Laserfiche WebLink
BRPDInitiatedDowntownHiloBill.doc-05/29/13 <br /> COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT <br /> BACKGROUND AND RECOMMENDATION <br /> INITIATOR- PLANNING DIRECTOR <br /> AMENDING CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE),ARTICLE 4, DIVISION 5 AND <br /> ARTICLE 7,DIVISION 2 OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 <br /> EDITION,AS AMENDED),RELATING TO INCREASE RESIDENTIAL <br /> DENSITY,INCLUDING PARKING REQUIREMENTS,WITHIN CDH, <br /> DOWNTOWN HILO COMMERCIAL DISTRICT <br /> The Planning Director has initiated an amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), <br /> Article 4,Division 5 and Article 7, Division 2 of the Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 <br /> Edition, as amended), relating to increase in residential density, including parking <br /> requirements,within the Downtown Hilo Commercial (CDH)zoning district. <br /> BACKGROUND <br /> 1. May 18, 2012 -The County Council transmitted Bill No. 250 (Exhibit C)to the <br /> Planning Commissions for the consideration of proposed amendments to the Zoning <br /> Code within Article 7, Division 2 (Special District Regulations for the Downtown <br /> Hilo Commercial zoning district). <br /> In summary, Bill No. 250 attempts to amend the Zoning Code in order to accomplish <br /> the following: <br /> a. allow for a increase in the maximum residential density permitted within the CDH <br /> zoning district from its current 1,000 square feet of land area per unit to a <br /> proposed 500 square feet of land area per unit,potentially doubling the residential <br /> density in Downtown Hilo Commercial zoning district. <br /> b. provide a parking requirement in the CDH zoning district of one(1)parking stall <br /> per residential unit for those double or multiple family residential projects that <br /> achieve a maximum density of 500 square feet of land area per unit. Currently, <br /> there is no parking requirement for any use within CDH zoning district bordered <br /> bounded by Kino`ole and Ponahawai Streets and the Wailuku River. <br /> 2. August 2, 2012—The Windward Planning Commission, in concurrence with the <br /> recommendation of the Planning Director and faced with a deadline by which to take <br /> a favorable or unfavorable position on Bill No. 250, voted to issue an unfavorable <br /> Attachment to: Conn. 358 <br /> -1- Bill 102 <br />