is
the zoning will run with the land and the 7-Eleven's will come in. And then right next
door you're going to have another camera shop, or whatever it is, and then right next door
you're going to have It's going to look like a Manono Street, the same thing they've
been complaining in Houselots. The problem that, for me the difference is it hasn't really
taken root yet here. Whereas in Houselots when I was a kid riding a bike it was already
there. It was already changing, 40 years ago it was changing. So, you know, so I don't
have that much of an issue there. Here it's not changing yet. But I think as you start
moving in that direction that's exactly what's going to happen.
ALAMEDA: All right, I know Commissioner Iwashita loves the irony in this
one, but go ahead, Commissioner Iwashita.
IWASHITA: There's no irony, I don't think so. Well, I have to disagree with
Commissioner Watanabe about, you know, the character of the neighborhood. I rode my
bike to get to my hair cut in Houselots 50 years ago, you know and it was just Atebara
Potato Chips and couple of other things. But it really hadn't changed that much, in my
opinion until, you know, the seventies, eighties, the change of zone and so forth. Yeah,
so there has been in change in there. But if you look at this map, if you just look at this
map where that dot is, there are much more commercial areas, commercially-zoned
property around that dot than there is, you know, in the Manono thing. And I guess my
comment about or my observation about zoning and the role it plays and so forth, as far
as, you know, how utilitarian it is on how we follow the rules Big Island Candies to me
is, I'm sorry, is the worst example of how zoning should be done. You take an industrial
project and you put it in the middle of a residential neighborhood? I mean, you know,
that's, we make exceptions, right? And, you know, when you're Big Island Candies you
can get an industrial rezoning, you know, a candy factory in the middle of a residential
neighborhood. And, you know, the justification for that was that this neighborhood is
changing, there's industrial on Kanoelehua, so on and so forth.
So in this case, and I, you all know, you know, I really believe that there should be the
community development planning done; and there's really no exception here. You know,
in every case it really should be done. I look at this differently because, one, the
applicant has made an effort to talk to the neighbors, the immediate neighbors, about
getting this project done and wanting to do what they do; and the two responses in
writing have been, it's fine with us. Okay? So we don't have a community development
plan here but in my mind You know, there's Clint's Garage, right, which is I guess a
11
grandfathered use which didn't make the map on the corner of Kahaopea and Kilauea,
which is the southwest lot, on that southwest comer. Right? And there's a barbershop
there, competitor right there; and I'm not sure what the zoning is, how that's done. But,
you know, that shop doesn't even have proper parking. People park on the grass and
stuff. You know, it's not really done correctly. So yeah, zoning, we should be
consistent. I hope the Director's comments would apply to 15. 1, community
development plan, and do what the law says, do the community development plans, do
them all at once. But since it ain't being done, you know, notwithstanding my
persistence added, I don't know why But in this case because to me the applicants
made an effort to go in the neighborhood and figure things out and undisputedly has
improved the neighborhood by taking over this property, I, you know And I
understand the Director's concern about there are, you know, you can have a 7-Eleven,
you can have all these other uses, and maybe in the future you can make a lot of money to
selling off to one of those people. But I, you know, for present purposes I don't have any
real strong concerns at this point that that this is really outside what the General Plan
says. I mean the line it's stipulated at the beginning is a soft line. And to me the way this
neighborhood has developed especially over my objections, again, the passage of the
other rezoning on Puainako Street, you know those kinds of things are going on I
cannot see, I'll make an exception to my insistence of a community development plan in
this case and I will support this application.
ALAMEDA: Okay. Commissioner Domingo.
DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a continuance of my arguments, the
only issue here is where would you draw the line as depicted on the LUPAG Map. The
LUPAG Map is a map that is used to carry out the General Plan. Okay. It was decided
that that line, that line of demarcation, would be towards the Taniguchi area; and across
Kilauea would still be Low Density. You know, many years ago when only Downtown
existed it was like development should only happen Downtown. But things have
changed, as we all know. And as we look at the history of Hilo, tidal waves and the
pressure for growth and development taking place, tidal waves forced us to come to
Kaiko Mall and forced us to go to Hilo Shopping Center. And, you know, then we find
the commercial core of Hilo Downtown was so-called broken up and that then there were
other opportunities for people with properties to develop their properties, to rezone and
develop their properties into a commercial area. And because of that we have the
commercial core here in Kaikoo Mall, and Hilo Shopping Center, and the latest is up
Puainako, no not the latest. In fact then we went to Food Fair up at Kinoole, and then
after that we went to Puainako, you know, below Kinoole, and then after that we went to
Puainako Shopping Center. And flexible, planning has been real flexible in this case.
I remember once before there was a statement made that commercialization of properties
should not go far beyond the street where you have the State Agricultural Complex. On
that street going up, that was once spoken of that we confine urban, commercial
development north of that area up to Downtown Hilo. But no, it has gone beyond that.
And what I'm saying is that planning is flexible. And even the same as this line that we
refer to on the LUPAG Map, we're saying this side is Medium Density and that side is
12
Low Density, and it should be kept Residential. But look what's happening, you know.
And then when we ask ourselves what about the future of the whole Hilo area, where
would other Urban expansion take place, you know, where will this Urban expansion
take place? We're talking about the University of Hawaii Hilo Campus. And we're
talking about the development of that area to provide for commercial uses for the students
who go there and those who live in the proximity of the University. So, you know, you
will find demands and the need to consider for other expansion, commercial businesses, a
commercial expansion. And I see that this particular area that we're talking about will be
part of that, certainly will be part of that expansion of Medium Density which would
provide for commercial uses. So I see no reason, and I think this application is in line
with what the future of Hilo would be like. And to deny them this opportunity is, I don't
feel that I should be a part of that. Therefore, I would still speak for the favorable
recommendation of this application.
ALAMEDA: All right, let me, I know everybody had a chance to put their
opinion in the pot, except Commissioner Ogata. I just wanted to offer the opportunity if
you had anything. If not, that's okay.
OGATA: I applaud the applicants for doing their part in their community to
make the property that they purchased, you know, a better place. And I don't think that
there's anything wrong with what they're doing right now as far as a home occupation
and running the salon out of their property. I am having a struggle with changing the
zoning just because we can't, at least I don't believe that we can stipulate that they can
only do the salon there. I mean, other things can happen. And I don't know, so anyway,
that's my area right now that I'm struggling with. But I do hope that they can continue
what they have done.
ALAMEDA: Okay, again, I'm kind of ready to put the cover on the opinion pot.
But Commissioner Iwashita, any comments?
IWASHITA: I just wanted clarification on the record.
ALAMEDA: Sure.
IWASHITA: The notice was posted properly in this case, Jeff?
ALAMEDA: Mr. Darrow, was the notices posted properly on this agenda item?
DARROW: Correct.
IWASHITA: And the mailings to the adjoining owners were done within the 500
feet, that was all done?
DARROW: Both notices went out to the surrounding properties.
13
ALAMEDA: But I'd also like to make one note that my Corp. Counsel shared
with me at the recess, was that we don't have to formally close the hearing unless it's a
contested case. And sometimes it might be good not to close the hearing cause then we
could go back to our applicants and have them clarify some questions that we might have.
And so in this particular case I'd like to do that right now. I know Lam you had your
hand up for something. Is that a big comment that you'd like to share or Just real
quick, go ahead, share your comment.
R. )IDA: I just want to say that when I went to the Planning Department
about buying a property and rezoning, they asked me what my purpose of buying a
property and I say beauty shop. And one of the worker was telling me why you want to
buy property and change to beauty shop, just go to Downtown and just open a shop, or
can do it at home. Why you want to I mean, they have no idea. I don't believe home
occupying doing business and home same place. I mean, I have two kids and they
running all over the place. And even though partially I'm living on the property I bought,
I really believe that business and living have to be separate for the children, you know,
safety. And maybe people looking at me like, oh, she can do it home and just, you know,
why she want a rezoning? I am not trying to sell it or I'm trying to make huge company
out of it. I have a couple of girls like me looking for place to running a business and they
don't know where to go. And I really want a helper to work with me, have a nice parking
lot, and not so busy and not in Downtown, not in Keaau something right in, you know,
KTA is such a nice location and around there they don't have nice location that we can
work with. Looking around the barber shop, I mean, they have no place to park. People
ask me go to Downtown somewhere renting upstairs. I mean I don't even know you
getting around Downtown, and people keep pushing away Doing hair is not big deal
for them but for me all my life doing hair; and I have a couple of girls they looking for a
place to renting it out. Home occupy only can ask for one part time in doing this and
doing that. I'm not trying to run away like 10 or 20 hairdressers, maybe a couple more
hairdressers that really looking for a place working with me. You know, clean and nice
place. That's the only reason I'm doing this. And lot of people asking me do the home
occupy and do the barbershop in Downtown somewhere, but I totally disagree with the
home occupy.
ALAMEDA: Okay, all right. I just wanted to make sure that you could get your
last final opinion. Okay, we have any motions? We have a recommendation by the
Department, so just to know that if you go against the recommendation and go in favor
then we've got to get some reasons behind that, yeah? Commissioner Iwashita, oh,
conditions, yeah?
IWASHITA: I move as to Item 3, Application Jinsoo and Ran Hui Iida (REZ 07-
000073), Change of Zone from Single Family Residential 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to a
Neighborhood Commercial 20,000 square feet (CN-20) for 23,559 square feet of land,
etc., that the Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council
with conditions, and I'm going to just sort of scrounge off of the prior application. And
they would be: A. Delete B. So C would be B, water commitment. C is construction of
the proposed improvements in five (5) years. D would be what's F. I'm not sure that a
14
5-foot wide future road widening, I'm not sure if that's the exact correct amount. E
would be the current G, provide full provide full improvements to the entire frontage
along Kilauea Avenue and so forth. F would be parking on site. G would be height
limitation to 35 feet. H would be all development-generated runoff kept on the property.
I would be Solid Waste Management Plan. J would be the applicant, successors, or
assigns develop, if they develop residential units then all of those conditions. K would be
the standard language for a unified impact fee ordinance compliance. L would be the
compliance with Goals and Policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan. M
would be Emergency Response Plan. N would be the applicant comply with all County,
State, Federal laws. O would be the annual progress report requirement. P would be the
extension language. And Q would be the consequences for noncompliance with
conditions.
ALAMEDA: Is there a second?
DOMINGO: Second.
ALAMEDA: Motion made by Commissioner Iwashita, that includes the
recommendations that he just stated which was taken from the prior agenda item. And it
was seconded by Commissioner Domingo. Discussion? Commissioner Watanabe.
WATANABE: I'm not going to vote in favor of it. However, I do have a
recommendation for Commissioner Iwashita. He did have a condition for emergency
evacuation plan, but I think that's generally something that we'd put in like a tidal wave
area, low-lying flood zone kind of area. You might want to, considering this location,
you might want to remove that. I don't think it would apply.
IWASHITA: Yeah, that's fine. I guess I was thinking about earthquake or lava
flow or something.
ALAMEDA: All right. So for the record, Commissioner Iwashita is okay with
removing that particular condition about the evacuation plan. Any other discussion?
Well, we have a motion on the table right now and it's seconded. And so I'm going to
ask for the roll if there's no further discussion. And keep in mind we need five to agree;
and if there's disagreement then I suspect it will come back again, and we'll be seeing
you again here because it's within the 90 days, yeah. Okay, Mr. Darrow, roll call.
DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to send a
favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council with conditions stated by
Commissioner Iwashita. With that I'll take the roll. Commissioner Iwashita?
IWASHITA: Yes.
DARROW: Commissioner Domingo?
DOMINGO: Aye.
15
DARROW: Commissioner Ogata?
OGATA: No.
DARROW: Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE: Nay.
DARROW: Commissioner Woodward?
WOODWARD: Aye.
DARROW: And Mr. Chairman?
ALAMEDA: No.
DARROW: The motion does not pass three to three.
ALAMEDA: So it's a tie-tie. So we'll be back, you guys will be back. Can we
make a motion to put it to the next agenda?
WATANABE: Move to continue this matter to the next
W. IIDA: Can you just send it up now as unfavorable or you have to wait
ALAMEDA: The question is if, Mr. Darrow, could you explain if we could just
send, the question was if we could just send it up with an unfavorable recommendation to
the County Council, or do we have to hear it again since it's within the 90 days?
DARROW: It's my understanding that we have to continue this matter for that
90-day period. So we will need to revisit this matter possibly two more times. But it will
be placed on the agenda in December, I believe the date is December 7th.
ALAMEDA: And the reason, you know, the more Commissioners you might
have a different vote. So we've got to follow that process. Okay.
WATANABE: Okay, I'll move to continue this Change of Zone Application
REZ 07-000073 to the next Hilo meeting.
DOMINGO: Second.
ALAMEDA: Good. Motion made to continue this agenda item to the next Hilo
meeting and there's a second.
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
16
ALAMEDA: So noted. All right, well, thank you very much. You'll be
informed in writing of this decision; and we'll see you again. Okay.
The discussion ended at 12:40 p.m.
Res ectfully submitted,
Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawaii Secretary
17