The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutREP PC 022 03/06/2003 2002-2004REPOK'I' OP'hHI~; COMMIT°hF~:1? ON PLANNING DATF,: March 6, 2003 PLACE: Councilroom TIME: 1:38 p.m. Chair and Members I lawaii County Council Hilo. Hawaii 96720 RF,: C-134/Bill No. 56 Your Committee on Planning, to which was relorred Bill No. 56, transmitted by Mayor I lam Kim per Communication No. 13d. dated February >. 2003, regarding the change of zone rcyuest b}~ Keith K. Yamakawa, DUS at Waiakea I Iouseluts. 2"`~ Series, Waiakca, South Hilo. I Iawai'i hMK: 2-2 ? I : 25. reports as ibllows: Bill No. 56 amends Section 25-R-;3 (City of Hilo lone Map), Article K. Chapter 25 (Y.oning Code), f lawaii County Code, by changing the district classification for approximately 10.1 10 square lect of land from a Single Family Residential (RS-10) to a Generalfiommercial (CG-10) zoned district. The rectangular-shaped subject property. owned in Ice by Daryl and'fammyAndrade who have authorized the applicant to apply Rrr the change of zone, is located at the west corner of theKinoole Street and Lanihuli Street intersection, across from the Social Security Administration Office. The applicant is seeking to demolish the existing residential structure and construct an ohtice building approximately 2,520 square feet in size to accommodate his dental practice and a rental office space. 'fen parking stalls will be included along the west side of the properly. Mock orange hedges will line the property lines between the neighboring lots. fhe State Land Use District designation is Urban. Although the Ll IPA(i Map designates the area as Medium Density Urban, which allows village and neighborhood commercial and residential and related functions. interpretations by the Planning Department have designated the parcels immediately to the north and directly across Lanihuli Street as being in the High Density l h'han area. lb he consistent with these zonings. the CG-10 zoning was recommended fir the suhject parcel by the Planning Department, although the CN zoning was originalh mentioned by the applicants representative. The property is not situated within the SMA Ibr it lies over 4,500 lecl li~om the nearest coastline. fhc I lilo Community Development Plan adopted in 1975 designates the suhject propa'ty as RM-4. Several parcels in the surrounding area were rezoned Gom Single Family Residential (RS-10) to General Commercial (CG). ~fhe subject parcel is about a block from the i lilo Shopping Center. The subject property is located in 7onc "X'~. an area determined to be outside the 500-vcar flood plain. Because the suhject property has been prey iously cleared and developed with a residence. there arc Communication 13d Bill 56 Page 2 no known rare or endangered plants or animals, nor are there any historical, cultural or archaeological features on the site. Access to the subject property will be the northwest end of the property alongLanihuli Street. which has a fully improved pavement width of 4a feet within a 60-foot right-of-way. Water is available to the property through mi existing 5/H-inch meter alongLanihuli Street. Additional water can be made available fi~om an existing 8-inch waterline along Kinoolc Street The Department of Water Supph requires that a backtlow preventer be installed, according to their standards. The wastewater will be disposed of via a connection to the existing County sewer lateral along Kinoolc Street. All other utilities and sen~ices are available to the site. Committee Member Curtis 7~yler staled that if the property is designated as Medium Density. the requested CG-10 zoning is not permitted. He questioned how the Planning Department could interpret the subject parcel to he High Density, when it is clearly delined on the map. Planning Director Chris Yuen explained that because precious CG zonings on hoth sides of the subject property were approved in the past. the staff interpreted this area to be the same. He explained that this is not the applicants fault. but is a result ol'the interpretations of the Planning Department and the development of the area. which is basically now commercially zoned. 'fhe area is changing in character, so the proposed General Plan rcilects these changes. Cw-tis'I'yler stated that it violates the General Plan and the Count}- Charter, and that he cannot support this measure in its present tbrm. Perhaps if it is zoned CV or CN. then he would he okay with it. Bill Moore, representative fbr the applicant, stated that he was advised by the Planning Department to apply for the CG zoning to be consistent with the surrounding zonings, although he originally mentioned the CN zoning. Chris Yucn mentioned that if die zoning were to he changed to a CN zoning, the measure would have to be referred back to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. and that process would be costly to the applicant. Committee Member Leningrad lilarionofTasked what could be the worst thing that could happen if this zoning were approved. and Bill Moore responded that any suit would be against the Count}~ and not the applicant. Committee Member Bob.lacobson proposed an amendment to limit the height of~thc building. but it Communication 134 Bill 56 Page 3 was not approved since Your ('hair mentioned that she would he amending the "boning Code to impose height restrictions in certain areas of Hilo. Your Chair questioned the applicant about their intentions to provide a concrete sidewalk with a planting strip along the entire frontage on Kinoole Street_ but was told that it should actually be along both Lanihuli Street and Kinoole Street. Your Committee concurs with the Planning Commission and the Planning Director Ibr recommending a favorable consideration for the change of zone roqucsl. which would result in an appropriate land use pattern that will further benefit the puhlic. At today's meeting, this measure received four aye votes and rivo no votes. Because Council rules dictate that live votes arc needed to pass a measure. Your Committee will be submitting an unfavorable recommendation to the Council based on the votes reflected below. Por informational purposes. CommiUce Memhers .laatbson and 7~yler voted '1:analua" once. Your Committee nn Planning forwards Bill No. 56 to the Council with a negative recommendation. nYl_S NOICS 1 k I I[X I,I?I'I'I ^SnD-1001) X ~' I YLIiR X nknl:nl;l x CI IUNG x I?LnRIONUIP X IIOLSCIII iII X 1nCUBSON X KIiYNOI,Uti x SAInRIh .x Kespectlully submitted COMMI"I"fGE ON PLANNING [30EfT3Y JI{AN Lf,ITHIcAD-TC)DD. CIIAIR PC RI'PORT NO: '3 ADOP I'I`U: