Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 043 06/03/2003 2002-2004REPORT OF THE COMM[TTEE ON PLANNING DATE: Jta-~e ~, ~~^;~ PLACE: Councilroom TIME: 1:08 p.m. Chair and Members I-[awaii County Council Hilo. Hawaii 96720 RE: C-251 /Bill No. 1 1 ? Your Committee on Planning. to which was referred Bill No. 1 12, transmitted by Mayor Harr~~ Kim per Communication No. 251. dated May 9, 2003, regarding the change of zone request by Paul (3gasaw~ra at Kconepoko. Puna, Hawaii TMK: 1-5-07:20, reports as follows: Bill No. 1 12 amends Ordinance No. 00-128, which previously amended Ordinance No. 91-116 and reclassified 4.901 acres from an Agricultural (A-la) to a Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20) zoned district. Bill No. 1 12 amends Conditions C and D to allow the construction of a service station and convenience store while deferring the required curb, gutter and sidewalk and intersection improvements to a later time, if any other development on this subject property should evolve other than the proposed project. Ordinance No. 91-1 16, changed the district classification of the subject property from A-1 a to CN-20 to allow the establishment of a supermarket on the site. A one-year administrative extension of time to December 2, 1993 was granted in compliance with Condition B. On November 26, 1993, the Final Plan Approval No. 2902 was granted, and pursuant to Condition C, the construction of the proposed supei-~~narket should have commenced within one year from this date. On October 3, l 994, the applicant requested an extension of time to commence construction. On December 28. 1994, tl~c Planning Department responded to the request stating that the administrative extension of time was not permissible, and any requests for another time extension would have to be approved by the Planning Commission and the Council. November 26. 1995 marked the expiration date of the Final Plan Approval since the plans were not utilized within two years from the Final Plan Approval date. On August 30, 1996, the landowner/applicant was informed that the Planning Department would initiate the downzoning of the parcel due to non-compliance with the conditions of approval. On September 13, 1996, the applicant requested that the downzoning not be initiated as potential lessees are being sought. On Februar-y 15, ?000, the County Council requested that the Planning Director downzone the property to its original A-la zoning. Un .lune 12. 2000. the applicant requested to amend Conditions B and C of Ordinance No. 91-1 16 fur an additional five years to complete the construction of the proposed project. The applicant explained that the development plans were stalled due to the economic downturn since the rezoning was approved, and that he had relinquished the development rights of this properh~ to another entity in 1994. The entity was then unable to proceed with the project. and the development rights were returned to the applicant. Communication 251 [3ill 112 Page 2 On November 24, 2000, Ordinance No. 00-128 amended Condition F3 (securing Final Plan Approval) and deleted Condition C (commencing construction) of Ordinance No. 91-1 16. fhe subject property was formerly owned by theKaneshiro family who had originally planned to build a Food Fair Supermarket on the lot. Mr. Ogasawara purchased the subject property from the Kaneshiro family with the intent to construct a service station and convenience store on the site, and on Januap~ 6, 2003, submitted a request to amend Conditions C and D of Ordinance 00-128. A I~raftic Assessment Report dated October 21, 2002 and prepared by Traffic Management Consultant concluded that the intersections would continue to operate at satisfactory Levels of Service after the development ofthc proposed service station, and no improvements to existing intersections were necessary to accommodate the proposed use. Committee Member Bob Jacobson opposed the amendment to defer the curbs, gutters, sidewalks and pavement improvements because he favored the development of the supermarket in this location. He further stated that when the zoning first expired, we should have let this project die because we arc taking awa} a safety feature. (bmmittec Member Vary Safarik explained that this project would not generate much foot traffic. so there really is no need hvr the sidewalks. It was also mentioned that the most recent zonings in this area wanted to retain the rustic ambience of the neighborhood. so the sidewalks were not required. I~he Planning Director did not offer a favorable recommendation for Condition C, but recommended a favorable consideration for the amendment to Condition D. Your Committee concurs with the Planning Commission for recommending a favorable consideration for the change of lone request. which would result in an appropriate land use pattern that will further benefit the public. Your Committee on Planning is in accord with the intent and purpose of Bill No. 112, and recommends it pass first reading. 1Yta CIIUN(~ I L,vLUmol I_-__ nc~l a null iACnnsc~h I I I I III 1U-rODI> ILI YNOIJ)5 ti.\I:\RIR~ --~-~~ ~ l~l~.tai - - VOI_ti -1K1f - k ---- x ~ _ 4 - ~~ - x _ - _ 4 -- -' - -J-- Respectfully submitted COMMI fTFI? ON PLANNING .~ ,_/ f - - ---- - E3otibv Jcan I,eithcad=Dodd. CHAIR PC RLPOR"I' NO. d3 _ ntx~P~rta~: _ ~~8 ~~