Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0480.004 2000-2002 J~t;r,o: h~ Larry Kim 4°.•' Dixie Kaetsu ~,Iu7,~ Mayor ~ e Managing Director .a' . • ~ ; r ~ deter T.Young ®r aE oi'iaA'OaP~ Deputy Managing Director ~ of ~~raii 25 Aupuni Street, Room 215 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 (808) 961-82] i • Fax (808) 961-6553 KONA: 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 103 • Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 (808) 329-5226 • Fax (808) 326-5663 May 20, 2002 Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Arakaki and Members: Change of Zone Application (REZ 02-001) Applicant: Hawaii Preparatory Academy Request: Agricultural (A-Sa) to Residential and Agricultural (RA-2a) Tax Map Key: 6-2-007:002 / ~rc~posed l~i~l Nu. 1 ~ Ar:~~3:~1~~c-?r t~~ ~~~~cle Di:w=isi~1~ ~ of Cll~pter 25 (Zoning Code) R~F~;o ~on~~~4t:~r~:~~s~~...~~-i l~_~~:;~ng~. As required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6-4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter, transmitted herewith for the County Council's consideration and action are the Planning Commission's letters and enclosures regarding the above-referenced requests. Sincerely, ~ I Harry Kim Mayor L041902 Enclosures cc: Planning Department Harry Kim 4% Geraldine M. Giffn •~Lia,. '~"y'O/' Chairperson a; ltii M vi'0~\ TE Oi'N''~ PLANNING CO1VIlVIISSION 25 Aupuni Street, Room 109 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 (808)961-8288 • Fax (808)961-8742 ~:};a~ ~ t1:1(t Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Arakaki and Members: Proposed Bill No. 157 Amendment to Article 4, Division 6 of Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) Relating to Nonconformi~Uses and Buildings The Planning Commission at its duly held public hearing on April 19, 2002, voted to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council relative to the proposed Bill No. 157 to amend Article 4, Division 6 of Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (1995 Edition), as amended, relating to nonconforming uses and buildings. The favorable recommendation is based on the following: The County Council is initiating proposed Bill No. 157 to amend Article ~l, Division 6 of Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) relating to nonconforming uses and buildings. Councilman Aaron Chung introduced Bill No. 157 in order to address concerns in Keaukaha (Leleiwi area) regarding existing non-conforming condominiums, which if destroyed, could not be rebuilt because of the present zoning code requirements. This inability to rebuild has caused current problems with owners not being able to finance units. The proposed amendments would also provide relief for these existing condominium owners who have a vested interest in their units and would not be able to rebuild because of the present zoning requirements. The subject affected properties although presently zoned RS-10 were originally zoned V-.75 at the time of construction. Councilman Aaron Chung has met with the Leleiwi Community to address the problem of rebuilding for these condominiums, yet trying to maintain the residential character of the area and preventing further resort development. According to Councilman Chung, the proposed bill is a resolution provided by the community. Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 2 In 1979, the County Council amended the General Plan and its Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Maps for various lands in Keaukaha from Resort to Low Density Urban. The rationale was that the existing lots were relatively small and not conducive to accommodate the volume of visitors. It was felt that resort uses would be more appropriately accommodated in other areas which would be of a sufficient scale to provide for more complete facilities. Further, the Keaukaha coast was identified as an important recreational resource which should be retained for the enjoyment of residents and visitors alike. Redesignation to Low Density Urban would help to retain the character of the area and preserve the recreation potential of the area. The Planning Director subsequently initiated rezoning parcels affected by the General Plan from Resort (V-S-.75) to Single Family Dwelling (RS-S-15), General Industrial (MG-20a) and Open to maintain conformity with the General Plan changes. The County Council approved the changes via several ordinances in 1982. The parcels of this subject concern are more specifically identified as TMK: 2-1-17:20 (Moana Loa), TMK: 2-1-17:24 (Hale Moana) and TMK: 2-1-19:14 (Hale Kahakai). The Moana Loa is a seven story 84-unit condominium on 63,470 square feet of land that secured a building permit in 1971. The Hale Moana is a 47-unit condominium on 35,800 square feet of land that also secured a building permit in 1971. The Hale Kahakai is a seven story 58-unit condominium on 43,836 square feet of land that secured a building permit in 1972. These condominiums were constructed prior to the County Council's approval to downzone these parcels from V-S-.75 to RS-S-10 in 1982. The Planning Director concurs with the proposed changes to amend Article 4 and add to a new Section 25-4-65.1; however, he would like to add additional language that would place a time frame upon which construction would begin to establish parameters for development and to avoid further nonconformity over a period of time. The Planning Director recommends the following proposed language for Section 25-4-65.1 (underscoring represents Planning Director amendment): "Section 25-4-65.1 Exceptions to nonconforming use and building provisions. The following shall be an exception to this division: (1) Amultiple-family building or use, when the non-conforming situation is the consequence of an amendment to the general plan and associated zoning, may be replaced, repaired or reconstructed to its as-built density, height and setbacks, if the applicable zoning would permit construction of asingle-family residence. Construction shall commence within five (5) years from the date the building is damaged or destroyed." Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 3 The accompanying draft bill to amend Chapter 25, Zoning Code, by amending Article 4, Division 6, relating to Nonconforming Uses and Buildings, is provided for your favorable consideration. A copy of the Planning Department Background Report, transcript of the hearing, and public testimonies are enclosed for your information. Sincerely, ~ Geraldine M. Giffin, Chairperson Planning Commission Encls. BCCInitNonconformusesbuildskg-4/ 10/02 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~ACI~GROUloTI) REPORT COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED ACTION A1dIEND1VIENT TO CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) \ OF TIIE ~IAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (1985 EDITION) ~ l S' ~G(-t 1 REGARDING NONFOIZIO/IING USES AND BUILDINGS I COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED proposed Bill No. 157 to amend Article 4, Division 6 of Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (1985 Edition), as amended, relating to nonconforming uses and buildings. COUNTY COUNCIL IMITATED PROPOSED BILL 1. Regaaest: The County Council is initiating proposed Bill No. 157 to amend Article 4, Division 6 of Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) relating to nonconforming uses and buildings. With minor changes to several sections of Article 4, the major change would be to add a new Section 25-4-65.1, which would read as follows: "Section 25-4-65.1 Exceptions to nonconformin use and building~rovisions. The following_shall be an exception to this division: (1) Amultiple-family building, or use, when the non-conformin situation is the consequence of an amendment to the eg neral plan and associated zoning maybe replaced, repaired or reconstructed to its as-built density height and. setbacks if the applicable zoning would permit construction of a sin lg e_family residence " 2. Findings: Councilman Aaron Chung introduced Bill 157 in order to address concerns in Keaukaha (Leleiwi area) regarding existing non-conforming condominiums, which if destroyed, could not be rebuilt because of the present zoning code requirements. This inability to rebuild has caused current problems with owners not being able to finance units. The proposed amendments would also provide relief for these existing condominium owners who have a vested interest in their units and would not be able to rebuild because of the present zoning requirements. The subject affected properties although presently zoned RS-10 were originally zoned V-.75 at the time of construction. Councilman Aaron Chung has met with the Leleiwi Community to address the problem of rebuilding for these condominiums, yet trying to maintain the residential character of 4 the area and preventing further resort development. According to Councilman Chung, the proposed bill is a resolution provided by the community. (See Exhiibit A Correspondence forwarding proposed Bill No. 157 and attachYnents froyn Planning Cognmittee Chair Boblby Jean Leithead-Todd dated January 23, 2002) BACKGROUND INFOIZlO~IATION 3. Background: In 1979, the County Council amended the General Plan and its LUPAG maps in the Keaukaha acre to change various parcels from Resort to Low Density Urban. The rationale was that the existing lots were relatively small and not conducive to accommodate the volume of visitors. It was felt that resort uses would be more appropriately accommodated at other areas which would be of a sufficient scale to provide for more complete facilities. Further, the Keaukaha coast was identified as an important recreational resource which should be retained for the enjoyment of residents and visitors alike. Redesignation from Resort to Low Density Urban, at that time, was an attempt to retain the character of the area and preserve the recreational potential of the area. 4. To be consistent with the General Plan, the Planning Director subsequently intitated rezoning parcels affected by the General Plan from Resort (VS-7.5) to Single Farriily Dwelling (RS-S-15), General Industrial (MG-20a) and Open. The County Council approved the changes via several ordinances in 1982. 5. Affected Properties: The parcels of this subject concern are more specifically identified as TMK: 2-1-17:20 (Moans Loa), TMK: 2-1-17:24 (Hale Moans) and TMK: 2-1-19:4 (Hale Kahakai). These lots have condominiums that were constructed prior to the Planning Director's action to downzone these parcels from V-.75 to RS-10. A. Moans Loa (TMK: 2-1-17:20): The Moans Loa is a seven story 84-unit condominium on 63,470 square feet of land that secured a building permits in 1971. B. Hale Moans (TMK: 2-1-17:24): The Hale Moans is a seven story 47-unit condominium on 35,800 square feet of land that also secured a building permits in 1971. -2- C. Hale Kahakai (TMK: 2-1-19:14): The Hale Kahakai is a seven story 58-unit condominium on 43,836 square feet of land that secured a building permit in 1972. 6. Supplemental Information: (See Exhibit B e Change of Zone Ordinance No. 786) 7. Notations: Bill 157 was forwarded to the County Planning Department on January 31, 2002. According to the Hawaii County Code, Chapter 25-2-43, within 120 days after receipt from the County Council or by Apri131, 2002, the Planning Commission shall forward their recommendation to the County Council. Should the commission fail to act within the review period, such inaction shall be considered an unfavorable recommendation. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. AGENCIES ~ NO IaESPONSE 8. Department of Public Works -Hilo & Dona, Department of Water Supply, and heal Property 'Tax Office. -3- tl~~ZY OF q ~ BOBBY JEAN LEITHEAD-TODD ~~~LiN Phone: (808) 961-8261 Counciimernber FAX: (808) 969-3291 Tr®'OF'Ma''~! - ~ r! COUNTY COUNCIL . County of Hawaii ` " . Hazoaii County Building ~ 25 Aupuni Street #~~_s Hilo, Hawaii 96720 January 23, 2002 TO: Chris Yuen Planning Director FR: /Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd Planning Committee Chair RE: Bill No. 157 Communication No. 480 At today's Planning Committee meeting, Your Committee unanimously voted to refer Bill No. 157, to the Planning Commission for comments and review, as designated in the Hawaii County Zoning Code, Chapter 25 of the Hawaii County Code. Bill No. 157, introduced by Council Member Aaron Chung, allows the replacing, repairing and reconstructing of amultiple-family building or use when the non-conforming situation is the consequence of an amendment to the general plan and associated zoning. For your information, also enclosed is the transcript on Bill No. 157, from today's meeting. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call either myself at extension 8261 or Barbara Hashimoto at extension 8493. encl. , _ yV~®6 M AARON S.Y. CHUNG ~p;!'~`4%"•'°`~~~ Phone: (808) 961-8396 ('ouncilmember J ' Fax: (808) 961-8912 .a ~ ..:y°~~~~ 02 Jj1~~ ~ F'i~l 3 ~t' o.-M~ COUNTY COUNCI~~'~"'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ County of Hawaii Hawal 'i County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hrlo, Hawaii 96720 January' 1 1, 2002 TO: James Y. Arakaki, Chair And Council Members FROM: Aaron S.Y. Chtangc~~'iJ' Council Member RE: Bill Amending Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) relating to Nonconforming Uses and Buildings This is to transmit a bill amending Chapter 25 of the Hawaii County Code (Zoning Code) relating to nonconforming uses and buildings. The amendment provides for an exception to the nonconforming use and building portion of the Zoning Code. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Att. ~f11 i~ "7 rsr,. Na. Fite No. Ref. 'I'o: r-. rr~, c.~ JAN 1 1 2002 COUNTY O~ I-I~WAI`I ;q ~ STATE OT' I-I~WA,I`I _ i. 3-~~ SILL NO. ~ s ~ OIaDINr~NCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (1995 EDITION} RELATING TO NONCONFORMING USES AND BUILDINGS. SECTION 1. Chapter 25, Article 4, Division 6, of the I-lawai`i County Code, related to Nonconforming Uses and Buildings, is amended to read as follows: "Section 25-4-60. Nonconforming buildings; maintenance and repair. (a) Any nonconforming building, except as otherwise regulated, may be repaired, maintained, or enlarged provided that any enlargement or addition shall conform in every respect to the regulations for the district in which it is located except as provided in this division. (b) [f the portion of the building that is nonconforming should be destroyed it may only be rebuilt in compliance with all of the requirements under the County Building Code for reconstruction and repair of nonconforming buildings. "Section 25-4-61. Continuance of nonconforming uses of land and buildings. (a) Any nonconforming use of land or use of a building may continue to the extent it existed on December 7, 1996 or at the time of the adoption of any amendments to this chapter, provided that a nonconforming use may be enlarged within the building it occupies, but shall not be enlarged or increased to occupy a greater area of land, nor shall it or the portion of the building housing it be moved in whole or in part to any other portion of the building site occupied by such nonconforming use, except as provided in this division. (b) Public buildings, public or private power and telephone facilities including offices and plants existing prior to May 24, 1967 may be enlarged or increased to occupy a greater area of land or building, notwithstanding the limitations contained in this section. "Section 25-4-62. Abandonment of nonconforming use. tf any nonconforming use ceases for any reason for a continuous period of twelve calendar months, or for one season if the use be seasonal, then such use shall not be resumed and any use of the land or building or both thereafter shall be in full conformity with the provisions of this chapter. "Section 25-4-63. Destruction of building with nonconforming use. [IfJ Except as provided in this division, if the portion of any building within which a nonconforming use is conducted should be destroyed or damaged by any means to an extent equivalent to at least fifty percent of its replacement value, exclusive of foundations, then such damaged or destroyed portion may not be restored unless the use of the building is changed to a conforming use; but if the damage or destruction is less than fifty percent of its replacement value, exclusive of foundation, then the building may be restored and such use may be resumed as it existed, provided that such restoration shall be completed within one year from the date of such damage or destruction. The . department of public works shall determine the extent of damage to determine whether the building may be restored and resume its existing nonconforming use, "Section 25-4-64. Maintenance of building evith nonconforming use. [Any] Except as provided in this division, any building within which a nonconforming use is conducted may be maintained and repaired to the extent necessary to keep it in sound condition provided the work shall not exceed twenty-feve percent of the current replacement value of such building in any one calendar year as determined by the department of public works. "Section 25-4-65. Expansion of nonconforming use; changes to building with nonconforming use. [f a use of a building is nonconforming because of a particular requirement of the district within which it is located (e.g., parking, yards, height, distance between buildings), then the use may be enlarged and the building may be changed or added to, provided such enlargement, change or addition is itself in full compliance with the district regulations. "Section 25-4-65.1 Exceptions to nonconforming use and buildin,~provisions. The following shall be an exception to this division: i 1) A multi~e-family building or use, when the non-conforming situation is the consequence of an amendment to the e~neral plan and associated zoning, may be re~laced`r~aired or reconstructed to its as-built densiri, height and setbacks if the applicable zoning_would permit construction of asingle-family residence." SECTION 2. New material is underscored. Material to be repealed is bracketed. In printing this ordinance, the brackets, bracketed material, and underscoring, need not be included. SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not effect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the provision or application, and, to the end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to he severable. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INT D BY: (1.~.. COUNCIL MEMBE , COUNTY'OF AWAI`I . Hawaii Date of Introduction: Date of 1st Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Effective Date: Rr:FEREN~k.: Conan, 4.8 0.:.~-.o.,,, Comm. 480: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF (Bill 157) THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (1995 EDITION) RELATING TO NONCONFORMING USES AND BUILDINGS From Councilman Aaron S.Y. Chung, dated January 1 1, 2002, transmitting tl~e above-mentioned bill. The bill would allow replacing, repairing and reconstructing of a multiple- family building or use when the non-conforming situation is the consequence of an amendment to the general plan and associated zoning. CHR. LEITHEAD-TODD: Do I have a motion to file Communication 480 and approve Bill 157? Mr. Chung. MR. CHLJNG: So moved. MR. SAFARIK: Second. CHR. LEITHEAD-TODD: It's been moved and seconded. Discussion? Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Let me explain what this thing is all about. CHR. LEITHEAD-TODD: Mr. Chung, I have to make a clarification. Because this is initiating an amendment to the Zoning Code from the Council, the actual motion should be to refer this to the Planning Commission. MR. CHLTNG: Correct. And I so move. MR. SAFARIK: Second. CHR. LEITHEAD-TODD: Okay. MR. CHUNG: I guess the purpose of the bill is apparent from its face and it's well stated here, the bill would allow replacing, repairing and reconstructing of amultiple-family building or use when the non- conforming situation is the consequence of an amendment to the general plan and associated zoning. But what gave rise to all of this was the situation down in the Leleiwi area, but it also applies to several areas in Kona as well, I understand; I could be wrong. And as most of you know, there are several high rise buildings, residential units in the Leleiwi area and many years ago, much of that area was zoned resort. Sometime, I think either in the late 1970's or early 1980's, there was a mass downzoning of all of those properties from their, at that time, resort zoning, to what is presently either asingle-family residential type of designation. What happened, though, and I think this was an unintended consequence of that downzoning, was the underlying fee for many of these multi-family, multi-residential units were actually non-conforming I think these large condominiums rested upon maybe four, three or four RS-10 zoned properties. That would mean that if this property were somehow destroyed, and hopefully that will never happen, but if the property were destroyed, that means people could only build four, possibly eight, single- family dwellings on those properties. And that caused a lot of concern for the residents in those high rises. So what was proposed at the time by those various condominiums, was to rezone those properties again to resort. And what happened was, we have a Leleiwi Community Association. It's a very strong community association and I would say very attuned with what's going on in the community. They objected to the upzoning to resort and they felt that if those properties were again rezoned, it would open the flood gates, they felt, psychologically, to more resort zonings in that small community and they were very concerned about that. So now you had two segments of the community that were, I wouldn't say at odds but they were on different sides of the table. So we all came together and we kind of talked about the situation and the community themselves found a common ground and that common ground was that all of them, whether you live on the high rise or whether you don't live on the high rise and more on these older properties, were for keeping the character of that area as it is today, which is, you know, non-resort ,more residential. And they were all against further development, resort development in that area, so that was the common ground that they had. It was just a matter of striking some kind of reasonable compromises to how we could address this problem and this is what they came up with. And it has met with the approval of all of those residents, and I have to admit, there may be a few people who might feel that, well, if these things get destroyed, then maybe they shouldn't be able to build up but, and at the same time, people have vested interest, you know, they've invested money into these properties and all they want is the peace of mind that if something does happen, I think the law is that if it's destroyed more than 50 percent, you have to build up in compliance with all applicable laws. And one of the laws would be the zoning law. They fully understand that if they had to rebuild, they would have to rebuild to the current electrical, plumbing and other laws that are in existence. A11 they want to be able to do is build up to the current density and that is all. And it really has brought the community together, it's something that they solved on their own by finding a common ground and developing their own solution and I just wanted to follow their wishes and introduce this measure. It has been reviewed by the Director of Planning, and I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I also believe that he's in favor of this as well 'cause we have been talking about this for over a year and a half, even before he became the Planning Director, and he made some changes to what we had initially drafted. This was actually drafted by the Legislative Auditor's Office and I thank them very much for that, and Mr. Yuen made soYne adjustments and this is what we have now. If this is passed by the, or approved by the Planning Commission, when it eventually comes back here again, it's gonna be accompanied by a companion bill, which would deal with Building and that has been reviewed by the Department of Public Works, Building Division, and that's okay, too. So I just wanted to give some background and this thing really is a community-based solution to a problem that has arisen. I really seek the support of this body. CHR. LEITHEAD-TODD: Mr. Tyler. MR. TYLER: Thank you. May I address Mr. Chung? CHR. LEITHEAD-TODD: Yes. MR. TYLER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chung, for your explanation. Seems to make sense. I just wanted to ask you a question. It says, "The following shall be an exception ...Amultiple-family building or use, when the non-conforming situation is the consequence of an amendment to the general plan So, in other words, if there's any past or future amendments to the general plan to downzone property to a lesser use than is currently permitted, that this would then kick in, is that what I'm reading? MR. CHUNG: That would seem to be a correct interpretation, Mr. Tyler. If you have any concerns, though, what, I can see where you're going. You might want to put a date on it, you know, as a consequence of an amendment to the general plan and associated zoning prior to certain day, if you want to, I don't know. MR. TYLER: And then it says, it goes on the last part of the sentence says, "if the applicable zoning would permit construction of a single-family residence." But what happens if it was, what happens if there was, you know, like the high rises, those couple high rises down there, what you're saying is those have been downzoned to single family? MR. CHUNG: Yeah. MR. TYLER: Oh really? MR. CHUNG: Yeah. MR. TYLER: Okay. So, are there any out there zoned for other than single family residential? MR. CHUNG: Not as far as I know. I think they're all built over RS-10 properties. MR. TYLER: So it went from the resort when they built those things and then goes back down RS-10? MR. CHUNG: Yeah, right. And that's because, oh, I'm sorry. MR. TYLER: Yeah, okay, okay. So now I see why it would say permit single-family residence. And wouldn't it also apply, even if it was a multi- family thing where let's say somebody had a duplex, it was duplex zoning or change the duplex and they had a high rise there. I can see in your situation why it would be single family residence but I'm trying to think of other situations. You mentioned Kona and I can't think of one offhand, perhaps our colleague, Ms. Pisicchio,can, but I just can't think of anything right offhand where there's such a thing that's been downzoned to, you know, single family residence. MR. CHUNG: Maybe if I could just respond to that. MR. TYLER: Please, thank you. CHR. LEITHEAD-TODD: Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: When Virginia Goldstein was the planning director, I asked her to do a survey of all of the properties in the county that would be affected by something like this. She said only three properties down in Keaukaha and I think she said there's like two properties in Kona, but she didn't specify which ones. MR. TYLER: Okay. We11, maybe we could get some, well, it's gonna go to Planning. CHR. LEITHEAD-TODD: Yes. MR. TYLER: Yeah, it's being referred. CHR. LEITHEAD-TODD: Ms. Jacobson. MS. JACOBSON: Yeah, maybe you can help me with this but I remember when we were looking at the situation with the Ice, water kind of ice, House, and we were looking at that they couldn't rebuild on it if it's in the SMA area. It's already zoned conservation and that's why, I guess my fear is not somebody rebuilding a building or project that's, you know, for some reason, fire, something happened that destroyed, I'm looking at people who would just say, "oh, I just have a kind of a crummy ole four- plex, eight-plex, whatever, and I think I just wanna build and make a spiffier one and charge more money, which, you know, would be just a valid business goal but I don't know if I want it. In certain areas that may be appropriate but certain areas that may not be appropriate, so that worries ine a little with this, we're not maybe seeing all the impacts of this, although I see the intention that seems desirable and MR. CHUNG: May I respond? CHR. LEITHEAD-TODD: Go ahead. MR. CHUNG: I'll be real honest with you, Ms. Jacobson. I had that same concern. I cannot really guarantee that either I or Mr. Yuen or the person at the Building Department have looked at all of the angles, okay, I've just represented to all of you what the concern is, what we're trying to address, you know, if we come up with more things, more possibilities where this thing could become a loophole for other people to develop things that we don't want, then, certainly, I'll be more than happy to have it amended to correct that and so I cannot really say. Right now all I can say is it's been reviewed by the people who I believe will protect the interest that we're hoping to be protected and I don't see any loopholes, frankly speaking, at this point but, you know, the more you look at some things, the more things come up. MS. JACOBSON: Then maybe I'll say in this respect, I think I'm gonna give it a kanalua, yes, vote, just because I have some reservations I might want to talk to the Planning Department but I see that on the whole, it looks like a desirable, basically desirable thing, I just don't want to have the CHR. LEITHEAD-TODD: I want to remind the committee the actual motion is to refer this to the Planning Commission so they can take it up for public hearing and revietiv it. Do want to mention that one area that I'm gonna take a look at is regarding setbacks and the question I have is if at the time the building was built, the setback, maybe there was no setback and subsequent to that, we have a 40-foot setback. Whether this would allow them to ignore that setback or any future amendments to that and so that was the only concern that I had but as I did mention, the motion is to refer to Planning Commission and that will probably be thoroughly discussed there. The motion to refer Comm. 480 (Bill 157) to the Planning Commission was carried by the following vote: In Favor: Committee Members Tyler, Arakaki, Chung, Elarionoff, Jacobson, Pisicchio, Safarik, Yagong and Chair Leithead-Todd Opposed: None Absent & Excused: None CHR. LEITHEAD: Kanalua times two for Ms. Jacobson. That brings us to the end of our agenda. Do I have a motion to adjourn? ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, at 4:15 p.m., Mr. Tyler moved that the meeting be adjourned. Seconded by Mr. Elarionoff and carried by the following vote: In Favor: Committee Members Tyler, Arakaki, Chung, Elarionoff, Jacobson, Pisicchio, Safarik, Yagong and Chair Leithead-Todd Opposed: None Absent & Excused: None Council Services Assistant II APPROVED: 1VIs. Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd CHAIR BILL NO. 774 COUNTY OF HAWAII - STATE OF HAWAII ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 7.29 (THE CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 2, CHAP'T'ER 8 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE, AS AMENDED, TO CONFORM WITH THE COUNTY OF HAWAII GENERAL PLAN, AS AMENDED ON JULY 5, 1979, BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM RESORT-HOTEL-SAFETY (V-S-.75} TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL- . SAFETY (RS-S-10) AT k'AIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: SECTION 1. Section 7.29, Article 2, Chapter 8 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code, as amended, is further amended to add a new subsection, to read as follows: "7. 29(bbbbb-1).The district classification of the approximately 43,836 square feet of land situated at Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, covered by Tax Map Key: 2-1-19:14 shall be Single Family Residential-Safety The area is further described as being along the north side (makai) of Kalanianaole Avenue between the northerly extension of Uwau Street on the west and Leleiwi Street on the east." SECTION 2. Section 7.29, Article 2, Chapter 8 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code, as amended, is further amended to add a new subsection, to read as follows: "7.29(bbbbb-2).The district classification of the approximately 35,800 square feet of land situated at Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, covered by Tax Map Key: 2-1-17:24 shall be Single Family Residential-Safety (RS-S-10) . The area is further described as being along the north side (makai) of Kalanianaole Avenue between Lokoaka Street on the west and Akepa Street on the east." ~~f 1/ SECTION 3. Section 7.29, Article 2, Chapter 8 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code, as amended, is further amended to add a new subsection, to read as follows: "7.29(bbbbb-3).The district classification of the approximately 63,470 square feet of land situated at Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, covered by Tax Map Key: 2-1-17:20 shall be Single Family Residential-Safety (RS-S-10) . The area is further described as being along the north side (makai) of Kalanianaole Avenue between Keaukaha Road on the west and Lokoaka Street on the east. All as shown on the map marked Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof." - SECTION 4. In the event that any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other parts of this ordinance. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INTRODUCED BY: ~ COUNCIL MEMBER, OUNTY OF HAWAII Hilo, Hawaii Date of Introduction: April 21, 1982 Date of Adoption: May 5, 1982 Effective Date: May 5, 1982 _2•. ° FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ~ ~ SUt35C~ffON -7-z°-,' bobbb-I) . (~~SOf~T-l-1U { El.. -SA~CT7 - Z=- N S-_~s) To SING~C f=AMIl~7' . P~1=51flCN-1"I!-~l..-s~CT`/ RS-~-I® ~ v A~~f~= 43, r3~~o SC~_ ~T. ~ • - (HALE KAHAKAI CONDOMINIUM) - 5U~3Sl=CTI~N 7-c?> (bbbbb-~~ ~+f ~~V`', ~CS~~T- I-f®TcL ~SA~CT~/ (Y-s -.7s) To s I N SAM I t~7' tF~ . ~~yq0~ ~ 1Lt~C~sIDC-N~^TIAI..-SFC,~~ET7' {I~s -lo B°PGh{ c-~-Y ® PARK ~ (MOANA LOA CONDOMINIUM)• ~ ~ - o • ~ r ~ ~ / ~ y ' Y ~ t O ~ o a <o NEN LoKOAIC°. ~ ` V FISH ~ PoNb ~ ~ Y T 5U~5 CTION 7-cJ ~6bb6b-~) IeCS01~'T - N OTC L -sA . - T7 ~Y-5 -,~5) To SINGLE ~F~ I L7 . ~EsIDCNTIAt_-sA~~'f-y ~-s-lo) p~E- ~ Ar~eA = 35, 800 50._ F I • (HALE MOANA CONDOMINIUM) f~M~NbM~N I •TI~iC ZONINc~ CODC NC7~vI~NT N®. low To ,SC~TIfJN (TNe GIT7 0~ IL~> - MAf~) .At~TIcL~. z, eHAt=T~r~ 8 (zoNIN~ ~obc o -rl~~ 11• W II CoUNTy GobC--, ~s AMcN~CD, Py CH f`1~IN~ THE I iGT GLF,ssl(=IC/~TI~N rr~OM ~irs~;~T-r'oT~= - sA~ ~r7 (V`S-.75) To ~'ING~'=- -AMID-~/ r~CSIDC(`~T1/'~~- F'= 17 - f~T Wf'~IP.KE/~, SbU7"N HIl-_~, f--fAWf'~I1. \ Uh-I~E OF f U[3l-IC He.~r~lt`~G ~ MAy 7, I~~I ~fi ~UI1F I°,8I EFf=EG-fIVE Df~-1-C- = MAy 5, I~r~z 1 OR~ir iANC.C NUMBL(Q = 7~6 . F'(~C-'PAf~ED C3~' =PLANNING PcPArzTM~NT CoUNT~' o,= 11P,wAli 7AX MAI' f`Cy z-I-17 = '=0, 24 ~ c -I-lam = I4 EXI-t1t31 A~ PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT APRIL 19, 2002 A regularly advertised hearing on the PROPOSED BILL NO. 157 TO AMEND ARTICLE 4, DIVISION 6 OF CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (1995 EDITION), AS AMENDED, RELATING TO NONCONFORMING USES AND BUILDINGS was called to order at 11:05 a.m. in the County Building, Councilroom-Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairperson Geraldine Giffin presiding. PRESENT: Geraldine Giffin ABSENT & EXCUSED: Grant Togashi Earl Fujikawa Fred Galdones Florence Kubota Aurelio C. Mina, Jr. Francis Smith Hannah Springer Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Chris Yuen, Planning Director Susan Gagorik, Staff Planner Eileen O'Hora-Weir, Staff Planner Esther Imamura, Staff Planner Bruce McClure from the Department of Water Supply COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED -Proposed Bill No. 157 to amend Article 4, Division 6 of Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (1995 Edition), as amended, relating to nonconforming uses and buildings. GIFFIN: Commissioners, we are on Agenda Item No. 5. This is a County Council initiated, it is a proposed Bill No. 157 to amend Article 4, Division 6 of Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (1995 Edition) as amended, relating to nonconforming uses and buildings. Susan? GAGORIK: Thank you, Madam Chair. If I just may make one correction. If you refer to the headers in each of your background report, your recommendation, and the ordinance, the addition is wrong. In parenthesis it says 1985, it should say 1995. So you can make the correction to all the headers. The proposed Bill No. 157 was introduced by Councilman Chung at the Council level and forwarded down for your review. And, basically, in essence, the proposal is to amend portions of the Zoning Code regarding non-conforming uses. What prompted this were concerns from residents in the Keaukaha community regarding the changes that 1 were made based on the General Plan being amended from Resort back to Low Density and the zoning changing from Resort to Residential. If you look at the location map, I can show you where these are. This is Kalanianaole Road going in this direction. Along the shorelines are these parcels with zones RS-10 here. There are some RS-15 also in the area. There are three green dots here, one green dot here, here and here, and these are the three condos that had been described in your background report that are directly impacted because the zoning for the condos presently is RS-10. So should, you know, there be a catastrophe or something happens in the area, these condominiums would not have to conform to Residential zoning, and which would be a major hardship on all the owners in that area. And this is the reason that Councilman Chung initiated the request, and he has communicated with the community. We have received letters from the association in the area as well as the condominium association in support of the bill. The Planning Director, in reviewing the request, did amend it slightly by adding in a sentence to say that you have to construct, start construction within five years. This is to place some parameters in terms of what can built, yeah? Any questions? GIFFIN: Susan, Ihad aquestion I'm sorry, Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA: You can go first. GIFFIN: No, go ahead. KUBOTA: I had a question on the background report, page 2. You know, the numbers, under 3, background information, the last paragraph, and maybe I'm reading this wrong. "General Plan from," I'm reading from the second sentence, "Resort - VS 7.5 to Single Family Dwelling RSS-15." Then we go down to No. S, last paragraph in the last sentence in the last, first paragraph. They talk about V.75 to RS-10. Are we talking about the same parcels or designations of land or are we talking about something different? GAGORIK: It's the same thing. Oh, wait, are you talking about the V.? KUBOTA: Yeah. YUEN: It's a typo. GAGORIK: Oh, yeah, it's a typo. KUBOTA: Is it a typo? YUEN: Yeah. GAGORIK: Yeah. 2 KUBOTA: It is. Okay. YUEN: The 7.5 is a typo. It should be .75. KUBOTA: Point 75? So the copies There are some other references to that, that I read somewhere which kind of got me confused as to the numbers. GAGORIK: Yeah. Those refer to the zoning designation; and like Mr. Yuen said it is a typo. KUBOTA: So it is a typo? GAGORIK: Yeah. GIFFIN: Any other questions of Susan? Susan, in your comments regarding if anything should happen to those buildings as they are zoned now and you said it would cause a lot of problems. It would be more than just a few problems, right, like Under the current situation, if anything happened to those buildings, how many of those owners would be able to rebuild? GAGORIK: Everything would be based on the existing density. We haven't recalculated everything but, you know, there are like a hundred owners or so right now. And based on the RS designation, RS-10, you could build, you know, maybe four or five units, yeah. So that really affects a major problem for them. Also, in terms of even refinancing now is a problem, yeah, because the zoning is not conforming. GIFFIN: So it would be catastrophic GAGORIK: Catastrophic. GIFFIN: For these people, right? GAGORIK: Right. GIFFIN: Okay. I wanted to get that clear. Any other questions of Susan? Hearing none, will the applicants please come forward? Will you please raise your right hands? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? CHUNG: We do. KIlZIU: I do. GIFFIN: Thank you. Beginning with you, ma'am, would you please state your name and resident address? 3 KURILT: My name is Connie Kiriu, I'm the Legislative Auditor for the County of Hawaii, 12 Aupuni Street. My residence address is 195 Makani Circle, Hilo. GIFFIN: Thank you. Sir? CHUNG: Good morning, Chairwoman. My name is Aaron Chung. I'm with the Hawaii County Council. My address is 655 Mililani Street, Hilo. GIFFIN: Thank you. LEITHEAD-TODD: Good morning, Madam Chair. My name is Bobby Jean Leithead- Todd with the County Council, and my residence address is 118 Lukia Place. GIFFIN: Good. Have you had a chance to read the County's background report and the recommendation? CHUNG: Yes, I've, well, I've briefly taken a look at it. And we do note the recommendation from Planning Director Yuen for the five-year construction deadline; and I don't see any problem with that. GIFFIN: Great. Great. Any other comments? Ms. Leithead-Todd? LEITHEAD-TODD: I support the bill. But my real preference in the long run would be to change the zoning where these apartments are located. Because at one time the zoning allowed them to build these buildings, and I'm not talking Resort but possibly Multiple Family; and I think that that would take care of their problems in terms of the refinancing. I think this was a faster way to take care of that issue and it was something that the Council could initiate at relatively little cost to the applicants. I find it somewhat ironic that I would feel that way since I was part of the community that lobbied against and picketed in Keaukaha against these high rises being built because it's not what I thought was the appropriate use in that area. But that was 30 years ago, more than 30 years, possibly. The buildings have been built, there are vested rights of the people who have bought these units. And, similarly, we had a problem where Hawaiian Homes had been rezoned by the County; and they had the same kinds of problems that residents ran into there. You couldn`t get refinancing and so things start falling into disrepair. And it's, I think, unfortunate that government action has put these residents in that situation, cause it's not fair to them. They bought their units in good faith and relied on the zoning actions of the County. So I think that it's appropriate to take some steps to give them some reassurance that they can, in fact, go get financing; and, obviously, banking institutions need reassurance that in the event of some catastrophe that the building can be rebuilt. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions? CHUNG: Madam Chair. 4 GIFFIN: I'm sorry. CHUNG: If I could just clarify some issues brought up by Ms. Leithead- Todd; and it relates to what she perceives as being the better method by upzoning these properties back to the Resort designation. I would like to give the Commission some background as to how all of this transpired `cause I don't view it as being the easier, quicker method that we're implementing right now or what we're asking the Commission for. Originally, the plan was to have these properties rezoned to its more appropriate designation, which would be Resort. But what happened within the community was it started to create a rift between the residents or owners of the condominium units and the non-condominium residents. And I guess the non-condominium residents were very apprehensive about what this upzoning might do, psychologically now. Cause right now, you know, there's almost what I would consider an unwritten non- or low-development policy for that Leleiwi area, cause it really is a special area. And I think some of the residents were apprehensive that this would open the floodgates, psychologically, for more resort developments or applications to come in; and, you know, I think it really was a legitimate concern on the part of many. So what happened is, and this is why I view this initiative as being, really, a classic example of a community-based initiative where the community got together, they hashed out their differences. And what they did is they found a common ground, and that common ground was that they all wanted to keep the character of the area as is. Whether you live in the condominiums or whether you don't, they all had that agreement. So that being the case, they came up with this. This is a result of it. And, really, I would like to give a lot of credit to now Planning Director Chris Yuen, who at the time wasn't the Planning Director but, you know, was involved in much of this discussion. And he's the person who actually came up with the concept, and I think it's a good concept. Hopefully, you know, we'll never have to implement this thing, you know, because it's going to mean that we have a catastrophe. But it will provide a great deal of security to many people. And, so, that's, you know, I just wanted to provide that background. It was the result of a great deal of discussion and, you know, I wanted to give a lot of credit to the community `cause they really, you know, put their differences aside and put their heads together and came up with this. GIFFIN: Thank you. Commissioners? Commissioner Galdones. GALDONES: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to raise a question for clarification purposes. The map is showing just three parcels out in Keaukaha. Now, this application, however, if it passes, is it going to be applicable only to the three homes in Keaukaha or it will be applicable through the County, throughout the County? 5 CHUNG: Well, Commissioner Galdones, that's a very good question. And, you know, before Virginia Goldstein left the Planning Department, she conveyed to me that she had done an informal survey of what properties would be affected by this. And, obviously, we have three properties here. But she also mentioned that there may be a couple of properties in Kona, but I don't know of any, frankly speaking. But what we didn't want to do is make this what they call a special law, just applying to, you know, properties in the Keaukaha area. We wanted to make it of general application. But for all intents and purposes I will say this, it will apply to very few properties on the island. Three definitely, maybe one or two more that, you know, may exist in Kona, but I'm really, I'm not aware of any others other than these three. GIFFIN: Any other questions? Commissioner Springer? YUEN: If I could I had the same, when we were talking about this before as Planning Director, and my understanding is that there aren't any others that are affected. I can't think of I think we did check this out again and there aren't If now, in the future, the County had an area that was zoned, rezoned Resort and had existing, and had a building on it, and then downzoned back to Single Family, this would apply to that as well. But as far as existing buildings, I believe it does cover only these three buildings. You're not supposed to write laws that say you're only covering these three buildings; and so, that's not, so it's written in a general way. But, as a matter of fact, I think these are the only three buildings that it does cover. GIFFIN: Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER: I had the same concerns when I read the background report. It's written as if those three properties are on an exhaustive list. But the circumstance that Director Yuen just referred us to is unlikely? YUEN : Well, it's something, yeah, that could happen in the future and then it'd have to be faced at that time. I think, though, that when these properties were rezoned, it was with the idea that eventually that higher density use would be terminated. But I don't think that the question of the hardship to the owners as they go through things like attempting to refinance their property was thought of at the time. And, in fact, it didn't come up for quite, till some probably more alert than usual mortgage company picked this up as an Because it really did not emerge from the early 1980's when the property was rezoned until the late 1990's at the very earliest. So it really went without a problem. So this is a way of dealing with more the immediate problem that people are facing rather than the long-range question of, well, what happens if there's a gigantic earthquake and the properties fall into a hole. But the purpose of this is to deal with the immediate problem. And the difficulty with just rezoning them, first, it would need a General Plan amendment and, second, a rezoning. But it also is true that once you have one Multi-Family zoning in a location, it does tend to make a stronger argument for having a second or third Multi- Family zoning in the adjacent property. It does lend strength should somebody come up and want to do that on the adjacent or nearby property in the future. 6 GIFFIN: I might remind this body that there were some discussion regarding just that when we were talking about the General Plan and I remember where we were, even. Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA: I wanted to ask Councilwoman Leithead-Todd, reading through your transcripts of your meeting, I came across your concern about setbacks in the event that the inevitable should happen. Have they been allayed? Or, I don't see any reference in our recommendation regarding that. Has a discussion taken place any further? LEITHEAD-TODD: No, and I think that would There would be a number of things that would come up in the event that the building was totally, you know, damaged by a tidal wave or an earthquake. And one would be if the law had changed from the time that the building was built; and in terms of setbacks from the ocean, what if the coastline had changed. And I think those are issues that would have to be taken up at that time on a case-by-case basis. And it would depend on what the existing laws, and whether they'd been an alteration to the coastline, whether there were SMA permits that needed to be permitted. And what might actually occur in that kind of situation is that one option that might happen is you might be looking at a buy-out, similarly to what happened in the Hilo bayfront area if it's determined that because of changes in the coastline that we decide that maybe we don't want to have something rebuilt there and it's better to buy everybody's interest out. But, you know, if and when that ever happens, I think we deal with it based on whatever the facts are at that time. The concern right now is that people can't get financing, you know; and I think we're talking about minimal damage in terms of, you know, being able to rebuild it at this point. Obviously, if the entire structure was lost, there'd be a whole different question arising. GIFFIN: Well, I'm glad to hear your comments because I was concerned about them, too, after reading the minutes. Mr. Chung. CHUNG: Yes, Madam Chair. With regard to that concern brought up by Commissioner Kubota, our Legislative Auditor, Connie Kiriu, did some follow-up. And with regard to the concern about setbacks in the event that abuild-up is needed, the setback that was required, under the, well, that was applicable to these developments when they were built, would provide a bigger buffer than what they would have to abide by under an RS-10 designation. And that's even assuming, I think under the RS-10 you can only build up three stories. But, you know, assuming you could go up till about seven stories, based on her calculations, you would still have a greater buffer. And there was another concern brought up by Councilwoman Jacobson. It was pretty vague But, and I haven't, you know, quite, you know, in all honesty followed up on it, but I can when it hits the Council. But she was just concerned about the possibility of some unintended consequences or ramifications from something like this. And we really haven't been able to identify any; but, you know, certainly, we don't want to create any unintended consequences. So, you know, it's something that I can follow up with 7 Ms. Jacobson on, but I haven't heard anything specific. GIFFIN: Okay. Commissioners, any other questions regarding this application, this agenda item and, of the applicants? Hearing none, do I hear a motion? KUBOTA: Madam Chair? YUEN: Any public testimony GIFFIN: I'm sorry, I keep forgetting. Thank you, Mr. Yuen. Is there anyone who has come this morning who would like to testify on this agenda item? Please come forward, sir? Will you please raise your right hand? Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? WILKINS: Yes, I do. GIFFIN: Will you please state your name and residence address? WILKINS: I'm Bob Wilkins of 20 Akepa Street in the area there, near the second green condo. First, I want to thank Councilman Chung and Director Yuen. You know, it had been an issue in our community for quite a while and I know they both put time in on that. And I think the intent of the amendment is to protect the interest of the long-term residents of the non-conforming condominiums, and I fully support the spirit of that amendment. Then it was just mentioned, as documented in the transcripts of the January 23'~d meeting of the County Council, Councilwoman Jacobson raised a valid point regarding loopholes given an incentive to rebuild older non-conforming structures. So I would hope that the amendment is not construed to benefit non-resident interests; and I know there would be discussion here already this morning, so I don't need to go over that again. But we certainly don't want to see spot zoning as was suggested here a moment ago. And we should keep in mind that quite a few of those units are not owned by long-term residents; and little old ladies here are going to suffer some financial disaster, if they're not allowed to rebuild. But there are quite a few units that are owned by commercial interests or government interests, even I believe the University has some. And I don't know, you know, when they purchased those units, but presumably they knew exactly what the conditions were and the restrictions on zoning. So I just hope that what's kept in mind is that we're trying to preserve the interests of the long-term residents, some of whom were represented here, the little old lady as opposed to the rural environmentalists or something like that. That's all. Thank you. GIFFLN: Thank you very much. Commissioners, any questions? Hearing none, thank you. Any other discussion? Is there anyone else from the public who has come this morning to testify but didn't sign up? Hearing none, do I hear a motion? Commissioner Kubota? 8 KUBOTA: I move the Planning Commission forwards a favorable recommendation to the County Council-Initiated action of Proposed Bill No. 157, to amend Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (1995 Edition), regarding nonconforming uses and buildings to the County Council. GIFFIN: Do I hear a second? GALDONES: Second. GIFFIN: It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded by Commissioner Galdones that a favorable recommendation of the County Council- Initiated action of Proposed Bill No. 157 to amend Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (1995 Edition), regarding nonconforming uses and buildings to the County Council. Discussion? Hearing none KUBOTA: Madam Chair, there was one addition that Planning Director did add to the conditions GIFFIN: Yes. KUBOTA: And I think we ought to put that down for the record, amendment by addition, "Construction shall commence within five years from the date the building is damaged or destroyed." GIFFIN: The seconder of the motion Mr. Galdones, were you the seconder? GALDONES: Yes, ma'am. GIFFIN: Do you agree to the amendment? GALDONES: Yes. GIFFIN: Thank you. Any other discussion? Susan? GAGORIK: Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA: Aye. GAGORIK: Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: Aye. GAGORIK: Commissioner Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA: Aye. 9 GAGORIK: Commissioner Mina? MINA: Aye. GAGORIK: Commissioner Smith? SMITH: Aye. GAGORIK: Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER: Yes. GAGORIK: Madam Chair? GIFFIN: Aye. GAGORIK: Madam Chair, the vote passes with seven ayes. GIFFIN: Thank you very much. Thank you. The discussion ended at 11:31 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 10 J ~ 6~~~ZGL ~ board of Directors 1875 Kalanianaole Street Association of Owners Hilo, H[ 96720 Mauna Loa Shores Condominium Phone: (808) 961-6294 Aprll 17, 2002 Ms. Geraldine Giffin, Chairperson Planning Commission 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, I-Iawaii 96720 Subject: Support of Proposed Bill No. 157 The Mauna Loa Shores Homeowners Association respectfully requests the Planning Commission's support of Proposed Bill No. 157, as amended relating to nonconforming uses and buildings. Support and passage of the subject bill will allow the 84 owners of Mauna Loa Shores to rebuild their homes in the event the building suffers over 50 percent damage. Current zoning regulations do not allow for the rebuilding of our homes in the event of a catastrophic event. In addition, some owners have been unable to sell their units because mortgage lenders and prospective buyers see the current regulations in a negative light. Your consideration of our request is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Thomas Brown President Mauna Loa Shores Association of Apartment Owners Rc`d a~. 6C! mrg T`_'~ COPY ~ ~ - 1 - 4 _ - 0 c ° ~ •o O ~ O O e o /o ° o 0 V " LFLFIWI COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, HILO, HAWAI'1, 96720 ` 2284 Kalanianaole Avenue Hilo, Hawaii 96720 . April 14, 2002 Mrs. Geraldine M. Grin, Chairperson Planning Conunission 1-lawai'i County 25 Aupuni Street - Hilo, Hawaii 96720 ~ = Dear Chairperson Giffin: The Leleiwi Community Association at their monthly General Membership Meeting on April 8, 2002 endorsed the passage of p®sed ~alllYo IS~t® car~er~~l~cde 4, I~avasd~n 6 ®,~'Cf~pte~ ZS (,Z®rrar~ C®de) ®~tl~ Hawatd C®aa C®de 193 (I99S ~ditd®n), as ~ e~ ~°e~a&drag ~ n®nc®nf®rn~ awes ~cra~ 6u~ddg~ The I.eleiwi Community Association represents the three condominiums affected by this proposed bill as well as seventy five single family dwellings in the areas This issue has been a matter of concern for several years and we are grateful to Councilman Aaron. Chung for all he has done to initiate this amendment. Attached is a copy of a letter submitted to Mr. Christopher Yuen on August 26. 2001 outlining our reasons for supporting this arrYendment. Aloha pumehana, . Donna Saiki President _ ~ a ~ Oo ~ O ° ~ O ~ oe O o c o LFlEIWI COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, HILO, HAWAII, 96720 ~ _ ` August 2b, 2001 Mr. Chris Yuen Director Planning Department County of i~awaii . 25 Aupuau Street 1=iilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen, The Leleiwi Community Association requests your assistance in resolving an issue within our community . Vdithin our community boundaries are three condor~ainiuflns who Dave been grand fathered in as high density in a area zoned single family. I am sure you remember what transpired twenty plus years ago to bring about this situation. One of the conditions they have been living with is that should a dasaster. cause snore than 51°/® of the building to be damaged, they would not be allowed to rebuild They are looking for an avenue to change this so that they could rebuild even if more than 51 % of their building is destroyed. Our community association represents the three condominiums as well as the seventy five single faffiily dwellings in the area and this issue has been discussed over the gust two years with these being the salient points: I . None of the residents (condo or single family residence) want to open up the option of further high rise development in the area which is what we fear if the condo parcels are rezoned high density. 2. Condo owners (and many of the original owners are up in years) are having a difficult time selling their units because of the 51% condition. This makes their final years very di~-tcult 3. We must all live together in this neighborhood and wish to come to an amicable conclusion to an issue that has drawn on for too long.. 4. Residents within the community from the homes and condos are very much concerned with the ecosystem of the area and they are observant and vigilant in their dedication to the Leleiwi neighborhood. Aloha pumehana, . Donna W. Saiki President, Leleiwi Community Association Cc Councilman Aaron Chung 2405 Kalanianaole Ave . Hilo, Hawaii 96720 ' ~ April 16, 2002 Mrs. Geraldine M. Giffin, Chairperson Planning Commission Hawaii County 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Chairperson Giffin: ` The Board of the Hale Kahakai Condominium Association unanimously endorses the passage of ~~oposed dill Ito. 15~ to ~Yad ~x~.icl~ 4, Di~ri~a.ora S o~ CYa~pt~r (Zonisag Codes) of ~a~aa.~, ~ota~atlr Codes ~9~~ (195 ~d~~~.on) as ~a~ded, ~~l~tirig to Yaoa~acoa~f'o~ei~ag u~e~ seed baa~l~.a.aag~ . The Hale Kahakai Association of Apartment Owners represents 58 families who live at the Hale Kahakai condominium. We love this area and our homes. We are requesting the legal right to rebuild our home if it is substantially damaged. We would be distressed both emotionally and financially if were forced to move because we were not allowed to repair our building. We have many seniors who have lived at Hale Kahakai for many years. They have put their life savings into their homes that they now enjoy in their retirement years. For most, this investment represents a large part of their net worth. They plan on staying here as long as possible, but sooner or later the need to sell arises. The current zoning code limiting rebuilding now threatens their nest egg. We have seen sales fall through because potential buyers were refused a mortgage by their bank due to this ordinance. We have seen buyers scared away. And we have seen bid prices lowered because of this code limitation. In short, the current prohibition on rebuilding is affecting our property values and our ability to sell our homes. This situation is not only bad for us. It is bad for the County, since it leads to a decline in property values, and thus, shrinking property tax revenues. Our hope is that we will be given back the right to rebuild which was taken from us when our zoning was changed in 1983. We only want a just solution. Mahalo nui loa for considering our plea. We are grateful to Councilman Aaron Chung for his initiation of this amendment. This has been a major concern of our Association for three years. Much appreciation goes to Councilman Chung's listening to all his constituency, his follow through, and coming up with a community-based solution which is acceptable to all. Attached is a copy of a oral testimony letter submitted to the County of Hawaii Rezoning General Plan Planning Department on September 18, 2000, stating our 58 owners' reasons for supporting the proposed amendment. Me ke aloha pumehana, (l. ~ v ~ ~ ~1~7 Eel 1.J: Gary R zzo President, Hale Kahakai Association of Owners Cc Councilman Aaron Chung September 18, 2000 To: County of Hawaii Rezoning General Plan Planning Department From: Gary Rizzo, Hale Kahakai Poard President Re: hale Kahakai Condominium T1VIK: 3/2-1-19-14 Current zoning of Hale I~ahakai prevents us from rebuilding our homes in the event our building suers over 50% damage. The option to rebuild Hale K.ahalcai was taken away from us several years ago, when our zoning was changed from medium density to low density zoning. Even so, many subsequent buyers and current owners in our condominium were not aware of this rebuilding restriction when they bought their units. Some of them would not have purchased their unit, or would have offered the seller a smaller amount, had they known about th1S restriC$1®n. As a result of this rebuilding restriction, our property values are lower because new buyers, as well as, mortgage lenders see this limitation as a negative. Also, if the building was ever destroyed, we would n®t ®nly 1®se ®ur homes, but we would also have to move, because we are not now allowed to rebuild. We are here this evening only to ask to be able to replace what we already have, nothing more, if more than 50% of our building is destroyed. This is not a ploy to expand the size of our building. I am here now asking in behalf of 58 homeowners in Dale Ka.hakai that you consider returning our right to rebuild our homes in the event they sustain more than 50% damage to our building. If we can accomplish this with a variance or a special grandfathering clause rather than changing our zoning beak to what it was originally, that's okay too. We have no vested interest in the means. Our only goal is to be able to rebuild. Thank you for listening to the concerns of the 58 owners of Hale Kahakai. Gary Rizzo President Dale Kahakai Association of Owners.