2007-12-07 TIIDA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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 Maebo 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 terms 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 EXHIBIT B 6