Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 072 02/03/2004 2002-2004RI?POR"f OF'FHF, COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATF,: February 3, 2004 RE: Comm. No. 442Bi11 No. 202 PLACE: Councilroom TIME: 2:45 p.m. Chair and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Communication No. 442 and Bill No. 202, transmitted by Mayor Harry Kim, dated December 16.2003. regarding an amendment to Change of 'Lone Ordinance No. 93-100, requested by Dianne and Edward Hirayama, at Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-2-50:8 (11,250 square feet) reports as follows: Bill No. 202 seeks to amend Condition C (Construction Timetable) of Change ofI,one Ordinance 93-100, which rezoned approximately 11,250 square feet of land from Single Family Residential 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to Limited Industrial 10,000 square foot (ML-10) district, by allowing an additional 5 years to secure tinal plan approval. Communication No. 442 reports that the Hawaii County Planning Commission, as required by the Hawai' i County Charter, Chapter 4, Section 6-4.3(C), considered this request on November 21, 2003. The Commission concurred with the Planning Director's favorable recommendation on this matter. Communication No. 442, in synopsis, reports the Planning Director's tindings and recommendations as the following: I . 'fhe subject property totaling 1 1,250 square feet is located at along the west side of I linano Street, near the Hinano Street-Kawili Street Intersection in Waiakea South Hilo. Hawaii. 2. Ordinance No. 93-100, effective on October 8, 1993, changed the district classilication of the subject property from Single Family Residential to limited Industrial (ML-10). The applicant proposes to establish two 2,000 square foot steel structure buildings as electrical supply and equipment storage facilities. Condition C of Ordinance No. 93-100 required that Final Plan Approval be secured within five years from the effective date of the change of zone or October 8, 1998. The Planning Director granted two Administrative Time Extensions on October 8. 1998 and October 8, 2003. Both extensions equaled live years in totah as allowed by Ordinance 93-100. Communication 442 Bill 202 Page 2 The inability of the applicant to comply with the requirements of Condition C of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 93-100 is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or were beyond the control of the applicant Specitically, the effects of poor local economy and additional costly requirements that were previously unknown to the applicant. According to the applicant, the approval of the time extension request will provide adequate time to complete the proposed project. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the Ueneral Plan or Zoning Code. Since the rezoning was approved for the project site in 1993, there have been no changes to the Ueneral Plan affecting the subject property or immediately surrounding area. 4. Approval of this extension request would not be inconsistent with the original reasons for approving the rezoning ordinance. The original reasons for the approval of the rezoning are still valid today. This matter was first heard on January 22, 2004. At that meeting, Diane Hirayama, the applicant, provided this committee with background information about the purpose and need of Bill No. 202. No representatives were present from the Planning Department. According to Ms. Hirayama, when they submitted design plans it was brought to their attention that a utility pole would need to be relocated. This tact was not evident at the time of the initial re- zoning request Estimated costs for the relocation of the pole is approximately $10,000. During discussion, Committee members questioned the Public Works Department's decision to assign the costs to the applicant at such a late date. It also requested that annual progress reports, required by Condition L of Ordinance 93-100, be forwarded to this Committee for review. Also, Councilmember Tyler questioned the authority of the Planning Department to grant two administrative time extensions for a total of five years instead of one as authorized by Ordinance No. 93-100. At this meeting, your Committee chose to amend Bill 202, Condition N, by deleting numbers 1-5, so that granting authority for further requests Cor time extensions is the Council rather than the Planning Director. At this same meeting Bill 202, was deterred pending further input from the Planning and Public Works Departments. Communication 442 Bill 202 Page 3 At today's meeting, Chris Yuen, Director, Planning Department, provided this committee with background information about the origins and purpose of Bill No. 202. Mr. Yuen, in response to questions about the practice of granting of two time extensions, explained that time extensions can be used as a tool for keeping applicants on progress. As such, only the amount of time actually needed by the applicant may be granted for an initial extension request instead of the maximum time allowed by ordinance. He also informed members of this Committee that he was not the Director during the time that the two extensions were granted for this particular applicant. During this same meeting, this Committee requested that the Public Works Department provide comment on the issue of the utility pole and the decision to require the applicant to re-locate it. Your Committee concurs with the Planning Commission and the Planning Director's favorable recommendation for approval of this request. Your Committee on Planning is in accord with the intent and purpose of Bill No. 202, as amended to Draft 2, and recommends it pass first reading. Ctd AYIiS NOhs A&I: P:X ~RnhnKl X CI IUNG X IiLARIONOPf X IIOISCIIUII X .IACOnSON X RIiYNOLDS X SA NnRIK X 'rI ~LANCi X rvl.ra x RcspccU'ulh submitad COMMI7"TF,E ON PLANNING M , Q!1 E GR F.L ION FF, ceni PC RI?I IYI' NU. 72 nuoh~n;u_ FEB 1 9 2004