Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-06 TUDANI PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 6, 2008 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of FREDITAS UDANI (REZ 08-000076) was called to order at 9:16 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman Joel Gimpel presiding. PRESENT: Rodney Watanabe ABSENT & EXCUSED: Andrew Iwashita C. Kimo Alameda Lani Bowman Takashi Domingo Alvin Rho Shelly Ogata Rene’ Siracusa Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Maija Cottle, Staff Planner And approximately 10 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: FREDITAS UDANI (REZ 08-000076) Change of zone for 9,886 square feet of land from a Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to a General Commercial 10,000 square feet (CG-10) district. The property is located on the southwest corner of the Kilauea Avenue-Lanikaula Street intersection, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-2-25:11. WATANABE: Agenda Item No. 2 is a Freditas Udani (REZ 08-000076). It’s a Change of Zone request from a Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet to a General Commercial 10,000 square feet. And I believe Mr. Darrow is going to prep us. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Members of the Planning Commission. If I can direct your attention to the board, the applicant in this case is Freditas Udani. She’s requesting a change of zone from Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet to a General Commercial 10,000 square feet for 9,886 square feet of land. This property is located on the corner of Lanikaula and Kilauea Avenue. It’s identified with a black dot on the word “subject property.” We have Lanikaula running in a mauka-makai direction and we have Kilauea running in a north-south direction. Just for reference, in this particular area we have the State Forestry complex. It’s located here. You might be familiar with the Lanikaula commercial complex that holds Subway that people are familiar with in that particular area. Previously EXHIBIT A 1 several years ago we had a change of zone request in this area for this particular office building here, Gerald Takase. I can’t remember exactly the name of the applicant but there’s quite a large office building there now next to the Mormon Church which is identified -. HAYASHI: Allan Takase. DARROW: I’m sorry, Allan Takase. Thank you for that. The colors on the map represent the surrounding zonings. The yellow represents RS-10 zoning. The darker and lighter color pink and red and maroon identify Commercial zoning. We have quite a bit of Commercial zoning running along Kilauea Avenue. We do have other particular areas as we go further south of the property on Kilauea. The applicant is requesting a change of zone from RS-10 to CG-10 for 9,886 square feet of land. This is so that she can convert an existing cottage structure into an office. The cottage structure is located right here on this particular site plan. Again, for reference we have Kilauea Avenue, we have Lanikaula Street. Subway would be located here. The State facility would be located across the street on the makai side in this area. There are two structures on the property, a 2- story dwelling identified in this area and we have the cottage structure in this area. It’s approximately 440 square feet in size. This will be converted to an office. Access is proposed to be from Lanikaula Street in this area. The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council. Are there any questions? WATANABE: Are there any questions, Fellow Commissioners? I have one, just for the record. Typically we do try to focus commercial development at these types of intersections, is that not correct, in our past practices? DARROW: Correct. Well, I mean, we have one directly on both sides of the street. Again, we look at the General Plan for the area. The General Plan shows that this particular area is designated for High Density Urban uses. So this would be consistent with the General Plan. WATANABE: Okay. Thank you. Yes, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Yes. The previous map, yeah, that whole block except for one other parcel right above the “u” in “subject” is all zoned Single-Family Residential right now. And I’m wondering what is that exception? Do you know what that is there, Jeff? DARROW: I’m not sure. If you’ll give me one second -. SIRACUSA: Because otherwise we would be moving Commercial into a block that, you know, it sets the stage, it sets a precedent. DARROW: This particular property right here that you’re referring to, is that correct? SIRACUSA: Yes. DARROW: This is actually zoned RM-4, which is Multiple Family Residential. EXHIBIT A 2 SIRACUSA: Okay, so it’s still Residential. DARROW: Correct. SIRACUSA: Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Okay, Mr.Yuen, yes. YUEN: I thought you said the access was, just now, the access was from Lanikaula Street. DARROW: Correct. YUEN: But the conditions of zoning don’t limit access to Lanikaula Street. It contemplates access, as far as I can tell -. DARROW: I had just mentioned that the access is proposed from Lanikaula Street. There is a driveway access from there. There is no limit in regards to where access has to be. WATANABE: Yeah. I think that he’s referring to Condition F. The Director is referring to Condition F; and I believe we indicated in the Condition F that access would be from Kilauea or Lanikaula Streets but limited to the extreme limits of the property. DARROW: Correct. WATANABE: I guess for distance from the stop light intersection. DARROW: I’m sorry. I was just referring to where the existing access is currently. WATANABE: Okay, okay, great. DARROW: Thank you. WATANABE: Are there any further questions for staff? Yes, Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: Thanks again. Again, referring to Condition F, may be my ignorance, but how do you enforce no left turns? DARROW: Usually we do have a condition of signage, but in this case I don’t see that as a condition. Maybe the Director might want to expound on this particular issue. YUEN: It can be done physically by having a sort of splitter in the driveway access that keeps you from, that allows you to turn right in and then to only turn right out. That’s a physical way of doing it. I don’t see a condition that specifically requires a splitter. And I can’t remember, I thought we had a discussion with Public Works about this, how we were going to do this. EXHIBIT A 3 DARROW: No, sorry about that. BOWMAN: And would they be allowed to enter through both Kilauea and Lanikaula? HAYASHI There currently is no access from Kilauea Avenue and the existing access is off of Lanikaula Street. The applicant intends to continue to utilize Lanikaula Street and not provide any access from Kilauea Avenue. BOWMAN: So that could be a condition for approval, that there’s only access from -? HAYASHI: That could be included if the Commission so desires. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. WATANABE: That would be a revision to the existing Condition F. But maybe we should bring up the applicant so they can provide some input and insight into this. Does that conclude the staff presentation then pretty much? YUEN: Yes. WATANABE: Okay, may I call up the applicant then, Mrs. Udani. Can I swear you in, please. So would you raise your right hand. And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? UDANI: Yes. WATANABE: Okay. And then before you begin your testimony, Ms. Udani, could you kindly state your name and address for the record, please. UDANI: I’m Freditas Udani and the street name is 1510 Kilauea Avenue, corner of Kilauea and Lanikaula. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. You may begin. UDANI: Well, there -. What do I have to -? WATANABE: Let me begin this way then. UDANI: I’m sorry. WATANABE: Let me help you. Have your received the recommendation from the Director? UDANI: Yes. WATANABE: And have you had an opportunity to review the conditions that were stated? EXHIBIT A 4 UDANI: Yes, I read once. WATANABE: Yeah. And do you find anything in there that you won’t be able to comply with? UDANI: I think I have to comply with whatever is in here. WATANABE: But you feel comfortable with that? You can? UDANI: Yes. WATANABE: You can comply? UDANI: Yes. WATANABE: Okay. Now you were here earlier and there was some question about access, right? UDANI: Right. WATANABE: And right now Mr. Hayashi has indicated that you only plan to have access from Lanikaula Street, is that correct? UDANI: Yes. WATANABE: And there’s no physical access to Kilauea Street, Kilauea Avenue rather? UDANI: No, sir. WATANABE: So with that in mind, if we were to revise Condition F to state access would only be from the extreme property line of Lanikaula Street that would be okay with you? UDANI: I think so. It’s more safe that way. WATANABE: Okay, then that wouldn’t require any only right turn, yeah? It would be, you could do both a left and a right turn in, or would you have to circle the block? UDANI: I don’t know which one is more safe, if it’s making left turn or right -. WATANABE: No, no, with the proximity to the intersection I think probably they’re going to keep the right turn only.Would that be correct, Mr. Yuen? YUEN: Well, the Department of Public Works specifically asked for the limit on no left turns so we would still want to have that in there. WATANABE: Yeah, okay, okay. So that would mean that be right turn only, yeah, access is right turn only from Lanikaula only. EXHIBIT A 5 UDANI: Yes. WATANABE: Yeah, you’re -. UDANI: Well, that’s in the proposal and we have to -. WATANABE: Okay, but that’s workable for your plans? UDANI: I think so. WATANABE: Okay, okay. Well, do you have anything else you’d like to add? No? UDANI: No. WATANABE: Okay. Then other Commissioners may have questions of you, so I’m going to open it up to questioning then, yeah? Okay? UDANI: Okay. WATANABE: Yes, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Thank you. Right now the entire block on which your property sits is all Residential, and I was very glad to see that you planned to use the existing structure and not take it down. But we have to have a concern on rezonings because anything can happen in the future, whether it’s in your own plans or whether you decide to sell to someone else later on as they have their own ideas about what they want to do with the property. So we have to be always wary that when we do a change of zone it’s not going to be necessarily what you’re planning now. Somebody else might come along and want to tear down the house and put up some big commercial structure that the neighbors or others in the community might find unsightly. So how would you feel if we put in a condition saying that the existing structure would stay on the property as long as it was not falling apart I guess. We did this some other old houses that were being put to a commercial use saying that they would not be, and I can’t remember what the wording was. Chris maybe you remember there was one in Naalehu that was going to be used for an insurance office and we wanted to keep the -. YUEN: Right, well, it wasn’t an insurance -. That one was probably a real estate office for the owner. We’ve had conditions which limited the use to the existing dwelling or a similar replacement structure. SIRACUSA: Okay. Do you understand what I’m saying? UDANI: Yes. SIRACUSA: So how would you feel about something like that if we put a condition in like that? UDANI: Well, my house is already old so I don’t know if, it’s already 80 years old, built in 1927. EXHIBIT A 6 WATANABE: Oh, okay, so the life expectancy of that home is sort of limited yeah, is what you’re trying to get across, I think. UDANI: Yes. If it’s strong enough then, you know -. WATANABE: Yeah, what I’m saying is it had to be torn down because it was getting rotten and unsafe or whatever, that what would go up in its place would be something similar. UDANI: Yeah. I mean I don’t have any plans to make big business. I’m planning to -. WATANABE: Okay. Maybe, okay, I kind of get your feeling. Maybe some of the other Commissioners might want to chime in on this on how they feel about the -. DOMINGO: I’d like to chime in. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: I’ll chime away. You know, I know what Commissioner Siracusa is concerned about and I understand how she feels. But, personally, my personal input into that is that I don’t think that we should restrict anyone who comes for rezoning in that particular area if you want to be specific to restrict them from just using their residences for business purposes and the like. And it’s only because if you look in the general area and further down towards houselots, there are many rezonings coming up and people are rebuilding, you know, and they’re changing the entire outlook of that particular area. And what we’re looking at is if we go up Lanikaula and go up to Kawili we have the University up there. And on the northern side of Lanikaula along Kinoole we’re seeing some, you know, some buildings that have come up that are just perfect, you know, conducive and it just blends into the existing uses as we go up to the University. So I don’t think I can subscribe to any such condition at this time. And I can see where if in like perhaps Naalehu where we have that kind of a condition, because Naalehu at this time is a laid-back beautiful community with, you know, that country type ambience, and if you want to retain those buildings as such, perhaps that would be appropriate, but not with the growing portion of Hilo as it is. Because what we’re looking at is the commercial core, what used to be Downtown Hilo, is slowly going out towards the south. So, I mean, putting restrictions like that and setting a precedent is something that would be tying us down and discouraging developers from going into that direction. WATANABE: Okay, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jeff, could you put up that picture of the area map that has the various zones. If you look at that area, that street, which I guess is Kilauea Avenue coming down, everything up to that point is Commercial. So it’s not like we’re doing something that is vastly different. And I think we need to be a little careful if, either we approve this or we don’t. But I don’t think we want to micromanage, and that is put on so many conditions that you can’t use this for commercial property except if you have your insurance office in this old run-down building. I have no problem, again, because right across the street EXHIBIT A 7 everything up Kilauea Avenue is all Commercial. And I think we either approve it, you know, as it is, or -. I just can’t see micromanaging this thing. WATANABE: Thank you. Yes, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Yeah. I don’t see this as micromanaging. The fact is that the dark green parcel across the street is DLNR, that’s the arboretum and the offices of Forestry and Wild Life; and it is beautiful and park-like. The block on which the subject property is located is all Single Family Residential with that one exception that’s multi-Family Residential. So still that block is still Residential. And we are setting a precedent if we allow Commercial on that parcel. Because it’s the sort of thing that I don’t want to keep her from having her, you know, from being able to use that property Commercially. But I would not like to see it change the quality of the neighborhood; and it would definitely do that, especially a location right on the corner, you know, is very visually prominent. And it’s not that we haven’t done this before, asked that future development on, you know, make it contingent that future development not be, that there not be an architectural disconnect, basically is what I’m saying. WATANABE: Okay. We’ll, we’ve heard three Commissioners’ opinions on this. Is there anyone else that would care to expound? Do we have any further questions of the applicant? Cause then we can move into the deliberations if -. Mr. Rho? RHO: I’m not sure that I have a question of the applicant. But Condition G talks about installing street lights.And I wondered whether or not there was a street light already at that intersection, and where this street light might be located if that’s a requirement of the applicant. WATANABE: Mr. Darrow? DARROW: A street light in the sense of just, not a signal light, a street light. WATANABE: Oh, to illuminate the area. RHO: But, and it says install street lights and traffic controls. That traffic control meaning the left turn or no left turn? HAYASHI: Yeah, this was a recommendation from the Department of Public Works. There already is signalization at that intersection. There’s also street lights. Perhaps it’s not necessary to include this particular condition since the devices are already in place. RHO: But there are no street lights? WATANABE: He said there are street lights. RHO: There are street lights? HAYASHI: I take that back. As far as the street light itself, I’m not too sure. But there are traffic signals at that intersection. EXHIBIT A 8 WATANABE: Okay. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes. WOODWARD: If I might ask why would street lights be required because I’m sure an insurance office is not going to be opened after dark. So why would the street lights be required? WATANABE: They might be looking into the future and saying that we may have some other facility or some other business there, after all it is General Commercial, yeah, zoning. So, but, again, you know, I guess I kind of was concerned about that mostly because of the scale of the development and wondering, you know, why they would actually want traffic lights. However, street lights I believe can be supported by that type of development in spite of its small scale. So I don’t particularly have any issue with that condition. Do we have any other questions of the applicant? Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: Not of the applicant. WATANABE: Oh, yes, well -. BOWMAN: Just, the Hilo, is this included like in the Hilo Downtown Plan? YUEN: No. BOWMAN: No, it’s out. So there’s no other plan that covers this area beside the General Plan? YUEN: There’s a very old City of Hilo Plan. Is it referenced in the Background? HAYASHI: Yes, it’s Item 4, 6, Hilo Community Development Plan; and that particular Plan which was adopted in 1975 I believe designated that area for Multiple Residential 4,000 square foot zoning. But that’s, you know, almost over 30 years ago. BOWMAN: So we are basically setting a precedent for Commercial in that area? HAYASHI: Well, maybe in the immediate vicinity going towards Puna; but there are other Commercial areas that were rezoned further towards the South. If you look at the bottom of the map you see some pink shaded areas, and those areas were rezoned for Commercial uses. This particular area is already General Planned for High Density Urban development and has been for quite some time. So the Plan, the overall General Plan shows an expansion of commercial activities along this area. BOWMAN: So it is High Density Urban? HAYASHI: That’s correct. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. EXHIBIT A 9 WATANABE: And this kind of falls into play why I brought up the past practices of focusing the Commercial type of zoning around particular intersections; and generally that’s the way we’ve done it, yeah, in the past. So it’s consistent I believe with past practices. So is everyone satisfied? If everyone is satisfied then Mrs. Udani you may be seated and we’ll deliberate on this. There was a suggestion and it has been confirmed by the applicant that access would be only from Lanikaula Street, and I’m referring to Condition F. And so may I suggest that we remove from the first sentence “Kilauea Avenue and” so that it only states Lanikaula Street, “Access to the property from Lanikaula Street shall be limited to the extreme limits of the property away from the Kilauea Street-Lanikaula Street intersection and meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works.” And, of course, we’re going to return the no left turns, yeah, because of the proximity to the intersection. So, yes. BOWMAN: I just have a question again on the enforcement of the left turn because, you know, if the signal, you’re coming up Kilauea and the signal turns green and you turn left, there are all those cars backed up. There’s no way that they can turn into that parcel. But is that going to be required for them to design it, Chris like you said? So, I mean, is that a requirement? YUEN: Well, to tell you the truth I’m still puzzled how this is -. We had an email exchange with the Department of Public Works on this. And reading it over I actually don’t understand how you can sign for no left turn. because the other properties, how you can sign on Lanikaula Street for no left turn into this one property. Because the next person’s house, they can turn left into their house. SIRACUSA: Would it have to do with stripping of the road? YUEN: I don’t see how you -. We asked the Department of Public Works and they said that you can’t physically, there’s not enough room to do what I said on the physical restriction of having a splitter-type situation. So, and I don’t see it. Norman, do you have an idea of how they’re going to do this? HAYASHI: I think it’s a matter of the public self-policing themselves. There’s no way for us putting a no left turn sign at that particular intersection or on the roadway. So from a practical standpoint perhaps that particular condition saying no left turn is not necessary. If there was a sign on the property that says you cannot go left then that’s possible to do that. But I think Public Works wanted a no left turn from Lanikaula onto the property. WATANABE: Well, can I chime in. That may be why they’re indicating extreme portions of the property from either Lanikaula or Kilauea Avenue, meaning that it would be a right turn in which could physically be on the property practically prohibit by creating curbs a left turn from Lanikaula onto the property; and then you could physically, you know, with curbs again prevent someone from making a left turn onto Kilauea while you’re exiting the property. YUEN: Well, I -. That’s why I talked about having a splitter type of situation but there’s not enough room. The lot is small. What’s the frontage on Lanikaula? EXHIBIT A 10 HAYASHI: It’s about 100 feet. YUEN: And that’s actually the long side of the property. So you can’t develop the driveway in a way that forces a right in and right out without bringing the right out part of the driveway very close to the intersection. WATANABE: On Kilauea you’re talking about, yeah? YUEN: Yes, no, no, on Lanikaula Street now. WATANABE: Oh, okay. YUEN: Okay, and you can’t physically, I don’t see a way to put a sign that tells people don’t turn left into this one property. And you can’t, you know, you can’t put a sign on their driveway that says, oops, you weren’t supposed to turn left in here, if you did back out. So I don’t see how the no left turn is supposed to work. I don’t feel comfortable in dropping it because this is what they asked for. But, you know, looking through, and we did have an email exchange about what they wanted to do on the access of this, and this is what we got. But they said something about restricting it with signage and I just don’t see how you do it. WATANABE: Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think once again we’re getting down to micromanagement and nitpicking. We can say, okay, you have access only from Lanikaula. After that it’s up to Public Works and the Department of Highways. You know, this is not our bailiwick; and I don’t think we need to go into that, to be honest with you. Either we approve this or we don’t; and we leave it up to whatever is, you know, satisfactory with the Department of Highways. WATANABE: Okay, do we have -? YUEN: Well, I have to disagree. I think we have to solve these basic questions when we do a rezoning and we have to -. You know, we have this recurring situation where somebody comes in with a pretty modest idea of what they want to do. In this case the applicant’s idea is to have a small insurance office run out of her home. But the zoning permits a whole range of things, you know, including a fast food restaurant, a gas station and the like to be placed here. And if we’re going to allow this with a full range of permitted uses then somebody at some point has to deal with the issues that arise from that; and I think it should be done at zoning. I don’t, you know, I’m sitting here and I’m concerned how this is actually physically going to work on the site. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Why don’t we just say we’ll just have a right turn in and right turn out onto the property? EXHIBIT A 11 WATANABE: Yes. The condition as worded does state that. I think the discussion really is surrounding how that would actually be enforced to ensure that right turn in, right turn out is what actually occurs. Ms. Ogata? OGATA: I was just trying to think of an example in Hilo where this is occurring; and I think that this might be a good one. By going up Kawailani and the Kinoole intersection, there’s a Shell Station I think if you’re going up on the left hand side on that corner, and there’s a sign on the driveway that says no left turn. So if you’re going up Kawailani you cannot make, or you’re not supposed to make a left turn into that driveway. So I’m just wondering if that’s the type of signage that they’re talking about. WATANABE: Are you familiar with that and do you think maybe there’s room on this particular site to achieve that? YUEN: My concern about it is how you specify that there’s no left turn into this property specifically. Because the people, you know, there’s a house next to them and another house and another house, and somebody who visits them is not in violation if they turn left. I suspect that the applicant typically turns left into their own driveway. And if we pass this as it stands you’re not supposed to be turning left into your own property, nor your customers and clients; and this is my concern. This is what they asked for, Public Works; and I don’t like to sit here and say just take it out.They did express -- you know, we have either in a letter or an email -- their concern about what happens when, because this is quite close to the Kilauea intersection, somebody may want to turn left and -. The situation is this, that there is a signal there and so you can have cars stacked up at the intersection of Kilauea and Lanikaula, on Lanikaula Street. Somebody turns, somebody is planning to go to the property and they get onto Lanikaula Street and they can’t turn left, they can’t actually make a left turn because the cars are stacked up. But say they are allowed to make a left turn, well, they’re going to wait there until the traffic clears and they can make that left turn. Meantime, people are trying to turn, say on the signal they may be trying to turn left from Kilauea onto Lanikaula and then within less than 100 feet from the intersection they have a car that’s waiting now to turn left on the property. Now this can happen today. It’s in an RS zone but you don’t have as much traffic as you do in an RS zone. So honestly I think we should either defer this, and the other possibility is to approve it with a condition that really scales down what kind of development they can do. And between the two I would say that we really ought to figure out what the access is, how this is supposed to work. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, I have a problem with restricting certain uses that would normally be permitted in a zoned district. And in this particular case perhaps we’ll be saying that this zoning would permit only an office use for this particular business which is selling insurance. I think what we can just do is just insert a general condition that, you know, the applicant will adhere to and will defer to the demands of the Public Works, and that’s it. WATANABE: Okay with that said, you know, earlier I had suggested removing Kilauea Avenue and the Lanikaula Street, and later on I indicated that the only way you can physically really restrict this is by placing curbs on the actual site that would deter people from making a left turn in from either Lanikaula or Kilauea Avenue. And so, you know, if we’re going to go ahead and proceed in that manner without restricting the actual activity possibly we should leave EXHIBIT A 12 the condition as is, Condition F as is, so that if Public Works’s vision of how traffic would flow through this area was right turn in from Lanikaula and right turn out on to Kilauea Avenue then that could be accomplished, yeah. Whereas if we restrict access from only Lanikaula then they might be in a quandary. So, you know, I believe this condition as worded came from Public Works. I suppose they had some vision of how they would accomplish this. Ms. Bowman? BOWMAN: I don’t live in Hilo but when you look at the other commercial areas and if you go up where Subway is and you’re going to make a left turn into there, you have the same problem, right? WATANABE: Exactly. BOWMAN: So it either increases the problem or we deal with the problem because it’s already there. I just -. YUEN: Well, can I jump in? WATANABE: Yes. YUEN: Actually the Subway is a little different because, first, the bulk of the traffic does come uphill on Lanikaula and turn right into the Subway. Then they need to turn, they can’t turn left out of the Subway but basically then they’re waiting for everybody else to clear, and they just have to sit and wait in a private driveway until the traffic clears out. The left turners, you can turn left into the Subway and some people do that. You don’t have this issue of the left turn being this close to the intersection. WATANABE: On the other hand, Mr. Director, you mentioned some concern about the width of the property along I believe it’s Kilauea Avenue cause it’s 100 feet on Lanikaula. But if it’s right turn exit only onto Kilauea Avenue if the width of the property is say 60 feet it’s probably not going to present that much of an issue, is it? YUEN: Well, the right turn out on Kilauea is not a big problem. They’d have to, you know -. WATANABE: And right turn in from Lanikaula should not be a big problem cause you have the whole street basically to cue on, am I correct in that? YUEN: Well, that’s correct. I think we should ask the applicant what they think about that though because I don’t think they can do it with their house the way it’s currently set up. And they would have to change how they have the buildings on the site and, you know, I’d like to hear what the applicant -. I’m not sure that the applicant has, you know, when you asked the question about the no left turns into the property that this is something that the applicant has really considered fully because it does mean that after the zoning of the property is enacted she is not supposed to turn left into her property. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Okay, yes, Mr. Woodward. EXHIBIT A 13 WOODWARD: I think once again we’re the Planning Commission, we are not the Department of Public Works, and this is not our bailiwick. You know we can make conditions. And if we want to restrict access to Lanikaula Street that’s fine. And we’ll go with this no left turn shall be allowed - and that’s the Department of Public Works bailiwick, not ours. We’ve been spending time on this minutia for ever and it’s not our decision to make, to be quite honest with you. I think we need to get on. WATANABE: Okay. Yes, Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: And yet we are approving a commercial endeavor that right now is limited to an insurance office. But what if it becomes a fast food restaurant or some other high volume endeavor? That’s my concern. Not that you would but -. I understand but if the property is sold that’s my concern. And I think it is under our purview to be concerned about this. WATANABE: Okay. We’re sort of divided on this, I suppose. Mr. -. ALAMEDA: Well, we don’t know yet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If somebody could make a motion then we could have more of a sense of where we’re at yeah? WATANABE: Yeah, that would be good, maybe that would be good. WOODWARD: Let me just ask, excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Torigoe came up with a suggestion and maybe he can speak of it to the group. TORIGOE: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes, sure. TORIGOE: I think there is legitimate concern about saying something about regulating the way that the traffic goes in and out; and yet it’s difficult for you all to be trying to doing the traffic engineering for this specific project in a way that will both accommodate this and future uses. And so maybe if you did something along the lines of using the condition as it has been proposed but also include that any access will be subject to such traffic controls as may be required by the Department of Public Works; and if there are any future changes in the ingress and egress that those also would be subject to review by the Department of Public Works. WATANABE: Well, how do you feel about that, Mr. Yuen? You have any strong feelings either way on that? YUEN: You know, if the Commission wants to vote this out to the County Council with language like that, that’s okay. But I would like, I actually think we need to do something about how this is actually going to be handled before -. You know, I don’t want to sit in front of the County Council and not have an answer to all the same questions that I’ve been asking right here. TORIGOE: Mr. Chairman? EXHIBIT A 14 WATANABE: Yes. TORIGOE: Well, and the other thing you can do is make a recommendation that there be further discussion with the Department of Public Works and let the DPW traffic people be prepared to come to the Council with some proposals from a traffic engineering standpoint on how they expect this to happen. YUEN: I’m fine with that. WATANABE: Okay. So that, now what we’re talking about is retaining Condition F as it stands now and adding to Condition F -. And would you please restate the condition, the addition, Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE: Okay, basically along the lines that “Ingress and egress to the site shall be subject to such traffic controls as may be required by the Department of Public Works and that any future changes to the ingress and egress would also be subject to any new traffic controls that may be required by the Department of Public Works.” WATANABE: Oh, and also that Public Works will be present with the -. TORIGOE: Yeah, and in your recommendation letter I guess just to make note that the Commission is concerned about ensuring that the ingress and egress is safely controlled and recommending that the Department of Public Works be required to appear and provide testimony regarding how that would happen. WATANABE: Thank you. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Woodward? WOODWARD: Were we going to strike the provision that they could have access from Kilauea Avenue? WATANABE: No, we would retain that portion and only add on what the, so that would afford Public Works whatever option they have. WOODWARD: All right, very good. WATANABE: Is everyone clear on the revision? Shelly, yes. OGATA: Then can I make a motion? WATANABE: Sure. OGATA: I move that we send a favorable recommendation on the change of zone application REZ 08-000076. EXHIBIT A 15 WATANABE: To the County Council? OGATA: To the County Council with the revisions that Mr. Torigoe just stated. WATANABE: Okay, and inclusive of the recommendation that Public Works be present at the presentation at the Council? OGATA: Yes. WATANABE: Okay, great. WOODWARD: Second. WATANABE: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Do we need to discuss this any further? Yes, Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: Just one quick question. So if the use changes and Public Works is subject to the egress or ingress, then they would look at it if the use changes? WATANABE: Again, right. BOWMAN: They would look at it again? WATANABE: Right. BOWMAN: And could a different use be denied simply because of that? WATANABE: No. But, okay, let me put it to you this way, Ms. Bowman – Let us say that whatever years from now Ms. Udani says I give up, yeah, and she sells the property and someone proposes to put a 7-Eleven in there. Well, they’re not going to put a 7-Eleven in a 85- year old home. So they’re going to reconstruct the building at which point they’re going to have to go back for building permits, etc. They will then refigure the lot; and they will be subject to Public Works’ recommendations on how ingress and egress will occur. Now potentially Mr. Yuen has stated as the site is physically set up now you may not be able to, you know, afford a right turn in only from Lanikaula and right turn out only to Kilauea. However, the real concern is not with a small insurance office. The real concern is with something potentially larger. And if we leave the condition the way it’s stated allowing Public Works the option of right turn only, when the property is finally reconfigured that can be achieved, yeah? BOWMAN: Thank you. WATANABE: So I think it’s a fairly good solution. Do we care to discuss this any further? Yes -. SIRACUSA: Yeah, I still have problems with this being the first step on that entire block, you know, that has the potential, not now when she’s keeping the original structure but down the line in the future, to radically alter the character of that neighborhood because the parcel right on the corner there is very high visibility. And without some kind of extra condition EXHIBIT A 16 in there, I know Mr. Woodward doesn’t like the, we’ll call it micromanaging, but I still feel that it’s important to retain the community’s character by making sure that the 7-Eleven does not go in. And we have precedence for that, you know.And I would be quite willing to support this application if I had that kind of condition amended to address this. WATANABE: Okay. Mr. Alameda, looks like you have something to add. ALAMEDA: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. My biggest fear is, you know, how already in Hilo there are some places where you have the green light and so, you know, you see the green light, oh, right on, finally you get to go. And all of sudden nobody goes because they’re stuck, cause that green light person cannot go because somebody wants to turn left in front of that. So he’s thinking maybe got a chance, and then no more chance, the thing turns red again. And he’s still stuck at the green light that was green that now is red because of the left turn that somebody wanted to go that couldn’t. This is just another potential of that situation, you know, coming up, kind of like what Mr. Yuen was mentioning, you know. So, I don’t know, I’m a little bit nervous about -. You know, and that’s the corner lot too, yeah. And right now the insurance company no big deal. But the 7-Eleven, oh, it’s a little bit tricky that.So, I don‘t know, I don’t know yet how I going vote. WATANABE: So that’s your hope I guess for now. Does anyone have anything else to add? Any discussion? Well, okay, we have a motion. The motion is to retain, well, to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council, retain the original wording and insert some additional language that Mr. Torigoe stated. Yes, Ms. Ogata. OGATA: I’m hearing that there’s a potential amendment to the motion or something. So is somebody going to make that or -? WATANABE: No. So far no one has made an amendment; and if they did then both you and Mr. Woodward would have to accept the amendment. So why don’t we try to take a vote and see where we stand. Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, the motion before us is to send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council with a revised Condition F as worded by Corporation Counsel Ivan Torigoe. With that, I’ll take the vote. Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Nay. DARROW: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: No. EXHIBIT A 17 DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: No. DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: No. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes five to three. WATANABE: Excuse me, no. We have a four-four, Jeff. DARROW: Oh, I’m sorry. I accidentally -. WATANABE: One half against, East against West or was it North against South. DARROW: Four-four. Motion does not pass four to four. WATANABE: Okay, we’re clear on that? Yes, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman, well, evidently just to get off of ground zero here, I might suggest that if there is any change in usage for the property that it be brought back before the Planning Commission for approval. Can we do that? WATANABE: I’m not sure. WOODWARD: I’ll ask Mr. Torigoe. TORIGOE: Well, you know, it sounded like actually Ms. Siracusa had a suggestion that might work and that some of the Commissioners might be comfortable with. Also, I would note with respect to the left turn, the condition that we have, F, does say no left turn. So, you know, the question is just making sure Public Works finds a way to do that. So you might want to entertain Ms. Siracusa’s suggestion. SIRACUSA: Well, the motion that I would be making would be basically the same motion that Commissioner Ogata had just made with one additional condition; and that would be modeled after the one we had used on that Naalehu property. WATANABE: Limiting use? . EXHIBIT A 18 SIRACUSA: Where we were, and I think we had done one in Waiakea House Lots also for a house that was a historic structure. WATANABE: That was going to be a real estate agent’s -. SIRACUSA: Yeah, and possibly the Director could come up with the wording for that amendment. YUEN: Two things about that. First I think we should discuss that with the applicant because it is pretty restrictive.Second, if we are going to go the route of, and, you know, I don’t know what her real desires are here.Sometimes people really, this is all that they want, is some fairly limited change in the use of the property. If we went that route some of the conditions I think are, I think we would not limit left turns into the property, for example. Because back to this situation again, if the condition passed in the form that it was in the recommendation or, you know, as stated earlier, you know, she can’t turn left into her property and her customers are not supposed to, and clients are not supposed to turn left either. And I suspect that that’s what most of them, given where the population is likely to be coming from and the traffic patterns in Hilo, most of them -. So we’re basically telling them that they’re supposed to go up the street and make a u-turn somewhere or go around some where and come down and turn right in the property. So I think this is something, you know, we should discuss with the applicant as to whether she would like a zoning that’s quite restrictive in terms of the uses of the property. And if we do that then we ought to pull back on some of the conditions. You know, but if we are going to go with a CG zoning that does not have any restrictions then you have to think gas station, convenience store, fast food restaurant, as being a potential ultimate use of the property and plan it accordingly. WATANABE: I find it quite ironic if you had applied for Ag zoning that we would need a special permit and we’d be done, but special permits only exist on Ag land. DOMINGO: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: You know, as explained, it would seem like that whole block then under its present designation would prevent any General Commercial uses on that block. But what we’re doing is we’re putting restrictions on one specific lot only. And if it is the desire of this Planning Commission that General Commercial is not proper and adequate for that block then I would suggest even to the extent that there should be a change in the designation so it will be restricted only for a limited use only. You know, that’s -. WATANABE: General Plan, in other words not High Density Urban. DOMINGO: Yeah. WATANABE: Yeah, I kind of hear where you’re coming from. Ms. Bowman, you have the mike up? EXHIBIT A 19 BOWMAN: Question what’s the zoning in the pink? WATANABE: Mr. Darrow. DARROW: The light pink zoning is Commercial Neighborhood. The darker maroon is General Commercial. BOWMAN: So Commercial Neighborhood? DARROW: Correct. WATANABE: Would not preclude a 7-Eleven. BOWMAN: It would not. What about Village Commercial? WATANABE: I don’t believe so. BOWMAN: Is there any, I guess what I’m asking, is there any Commercial zoning that would preclude a high traffic venture there? WATANABE: Mr. Director? Off the top of my head I don’t think so because Commercial implies heavier traffic. But I’ll defer to the Director for this. YUEN: Well, there is a zoning called RCX that doesn’t allow some of the range of Commercial zoning. Unfortunately I believe RCX doesn’t allow offices and I’m not sure why that’s the case. That’s what it says. BOWMAN: What does it allow? I don’t mean to be nitpicky. I feel for the applicant but I think, again, this is pretty precedent setting and, yeah -. YUEN: I don’t know if you want me to actually get the list of uses. An RCX is more restrictive than a regular Commercial zone. I’m sure that gas stations for example are not allowed in an RCX but it does, there are some things in there that can have a fair amount of traffic generation. WATANABE: Okay, may I make a suggestion then. Even though I know there are some of us who would prefer to see any limitations on zonings be handled through the General Plan, why don’t I ask Ms. Siracusa to propose a motion and let’s see where we can go with that. But that said, I think she kind of did suggest one and was looking to you, Mr. Yuen, to see if you had any wording for the limited scope of development. Do you -? YUEN: I can word the motion but I think that we ought to ask the applicant whether that kind of restriction is something that she would want to move ahead with because there’s no point in rezoning the property to something that the applicant doesn’t want. If you want the wording it would be something like, if it’s meant to restrict it to something like the physical structure it would be to say that the use of the property should be limited to the existing home or similar replacement structure. But that’s a restriction that physically tends to limit very much what you can do on the property because there are only a few things that you can actually EXHIBIT A 20 run out of a home successfully like that. If you want me to simply come up with wording that implements that motion then that would be it. WATANABE: That would be it. Okay, now -. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes. WOODWARD: I’ve been speaking with Mr. Torigoe here and he suggested wording that “Commercial uses shall be limited to the existing structure or a replacement structure of not more than 125 percent of the floor area of the existing structure. WATANABE: Thank you. Now I think the Director is right though, you know. Ms. Udani, would you come up please. I know you’ve been listening intently to this discussion and maybe now we can clarify how this would be handled. And so would it be all right with you, are you comfortable with limiting commercial usage to the existing structure, or a replacement structure that is no greater than 125 percent of the existing structure? UDANI: Yes, I do. I mean -. WATANABE: Yeah, so that doesn’t limit you to insurance business now; but it does limit the physical characteristics of the building and size. Are you comfortable with that? UDANI: I think I’m comfortable with that. WATANABE: So with regard to that then, Chris, limiting it to no more than 125 percent of the existing floor space you think would satisfy your concerns there? YUEN: Well, I think we either have to do something that limits the use of the property or we have to solve this access question. If we are going to go ahead with the limitation on the use of the property, I would suggest that the condition regarding, I would say that we should say “Access should only be from Lanikaula Street” and that we should take out the “No left turns from Lanikaula Street” because she and her customers, I think, really want to turn left from Lanikaula Street. I’m not concerned about it if it’s a low traffic situation. WATANABE: Okay. So then the suggestion is, okay, the suggestion is to remove Kilauea Avenue in the first sentence of Condition F and also remove the condition on no left turns that was initiated by Public Works, but add a condition limiting commercial activity to the existing dwelling or dwellings, not to exceed 125 percent of the existing floor space. Are we all clear on that? BOWMAN: I have a question on that. WATANABE: Yes. BOWMAN: According to the application the office will be in the cottage. Are we limiting it to the cottage or the whole dwelling? EXHIBIT A 21 WATANABE: No, no. We’re not even limiting to just the insurance, so if she wants to do piano lessons she could do that, too. Right? BOWMAN: Okay, so the whole -. WATANABE: But the scope really and the real concern here was traffic, not whether it was piano lessons, or insurance, or, you know, selling mortgages. BOWMAN: Okay. But I just understood that it was going to be limited to the cottage, well the cottage would be converted for office uses. So what we’re saying is that actually even the home could be, right? Just so I’m clear. WATANABE: Well, when you change the zoning -. BOWMAN: Okay, everything. WATANABE: You’re changing the entire lot. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. ALAMEDA: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, real quick? WATANABE: Yes. ALAMEDA: Because, you know, the whole 125 percent bigger than, what does that translate to? Like what is the size of the property now and if you go 125 percent how big will that be? I mean, get down to the nitty -. So 2,275 square feet, what is 125 percent of that or whatever? Another 500 feet, so the dwelling won’t be bigger than 2,500 square feet, something like that, or 3,000 square feet? How does it translate? WATANABE: I don’t know what the existing is. Does anyone know? Yes, Mr. Darrow. DARROW: The existing is 2,200. ALAMEDA: Right. So 25 percent of that, so 3,000 square feet.We’re not going to see a structure larger than 3,000 square feet, about like that? DARROW: Correct. ALAMEDA: Okay. WATANABE: That’s not very large. Yes? SIRACUSA: I was more concerned with, not so much with the size of the structure but the quality, you know, basically. Cause I could see where you would put up a steel building that’s 125 feet, you know, they come in all sizes. EXHIBIT A 22 WATANABE: Yes. But with all due respect, Ms. Siracusa -. SIRACUSA: In other words, I like the Director’s wording better than Mr. Torigoe’s wording of a, you know, they would use that, just “the current structures or similar structures.” WATANABE: With no limits on size? SIRACUSA: Pardon me? WATANABE: With no limits on size? SIRACUSA: With no limits on size. WATANABE: Okay, it looks like you have a concern, Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair, on that, I just, minus that because then we’re going to be stuck again with the four-four. So I think we’ll go right up to Mr. Torigoe’s point. WATANABE: The 125. ALAMEDA: And I’m good to go with that. WATANABE: Yeah. And, you know, when we start talking about you can only use these types of colors, earth colors, and all of those things, then we start getting into real restrictive covenants. SIRACUSA: We’re not saying that. WATANABE: Okay. So -. BOWMAN: Could you repeat your addition just so we’re clear, the amendment. WATANABE: Mr. Torigoe? BOWMAN: Yes. WATANABE: The condition stated “Commercial activities will be limited to the existing structure or structures not to exceed 125 percent of the existing floor space.” BOWMAN: Thank you. WATANABE: That’s essentially what it says. Okay? And in addition to that Mr. Yuen also indicated if you’re going to limit size then it’s not necessary to have no left turn. Right? So we’re going to strike no left turn, we are also going to strike access from Kilauea Avenue, and access will be limited to Lanikaula Street. You feel comfortable with that now? BOWMAN: Yes. EXHIBIT A 23 WATANABE: Okay. Now, but nobody really made the motion. We’re talking about a potential motion. ALAMEDA: Could that be an amendment, friendly amendment, and then just continue with the revote? WATANABE: No, no. That motion got voted down so I would seek a motion if possible. Mr. Rho. RHO: I just need clarification. On page 2 of the background report it talks about 2,276 square foot single family dwelling; and that dwelling based on the drawing is a two-story dwelling. And the sentence continues with “and a cottage on the site.” So I wonder whether or not the cottage is part of the 2,276 square foot total, or is it actually 3,276 square feet? So you would multiply that by, to get the percentage? WATANABE: I’m not sure. RHO: Cause just by the drawing itself the dwelling, that single dwelling on the side of the two-story dwelling, looks close to being at least 1,000 square feet, I would think. But I’m just guessing, I can’t tell that. WATANABE: Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Yeah, the two-story dwelling would increase by 589 square feet. So that would be approximately -? WATANABE: Twenty seven? DARROW: Yeah, 28,000, or 2,865 square feet. The 440 would increase approximately 60 feet or so. WATANABE: So total square footage? DARROW: I’m sorry, 110. So that would be a -. But at this point they’re limited on the size of that structure to 500 square feet because it is considered -. WATANABE: A separate structure? DARROW: Well, I’m not sure if that’s going to apply. At this point it has been approved as a guest house which limits it to 500. It may be approved as an office larger than that at this time. So it could go a little more than 500 square feet. WATANABE: Yeah, but I think the real question is then what is 125 percent of total existing floor space. DARROW: For the residence it would bring it up 589 square feet. WATANABE: That being said, what is the total of that? EXHIBIT A 24 DARROW: It’s 2,865. WATANABE: So 865. And of the other was 400 and -. DARROW: Forty. WATANABE: And it goes up to 500, is that right? DARROW: Five hundred and fifty. WATANABE: So then even if you consider these separately then we’re looking at roughly 3400 square feet. So we went from 3000 to 3400. Is that -? SIRACUSA: What if we, since it’s only the cottage that she’s interested in using for her office, what if we used Mr. Torigoe’s wording, but for the cottage and not the two-story dwelling, the 125? WATANABE: So you’re comfortable with 525 square feet of commercial but nothing more? SIRACUSA: Yes. WATANABE: That’s a garage. SIRACUSA: That’s what she’s planning to use now, is that cottage. WATANABE: Well, okay. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Why don’t we just give the rezoning. And that zoning will permit her to do whatever she needs, with the restrictions that we’re going to put on that particular parcel, and that’s it? WATANABE: We tried to give the rezoning. We came up four-four, remember? DOMINGO: But then there is a consensus that with the inclusion of certain amendments then I perceive that the majority is there. WATANABE: Yeah, right, that’s what we’re trying to get at. And I’m searching for a motion, someone to make a motion. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Woodward. EXHIBIT A 25 WOODWARD: I would be more than happy -. WATANABE: Please. WOODWARD: To make a motion, because I think this horse is dead. We’ve beat it into the ground and we’re into minutia now. So I would move that in the change of zone application REZ 06-000076, and I still don’t know why we have all those zeros, that we send a favorable recommendation to the County Council with the revised Condition F where access, the left turn lane restriction is removed, and the addition of Mr. Torigoe’s condition, “Commercial uses shall be limited to the existing structure or a replacement structure of not more than 125 percent of the floor area of the existing structure.” WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have a second to that motion? DOMINGO: I would second. WATANABE: Thank you. OGATA: I just need clarification. WATANABE: Yes. OGATA: For Condition F we’re talking about removing the left turn only. What about that Kilauea Avenue -. WATANABE: Kilauea Avenue would also be removed, yeah, because there’s no existing access from Kilauea Avenue. Yes, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: But I thought Mr. Yuen was saying that we were going to remove that restriction also, is that not correct or -? YUEN: No. I would suggest that if we’re going to limit it basically to the proposed use that we not have an access allowed from Kilauea at all. WOODWARD: That’s fine with me. Still fine with you, Mr. Domingo? DOMINGO: Yes. WATANABE: Okay. Are we all clear on that? Do we need to discuss this any further? Yes, Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: Sorry. But, again, what initially was proposed as a residential use in a 500 square foot cottage is now potentially, just so I understand, could be a 3,000 square foot commercial endeavor, correct? WATANABE: Yes. EXHIBIT A 26 BOWMAN: So we really haven’t, and so when, if a new structure is up then it will come back with the egress and ingress, and Department of Transportation and the Police will look at it again, correct? YUEN: Yes, that’s correct. BOWMAN: Okay. Because I am a bit surprised that we had all these concerns about traffic and police had no concerns. WATANABE: Okay. Any more discussion? DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes. DOMINGO: Although I seconded the motion and in part I agreed that the rezoning should be granted, I made the second, I’m going to vote for the motion only because we can get this poor lady out of here so that she can do what she needs to do. I mean we’ve been discussing this whole issue and it comes down to this one particular thing, is that if any one of us here owns a specific property with a definite zoning and that zoning permits you to do whatever you need to do within that zoning, you can do it. But what we’re doing here is we’re putting restrictions on her with that particular zoning; and that’s not right, I don’t think that’s right. Then what we’re looking at is a General Plan with a Medium Density designation, that whole block is open for Commercial, General Commercial uses. So with the understanding that if we’re doing this, would the action today be applied to the rest of the rezoning that comes in the block? That’s a question I have. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Well, yes, Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: And I appreciate Commissioner Domingo’s concern for our applicant, you know, poor applicant; but poor neighbors and poor community members, too. So this decision is not just for the Mrs. before us. This decision is for the whole community. So let’s take the larger perspective into mind as well. We’re not thinking only for tomorrow. We’re thinking for next year, five years from now. So that’s why, you know, we’ve got to beat the dead horse. Cause if not, the dead horse comes alive and beat us. WATANABE: Okay. Well, I think we’ve had ample discussion on this. Mr. Darrow. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council with a revised Condition F and a new added condition limiting the commercial uses on the property. With that I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? EXHIBIT A 27 DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Nay. DARROW: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: No. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: No. DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: No. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. Well, we’re obviously at an impasse. And I think we’ve, I hate to say this but wasted enough time. We’ve really wasted enough time and, you know, we got some nods about 3,000 square feet, yeah, and it sounds good, and then we got noes afterwards. So why don’t we just, may I suggest we continue this and let’s see if staff and Ms. Udani, and I’m sorry Ms. Udani, you know, maybe you can work with staff to come up with something that might be agreeable at some future meeting. So -. SIRACUSA: Mr. Chair, we haven’t yet tried the motion that instead of the 125 percent - . WATANABE: Very well, make the motion, make the motion. SIRACUSA: Okay. I make the same motion but instead of Mr. Torigoe’s wording that we just say that she conducts her business out of the “existing structure or any future similar structure.” BOWMAN: Excuse me, isn’t that the same thing? SIRACUSA: No. Because if you’re doing the 125 percent increase it could be a different type of structure completely, like a small steel building. Whereas, what I’m talking about is another one at -. BOWMAN: Okay, but you’re limiting it to the cottage? No? EXHIBIT A 28 SIRACUSA: No, basically you can’t limit it to just this cottage because it’s all one TMK. What I’m saying is that if either of the structures have to come down because they fall apart, you know, from old age, that what has to be put up in the future is something of a similar nature. WATANABE: We have a motion. WOODWARD: Second. WATANABE: Okay, we have a second. I’m afraid to ask. ALAMEDA: Discussion, discussion? WATANABE: Yeah, I was afraid to ask. ALAMEDA: The size is the same though, right, Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: I wasn’t specifying anything about size. WOODWARD: So my understanding then would be instead of “Commercial uses shall be limited to the existing structure or a replacement structure,” it would be “…of no greater size than the floor area of the existing structure,” is that right?” WATANABE: No, it doesn’t say that. What she said was a replacement structure of similar character. WOODWARD: Okay. I can go with that. ALAMEDA: Discussion. You know, the office space from what I understand is right now the cottage, that’s where she wants to continue her business, is the cottage. WATANABE: We have a motion and a second. And I really don’t want to waste any more discussion unless, you know -. ALAMEDA: If it doesn’t pass -. WATANABE: I just assume we vote. ALAMEDA: Yeah, I would be open to making a motion on the cottage only. Then you’d get my yea. WATANABE: Okay, well, I figured as much. But rather than keep on digging around with this thing, let’s call for the vote. Mr. Darrow. DARROW: Sorry to have to do this but I need clarification. EXHIBIT A 29 WATANABE: Okay, the clarification is, and she said the same, so Condition F removes access from Kilauea Avenue and also -. DARROW: So we are adding Condition F? WATANABE: You leave Condition F? DARROW: As is? WATANABE: No, as revised. DARROW: As revised. Okay. Thank you. WATANABE: Right, as revised, “No access from Kilauea Avenue,” yeah. We removed restrictions on left turn, right? So that’s done. The new condition is “Commercial entities will occur from the existing structure or a replacement structure of like character.” Is that correct? SIRACUSA: Yes. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just needed to clarify that Condition F was a part of this. WATANABE: Yeah. DARROW: Okay, thank you. With that I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: No. DARROW: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: No. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: No. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. EXHIBIT A 30 DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: No. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: The motion does not pass. WATANABE: Okay. ALAMEDA: Another motion? WATANABE: Go ahead, try. BOWMAN: I would like to make a motion that we approve the business in the cottage and then the replacement of 125%, the similar motion but with the cottage, and that if needs to be replaced it could be up to 125%, which would be 600 square feet approximately. ALAMEDA: Second. WATANABE: Okay, it has been moved and seconded. Same Condition F, as revised, correct. So now we’re talking about maximum roughly 600 square feet. Everybody pretty clear? WOODWARD: Is that acceptable to the applicant? WATANABE: Oh, that’s a good question. What do you think, Ms. Udani? UDANI: What if I plan to expand it in the future, can I make it bigger? WATANABE: You can add a closet about 100 square feet. UDANI: I thought if 3,400 it’s based on the square footage of -. WATANABE: That’s correct and we tried to get that passed and we can’t count to five yet. We made it to four. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman, if I might ask, we’ve hit an impasse here when we’ve had four-four votes and we’ve gotten into all this minutia. What square footage would you feel reasonable? UDANI: Right now it’s okay because I have a small business, sir. But then my daughter is going to medical school and she will finish in three years. I don’t know if she’s coming back here in Hilo, but I’m not sure. I don’t think, I don’t think -. WOODWARD: Would it be reasonable say to stipulate say 1,000-foot, 1,500-foot structure for commercial purposes? EXHIBIT A 31 UDANI: Maybe 1,000 would be fine, I think. WOODWARD: One thousand, okay. Well, I might suggest that to Commissioner Alameda, rather than, you know, this 440-foot shack or whatever it is that if we say, okay, you’re good for 1,000 square feet, is that acceptable to you? SIRACUSA: Would we run into side yard setback issues here with that? YUEN: No. BOWMAN: That’s acceptable. WATANABE: You have more than 1,000 square feet right now. ALAMEDA: That’s acceptable to me. I can see the doctor’s office coming pretty soon though. WOODWARD: We’re on again. Vote number five. BOWMAN: Do I need to amend my motion? WATANABE: Would you please, for clarification. BOWMAN: For clarification. That the business be in the existing cottage or if it needs to be replaced up to 1,000-square foot replacement of similar character. ALAMEDA: Second. WATANABE: Okay, it has been moved and seconded. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that I‘ll take the vote. Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. EXHIBIT A 32 DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: No. DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: You already have the votes, right? DARROW: Correct. WATANABE: Nay. DARROW: Thank you. The motion passes. WATANABE: So the staff will revise the condition to reflect maximum 1,000 square feet, yeah. And we’ll get that to you, oh, excuse me, I’m sorry, it’s a recommendation so it’s forwarded to the Council. Thank you for being patient. The discussion ended at 10:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT A 33