My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
REP PC 080 2016/11/01 (2014-2016)
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Reports
>
2014-2016
>
Planning Committee (PC)
>
REP PC 080 2016/11/01 (2014-2016)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2021 10:23:41 AM
Creation date
11/3/2016 1:38:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Reports
Reports - Type
REP
Reports - Council Term
2014-2016
Report
080
Committee
PC
Meeting date
2016-11-01
Document Relationships
AGE COUNCIL 11/16/2016 2014-2016
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2014-2016\Council
BIL 228 Draft 02 2014-2016
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Bills\2014-2016
COM 0981.004 2014-2016
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\2014-2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
PC -80 Page 2 November 1, 2016 <br />Ms. Hoff commended Ms. Reis for providing a well -organized and concise explanation about the <br />situation facing neighbors near the subject parcel. Ms. David said she agreed with the unfavorable <br />recommendation provided by the Planning Department and the concurrence by the Windward Planning <br />Commission. She said she did not want to support the rezoning application. Ms. Eoff suggested the <br />applicant consider relocation if the applicant has outgrown the area, and if a new facility can be built in a <br />more compatible area. <br />In the discussion that followed, Sidney Cake, planning consultant, Gerald Takase, who represented fee <br />owner GELOCAG (a family firm), Ms. Reis, and Director Duane Kanuha reviewed the history behind <br />the project, the purpose of the Hilo Community Surgery Center, compliance with the General Plan, the <br />impacts and cost of a two-level parking structure, the unwillingness of other nearby property owners to <br />sell their land for the parking structure, the existing fencing, landscaping on the subject parcel, and <br />access to Punahele Street. <br />Mr. Onishi said the bottom line is that we all try to trust people; we trust developers coming in to do the <br />right thing; and unfortunately some things that were promised did not happen. As a result, he said, the <br />trust between the developer and the community is nonexistent. He said the applicant should go back to <br />the community and regain their trust. <br />Mr. Takase said it was unlikely the applicant would seek to overturn the so-called contract zoning <br />requirement because it was something that was requested by the applicant, rather than it being imposed <br />by the Council. I -le said there was no intention of building anything other than a parking lot. <br />Mr. Onishi iterated that the applicant should go back to the table and address the concerns raised by the <br />community about the potential noise and exhaust impacts from vehicles in the parking lot. <br />Mr. Paleka said he was familiar with the property, having worked at the nearby Hawaii Community <br />Correctional Center, and he asked about HCCC's zoning district. <br />Mr. Puke said the HCCC land is zoned RS -7.5, similar to the subject property. Ile added that the Zoning <br />Code states that government facilities are considered a permitted use in residential areas. If it is a <br />permitted use, then the only requirement is for plan approval. He said that involves the Planning <br />Director reviewing plans and ensuring the parcel follows parking, height and landscaping requirements, <br />among other things. That is how HCCC became established in a residential area, Mr. Fuke said. <br />Mr. Paleka restated the importance of having the owner of the subject parcel work with the community <br />to mitigate the impact of development in the area. <br />Mr. Takase expressed his wish for a better relationship with the neighborhood. He said the neighbors <br />have taken a position and they have tried to go through the Council to resolve it, which he said is the <br />most transparent way to do things. <br />Mr. Fuke said he favored a "win-win" situation. He restated the option that the applicant has to seek plan <br />approval from the Planning Department, as it would be a permitted use in a subject zone. <br />PC Report No. 80 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.