REP PC 010 2019/02/19 2018-2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: February 19, 2019 Re: Comm. No. 94/Bill No. 24 PLACE: Council Chambers Kailua-Kona, Hawai`i TIME: 10:16 a.m. Council Chair and Members Hawai`i County Council Hilo, Hawai`i 96720 Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Bill No. 24, reports as follows: Bill No. 24, transmitted by Mayor Harry Kim via Communication No. 94, dated January 30, 2019, amends Section 25-8-33 (City of Hilo Zone Map), Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning) of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2016 Edition, as amended), by changing the district classification from Single Family Residential— 10,000 square feet(RS-10)to General Commercial—20,000 square feet(CG-20) at Waiakea House Lots 2nd Series, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawai`i, covered by Tax Map Key: 2-2-024:003 (Applicant: Bank of Hawai`i) (Area: 40,282 square feet). Mayor Kim forwarded the Windward Planning Commission's favorable recommendation from the public hearing held on January 3, 2019 for the change of zone along with changes to Condition B (Complete Construction), which clarified the type, location and height of a privacy fence/wall intended to mitigate adverse noise and visual impact to surrounding property owners; a new Condition C (Consolidation)that requires the consolidation of three (3) lots of record within the subject parcel prior to obtaining Final Plan Approval; and replacement of Condition H(West Lanikaula Street Access)to provide the applicant and Department of Public Works a one-year timeframe from the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy to determine any traffic impacts on the West Lanikaula Street Access, and if so, requiring the applicant to modify the turning movements at the West Lanikaula Street access, at their cost, within 6 months of DPW's determination. Planning Consultant Sidney Fuke appeared for the applicant, Bank of Hawaii. He reviewed the conditions orally and noted that all are standard. When discussing Condition B he explained that the owner of the neighboring property requested a six foot tall wall be built to divide the properties in an effort to curb noise impacts. Mr. Fuke explained that at this height the wall would be considered a "structure" and would require a setback of ten feet, hence the wall being 5'9" so that it could be constructed between the properties as discussed. It was requested by the applicant that rather than constructing a wall made of solid rock, which would require a large base, the applicant wanted to build instead a concrete masonry wall with a stone-face on both sides. Council Members Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and Maile David asked more specifics about the wall. In addition, Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder wanted to make sure that the property owner of the adjacent property was notified and agreed to the changes in the construction of the wall. Mr. Fuke stated that he would follow through with this request and provide feedback of his discussion with the property owner before the next reading. PC Report No.: 10