Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0981.000 2014-2016 +tv os . Randall M.Kurohara V j Acting Managing Director William P.Kenoi "• Mayor ATE Of M;� County of Avail uffirr of flir Atav r 25 Aupuni Street,Suite 2603 • Hito,Hawai`i 96720 • (808)961-8211 • Fax(808)961-6553 KONA: 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy.,Bldg.C • Kailua-Kona,Hawai`i 96740 (808)323-4444 • Fax(808)323-4440 —_ rJ G� July 26, 2016 r.? N N.) Dru Kanuha, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawai`i 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Kanuha and Members: SUBJECT: Change of Zone Application (REZ 14-000175) Request: RS-7.5 to CN-7.5 Applicant: Hilo Medical Center Tax Map Key: 2-3-035:018 As required by Chapter 7, Sec. 6-7.5 (a), Hawai`i County Charter, transmitted herewith for the County Council's consideration and action are the Windward Planning Commission's letter and enclosures regarding the above-referenced request. Sincer WILLIAM P. KENOI Mayor MTransCouncilHMCREZ 14-175 Enclosures cc: Planning Department '`L71 2 2 5? n Comm. No. `� 0 Ref. To: f 1( Ref. Date_ JUL 2 6 2615 County of Hawai`i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. • William P.Kenoi /tYOFk 1N;. Gregory Henkel,Chair , ;l ; .,�„` � • Myles Miyasato,Vice Chair Mayor �i• Y s Joseph Clarkson 4;.e."; Donn Dela Cruz '*� F'MF#- Donald Ikeda • Raylene Moses County of Hawaii WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 • Hilo,Hawaii 96720 Phone(808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742 JUL 2 6 2016 Dru Kanuha, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Kanuha and Council Members: SUBJECT: Change of Zone (REZ 14-000175) Request: RS-7.5 to CN-7.5 Applicant: Hilo Medical Center Tax Map Key: 2-3-035:018 The Windward Planning Commission,at its duly held public hearing on July 7, 2016,considered the above-referenced request for a Change of Zone from a Single-Family Residential-7,500 square feet (RS-7.5)to Neighborhood Commercial-7,500 square feet(CN-7.5) zoning district for 9,230 square feet of land. The property is located along that portion of Punahele Street approximately 200 feet east(makai) of its intersection with Komohana Street and directly across from the Hawai`i Community Correctional Facility, Punahoa 2nd, South Hilo, Hawaii. After review of the entire record and in concurrence with the recommendation made by the Planning Director,the Commission voted to send an unfavorable recommendation the County Council. The applicant is requesting a Change of Zone from the Single-Family Residential- 7,500 square feet(RS-7.5)to Neighborhood Commercial-7,500 square feet(CN-7.5)zoning district for 9,230 square feet of land, in order to establish an approximately 24-26 stall paved parking lot for Hilo Medical Center employees to use that work at the adjacent Punahele Professional Building and nearby Pu`u Honu Professional Building. Although off-street parking meeting the minimum Zoning Code requirements is currently available at the adjacent medical buildings, the applicant believes additional off-street parking is needed for the convenience of its patients and guests. To accommodate this demand, the applicant would like to have its staff park on the subject property. A pedestrian access is proposed for employees to walk from the parking lot to the medical buildings on the adjacent Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Dru Kanuha, Council Chair and Members of the County Council Page 2 properties to the south. The applicant will consolidate the subject property with the adjacent Punahele Professional Building lot, but regardless no vehicular access is proposed between these properties. Access to the parking lot would be from Punahele Street. Landscaping will be provided to minimize impacts to surrounding properties and no lighting within the parking lot is being proposed. Employees usually work between 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and some weekends. Use of the parking lot would generally correspond to these hours and the applicant intends to have the subject property gated after hours. Commercial parking lots are only permitted in the Village Commercial (CV), General Commercial (CG), and Industrial zoning districts (MCX, ML, MG) but not the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zoning district. Parking lots are permitted in the CN district if they are directly accessory to a land use permitted in the district, such as medical clinics. Therefore, should the request be approved the subject property must be consolidated with the adjacent medical center property in order to establish the proposed parking lot. Upon consolidation, the parking lot would be permitted in the CN-zoning district as a land use that is directly accessory to the medical center. The change of zone request from an RS-7.5 to a CN-7.5 zoning district does not conform to applicable goals,policies, and standards of the General Plan. Rezoning is the primary method for changing the allowed uses of land. Rezoning must be consistent with the goals,policies and standards of the General Plan and the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG)Map. Other factors beside the map consistency must be taken into account during the rezoning process,which requires specific consideration of a number of factors to determine the suitability of the property for the proposed zone. These include proximity to roads,utilities, and public services, environmental factors such as drainage, slope, and soil types, and other public concerns. It is only through a comprehensive policy analysis approach that evaluations and decisions can be made to better time and stage developments to achieve growth determined by the General Plan and related planning documents. The implications of these evaluations and decisions must also be considered as they may have an impact on similar areas in the County. The primary factor for this unfavorable recommendation is that the proposed request for commercial zoning(CN-7.5) would not result in an appropriate land use pattern at this time, and therefore the existing residential(RS-7.5) zoning district should be retained. The subject property is one of seven residentially-zoned lots known as the Hala`i Kopa`a Subdivision which was created in 1967, many years prior to establishment of the Punahele Professional Office Building. This subdivision is bound by Punahele Street to the north, Hala'i Hill to the east, the Punahele Professional Building properties to the south and Komohana Street to the west, with the exception of two of the 7 lots which are located just mauka of Komohana Street. In the early 1970's, a single-family residence was established on Dru Kanuha, Council Chair and Members of the County Council Page 3 each of the lots in the subdivision, except for the subject property which is vacant. At that time,the Hawaii Correctional Facility was already established on the property across Punahele Street to the north, but lands to the east, west and south were primarily in agricultural use for sugar cane. For forty years this subdivision has maintained its residential character, even after it was bisected by the Komohana Street extension and commercial development began to encroach to the south with development of the Punahele Professional Office Building complex. The General Plan LUPAG Map designation for the subject property is Medium Density Urban, which allows village and neighborhood commercial uses and single-family and multiple-family residential uses and related functions. However, commercial zoning is not necessarily appropriate for all areas designated Medium Density Urban by the LUPAG map. For example, there are many residential subdivisions in Hilo located entirely within Medium Density Urban designated areas that should remain residential for the near future since residential uses are still firmly established. Introducing commercial uses into residential subdivisions sometimes breaks up the cohesiveness of the overall land use pattern and creates nuisances such as noise, light, and traffic. Usually these nuisances can be reduced by providing landscaping between residentially and commercially-zoned properties but often times these nuisances cannot be completely eliminated. As a result of complaints filed with the Planning Department, the landowner has been cited twice for allowing the subject property to be used as a parking lot, which is not permitted in an RS-zoned district. The current request is the third attempt by the landowner or applicant to rezone the property to Neighborhood Commercial zoning in order to establish a parking lot. During these previous attempts to rezone the property, the landowner/applicant and neighboring property owners could not reach an agreement about what measures could be implemented to reduce nuisances affecting neighboring residential properties as a result of a parking lot. Due to this lack of agreement,the County Council did not approve the rezoning request in 2007 and the Planning Department and Planning Commission did not recommend approval of the rezone request in 2011. Based on testimony received from the Hala`i Kumiai and its members and the lack of signature on the applicant's proposed Memorandum of Agreement, establishing a parking lot or other land use permitted in the CN-zoned district would introduce nuisances that cannot reasonably be mitigated and thus commercial zoning would not be suitable on the subject property at this time. Additionally, the request is not consistent with the following goals, policies, and standards of the Land Use, Single-Family Residential Development and Commercial Development Elements of the General Plan, which indicates that commercial zoning should be established in areas that are compatible with adjacent land uses and in balance with the neighborhood's social environment: Dru Kanuha, Council Chair and Members of the County Council Page 4 Land Use * The County shall encourage the development and maintenance of communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment. * Zoning requests shall be reviewed with respect to General Plan designation, district goals, regional plans, State Land Use District, compatibility with adjacent zoned uses, availability of public services and utilities, access and public need. Single-Familv Residential Development * Ensure compatible uses within and adjacent to single-family residential zoned areas. * Enhance the overall quality of life in our residential communities. Commercial Development * Provide commercial developments that complement the overall pattern of transportation and land usage within the island's regions, communities, and neighborhoods. * The development of commercial facilities should be designed to fit into the locale with minimal intrusion while providing the desired services. Appropriate infrastructure and design concerns shall be incorporated into the review of such developments. The General Plan provides a minimum 20-year vision that helps the County formulate its land use policies. It is not a mandate for land use in any specific area; it provides guidance. There are instances where it is simply not the appropriate time to introduce a new land use within an established area. Perhaps in 10 to 20 years, land tenure and circumstances may change enough to warrant a rezoning of this particular section along Punahele Street to a commercial-zoned district such as Neighborhood Commercial. But today,the subject property is still part of an established neighborhood where long-time residents should be able to enjoy a lifestyle that they have long become accustomed to. Based on the above,the request for a Change of Zone from a Single-Family Residential (RS-7.5) to a Neighborhood Commercial (CN-7.5) zoned district would not result in an appropriate land use pattern and would not further the public convenience, necessity and general welfare. Therefore, the Planning Director is recommending that the Windward Planning Commission send an unfavorable recommendation for the proposed change of zone request to the Hawai`i County Council. Dru Kanuha, Council Chair and Members of the County Council Page 5 A draft bill to amend Section 25-8-33 (City of Hilo Zone Map), Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code)of the Hawaii County Code is provided for your infoiination. However,please note that due to the unfavorable recommendation, there are no conditions attached to the draft bill. We have also enclosed copies of the Background Report,Planning Director's Recommendation, Powerpoint presentation and the transcript of the hearing for your information. Sincerely, GmL Gregory Henkel, Chairman Windward Planning Commission LHilomedicalcenterREZ 14-17 5wpc2 Enclosures cc: Mr. Sidney Fuke, Planning Consultant Hilo Medical Center Department of Public Works Department of Water Supply William Brilhante, Esq., Corporation Counsel BHiloMedCtrREZ.doc-6/16/16 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HILO MEDICAL CENTER CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 14-000175) HILO MEDICAL CENTER has submitted an application for a Change of Zone from Single-Family Residential—7,500 square feet(RS-7.5) to Neighborhood Commercial—7,500 square feet(CN-7.5) for 9,230 square feet of land. The subject property is located along that portion of Punahele Street approximately 200 feet east(makai) of its intersection with Komohana Street and directly across from the Hawai`i Community Correctional Facility, Punahoa rd, South Hilo,Hawaii,'FMK: 2-3-035:018. PROPOSED ACTION 1. Applicant's Request: Change the zoning district from Single-Family Residential— 7,500 square feet(RS-7.5)to Neighborhood Commercial—7,500 square feet(CN-7.5) for 9,230 square feet of land. According to the Zoning Code, the purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district is to provide strategically located centers suitable for commercial activities which shall be of such size and shape as will accommodate a compact shopping center which supplies goods and services to a residential or working population on a frequent need or convenience basis. This district is distinguished from a central commercial district which provides general business and broad services to a city or region. Requirements for establishing a land use in the CN district, including a list of the variety of permitted land uses, are shown in Section 25-5- 100 to 108 of the Zoning Code. (Planning Department Exhibit 1 —Zoning Code Requirements for Neighborhood Commercial Districts) 2. Proposed Development: The applicant requests the change of zoning to CN-7.5 in order to establish an approximately 24-26 stall paved parking lot for Hilo Medical Center employees to use that work at the adjacent Punahele Professional Building and nearby Pu`u Honu Professional Building. Although off-street parking meeting the minimum -1- Zoning Code requirements is currently available at the adjacent medical buildings, the applicant believes additional off-street parking is needed for the convenience of its patients and guests. To accommodate this demand, the applicant would like to have its staff park on the subject property. A pedestrian access is proposed for employees to walk from the parking lot to the medical buildings on the adjacent properties to the south. The applicant will consolidate the subject property with the adjacent Punahele Professional Building lot, but regardless no vehicular access is proposed between these properties. Access to the parking lot would be from Punahele Street. Landscaping will be provided to minimize impacts to surrounding properties and no lighting within the parking lot is being proposed. Employees usually work between 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and some weekends. Use of the parking lot would generally correspond to these hours and the applicant intends to have the subject property gated after hours. Please Note: Commercial parking lots are only permitted in the Village Commercial (CV), General Commercial (CG), and Industrial zoning districts (MCX, ML, MG)but not the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zoning district. Parking lots are permitted in the CN district if they are directly accessory to a land use permitted in the district, such as medical clinics. Therefore, should the request be approved the subject property must be consolidated with the adjacent medical center property in order to establish the proposed parking lot. Upon consolidation, the parking lot would be permitted in the CN-zoning district as a land use that is directly accessory to the medical center. 3. Landowners: GELOCAG and the Association of Apartment Owners of Punahele Professional Building. Hilo Medical Center presently owns 30% of the adjacent Punahele Professional Building, commonly referred to as the"Hilo Surgery Center" and is the largest tenant/owner of that building. The applicant also currently occupies about 20% of the adjacent medical building fronting Pu`u Honu Place commonly referred to as the Pu`u Honu Professional Building, and is in the process of negotiating the lease or purchase of the entire building. -2- 4. Supportive Information: On March 27, 2014 the applicant submitted the attached change of zone application in support of the request. (P.D. Exhibit 2 - Change of Zone Application transmitted with letter dated March 27,2014 from Sidney Fuke) Shortly after submitting the Application,the applicant requested to defer processing the application in order to provide time to reach an agreement with the adjacent neighbors. In a letter dated May 31, 2016, the applicant requested to proceed with processing the application even though an agreement with the neighbors has not been reached. (P.D. Exhibit 3-May 31, 2016 letter from Sidney Fuke) BACKGROUND INFORMATION 5. Ordinance No. 95-033: In 1995, Ordinance No. 95-033 was adopted by the County Council to change the zoning of the adjacent properties (TMK 2-3-035:016, 040, 041, 042) from Single-Family Residential and Agricultural to Neighborhood Commercial. These properties are the location of the Punahele Professional Building and related medial facilities. The rezone application included a site plan showing a driveway connection from TMK 2-3-035:042 through the subject property to Punahele Street. Based on traffic and noise concerns expressed by neighbors, the plan was revised to remove direct access to Punahele Street. Condition D of Ordinance No. 95-33 specifically prohibits vehicular access to TMK 2-3-035:042 from Punahele Street through the subject property. (P.D. Exhibit 4 - Ordinance No. 95-33) 6. 2007 Change of Zone Application: In 2007, the Association of Apartment Owners of Punahele Professional Building(AOAO) submitted an application to rezone the subject property from the RS-7.5 to CN-10 zoning district to establish a parking lot. The AOAO proposed to consolidate the subject property with the adjacent Punahele Professional Building parcel and create a pedestrian and vehicle access between the two properties, with access from Punahele Street. The Planning Department and Planning Commission recommended approval of the change of zone request,but due to the reasons stated in Planning Committee Report No. 30 the County Council did not approve the request. See Exhibit A of the Application for Planning Commission's recommendation to County -3- Council dated April 23, 2007. (P.D. Exhibit 5- County Council Planning Committee Report No. 30 adopted October 3,2007) 7. Notice of Violation and Order: The landowners have been issued three Notice of Violation and Orders for operating a parking lot on the subject property which is in a Single-Family Residential zoning district. Violation No. 05-095E was issued on March 10, 2006 (P.D. Exhibit 6) and Violation No. 06-150E was issued on December 22, 2006 (P.D. Exhibit 7). The landowners appealed both of these violations, which were resolved before the Board of Appeals (P.D. Exhibit 8 and 9- March 11, 2009 letters from Planning Director closing violations). Violation No. 2011-036E (P.D. Exhibit 10) was issued on April 20, 2011. At the time the landowners had neither allowed nor disallowed the use of the property for parking by the Hawai`i Community Correctional Facility. Upon receipt of Violation No. 2011-036E, the landowners gated the property to prevent parking and the violation was closed on May 31, 2011 (P.D. Exhibit 11). 8. 2011 Change of Zone Application: In 2011, Hilo Medical Center submitted an application to rezone the subject property from the RS-7.5 to CN-7.5 zoning district to establish a parking lot. Hilo Medical Center proposed to create a pedestrian-only access between the subject property and adjacent medical center property, with vehicular access from the subject property to Punahele Street. The Planning Department initially recommended approval but then upon receipt of testimony from adjacent neighbors and the community association (Hala`i Kumiai), recommended disapproval of the rezone request. The Planning Commission recommended disapproval of the rezone request and the applicant withdrew the request before it was transmitted to the County Council. See Exhibits B and C of the Application for the Planning Department's recommendation and revised recommendation to the Planning Commission. -4- STATE AND COUNTY PLANS 9. State Land Use District: Urban. 10. General Plan LUPAG Map Designation: Medium Density Urban. 11. County Zoning: Single-Family Residential -7,500 square feet(RS-7.5). 12. Hilo Community Development Plan: The Hilo CDP, adopted by Resolution No. 1 on May 21, 1975, identifies the area as RS-7.5 zoning. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA 13. Subject Property: The property is a vacant, rectangular-shaped lot, which gently slopes downward from southwest to northeast. The property has been fenced/gated, grubbed and graded and has occasionally been used as an unimproved parking area. There is a 435-square foot easement fronting Punahele Street in favor of the Department of Water Supply for a water meter box. A waterline and private sewer line that serves the adjacent Punahele Professional Building runs through the length of the property to Punahele Street. 14. Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning: There are five properties on the south side of Punahele Street that are zoned RS-7.5, which are part of the 7-lot Hala`i Kopa`a Subdivision that was created in 1967. Except for the subject property, these lots are all developed with single-family dwellings. The adjacent properties to the south are zoned CN-10 and are developed with the Punahele Professional Building and Pu`u Honu medical building. Access to these buildings is from Pu`u Honu Place. The Hawai`i Community Correctional Facility is located to the north directly across Punahele Street and is zoned RS-7.5. 15. Flood Zone: Zone X, an area determined by FEMA to be outside the 500-year flood plain. 16. Flora/Fauna: No professional floral or faunal survey was conducted of the site because it has been graded and there is no vegetation on the property. 17. Archaeological/Cultural/Historical Resources: An archaeological assessment of the property was conducted by PHRI in July of 2006. The assessment concluded that no -5- archaeological resources were identified on the property. By letter dated February 20, 2007, the State Department of Land and Natural Resources-State Historic Preservation Division issued a letter stating that DLNR-SHPD finds that the report is acceptable and that no historic properties will be affected by development of the property. 18. Public Access: There is no public access to the mountains or the shoreline that traverses the property. 19. Traffic: The applicant anticipates less than 50 peak hour trips would be generated if a parking lot is developed on the site. As the parking lot is intended for Hilo Medical Center employees only, no client traffic is anticipated. UTILITIES AND SERVICES 20. Access: Access to the property is from Punahele Street, which is a 2-lane paved County roadway within a 40-foot wide right-of-way. The General Plan identifies Punahele Street as a collector street which requires a minimum right-of-way width of 60 feet, thus a 10- foot wide future road widening strip along the property frontage would be required to meet the collector standard in the General Plan. The Department of Public Works recommends improvements along the property frontage of Punahele Street to include curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement widening within the future road widening strip. There is a gate on the property at the gravel driveway from Punahele Street. The applicant is proposing a pedestrian-only access between the subject property and adjacent Punahele Professional Building property. 21. Water: County water is available from an existing 8-inch waterline fronting the property along Punahele Street. The 8-inch waterline is not capable of providing the required pressure of 2,000 gallons per minute of water flow for fire protection for commercial zoning. The property is currently served by a 5/8-inch water meter limited to an average daily usage of 400 gallons. If an irrigation system is to be installed within the proposed parking lot, a reduced pressure type backflow prevention assembly must be installed within five feet of the meter on private property. -6- 22. Wastewater: A County sewer line runs along Punahele Street fronting the property. Should the property be developed with a land use that generates wastewater, the applicant will be required to connect to the County sewer system. 23. Solid Waste: There are no municipal waste collection services in the County. All solid waste generated by development of the property will require private disposal at the Hilo landfill. 24. Utilities and Services: All essential utilities and services are available to the property. Police, fire and medical services are available nearby in Hilo. AGENCY COMMENTS PROVIDED 25. Department of Water Supply: P.D. Exhibit 12-May 7, 2014 memo 26. Department of Public Works- Engineering Division: P.D. Exhibit 13- May 7, 2014 memo 27. Police Department: P.D. Exhibit 14- April 22, 2014 memo 28. Department of Environmental Management- Wastewater Division: P.D. Exhibit 15- . April 28, 2014 memo 29. Department of Health: P.D. Exhibit 16- April 25, 2014 memo AGENCIES -NO COMMENTS OR OBJECTIONS 30. Fire Depaitnient, Depail►iient of Environmental Management- Solid Waste Division. AGENCIES -NO RESPONSE 31. Real Property Tax Office. PUBLIC COMMENTS 32. P.D. Exhibit 17- Letter dated April 20, 2014 from Mr. and Mrs. Daniel & Cherie Grant-Johnson. 33. P.D. Exhibit 18-Letter dated May 8, 2014 from the Hala`i Kumiai -7- § 25-5-100 HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE Division 10. CN,Neighborhood Commercial Districts. Section 25-5-100.Purpose and applicability. Tne CN(neighborhood commercial)district applies to strategically located centers suitable for commercial activities which shall be of such size and shape as will accommodate a compact shopping center which supplies goods and services to a residential or working population on a frequent need or convenience basis. This district is distinguished from a central commercial district which provides general business and broad services to a city or region. (1996, Ord.No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-101.Designation of CN districts. Each CN(neighborhood commercial) district shall be designated by the symbol"CN"followed by a number which indicates the minimum land area, in thousands of square feet, required for each building site. (1996,Ord.No. 96-160,sec. 2;ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-102.Permitted uses. (a) The following uses shall be permitted in the CN district: (1) Adult day care homes. (2) Automobile service stations. (3) Bed and breakfast establishments, as permitted under section 25-4-7. (4) Boarding facilities, rooming, or lodging houses,provided that the maximum density shall be one thousand two hundred fifty square feet of land area per rentable unit or dwelling unit. (5) Business services. (6) Cemeteries and mausoleums,as permitted under chapter 6,article 1 of this Code. (7) Churches,temples and synagogues. (8) Community buildings, as permitted under section 25-4-11. (9) Convenience stores. (10) Crematoriums, funeral homes, funeral services, and mortuaries. (11) Crop production. (12) Day care centers. (13) Dwellings,double-family or duplex,provided that the maximum density shall be one thousand two hundred fifty square feet of land area per rentable unit or dwelling unit. (14) Dwellings,multiple-family,provided that the maximum density shall be one thousand two hundred fifty square feet of land area per rentable unit or dwelling unit. (15) Dwellings, single-family. (16) Family child care homes. (17) Farmers markets.When the vending activity in a farmers market involves more than just the sale of local fresh and/or raw produce,plant life, fish and local homegrown and homemade products for more than two days a week,the director, at the time of plan approval, shall restrict the hours of use, maintenance and operations and may require improvements as determined appropriate to ensure its compatibility with the existing character of the surrounding area. (18) Financial institutions. (19) Group living facilities. (20) Home occupations, as permitted under section 25-4-13. (21) Medical clinics. (22) Meeting facilities. (23) Model homes, as permitted under section 25-4-8. Planning Dept. Exhibit § 25-5-102 HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE (24) Museums. (25) Neighborhood parks,playgrounds,tennis courts, swimming pools,and similar neighborhood recreational areas and uses. (26) Offices. (27) Personal services. (28) Photography studios. (29) Public uses and structures, as permitted under section 25-4-11. (30) Repair establishments, minor. (31) Restaurants. (32) Retail establishments. (33) Schools. (34) Telecommunication antennas, as permitted under section 25-4-12. (35) Theaters. (36) Utility substations as permitted under Section 25-4-11. (b) Buildings and uses nonnally considered directly accessory to the uses permitted in this section shall also be permitted in the CN district. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999; Am. 2012,Ord. No. 12-28, sec. 12.) Section 25-5-103.Height limit. The height limit in the CN district shall be forty feet. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2;ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-104.Minimum building site area. The minimum building site area in the CN district shall be seven thousand five hundred square feet. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-105.Minimum building site average width. Each building site in the CN district shall have a minimum average width of sixty feet. (1996,Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2;ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-106.Minimum yards. The minimum yards in the CN district shall be as follows: (1) Front and rear yards, fifteen feet; and (2) Side yards,none, except where the adjoining building site is in an RS, RD, RM,RCX or V district. Where the side yard adjoins the side yard of a building site in an RS, RD, RM,RCX or V district,there shall be a side yard which conforms to the side yard requirements for dwelling use of the adjoining district. (1996, Ord.No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-107.Landscaping of yards. (a) All front yards in the CN district shall be landscaped, except for necessary access drives and walkways, and except for the construction of one single-family dwelling and accessory buildings per lot. (b) Where any required side or rear yard in the CN district adjoins a building site in an RS, RD, RM or RCX district,the side or rear yard shall be landscaped with a screening hedge not less than forty-two inches in height, within five feet of the property line, except for necessary drives and walkways, and except for the construction of one single-family dwelling and accessory buildings per lot. (1996, Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2;ratified April 6, 1999; Am. 2005, Ord.No. 05-155, sec. 10.) § 25-5-108 HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE Section 25-5-108. Other regulations. (a) In conjunction with plan approval,the director may require the construction of a continuous eave overhanging the front property line in the CN district.The director may also require that the eave be of similar height and design in any one block of the CN district. (b) Plan approval shall be required for all new structures and additions to existing structures in the CN district, except for construction of one single-family dwelling and any accessory buildings per lot. (c) Exceptions to the regulations for the CN district regarding heights, building site areas,building site average widths and yards, may be approved by the commission within a planned unit development. (1996, Ord.No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999; Am. 2005, Ord. No. 05-155, sec. 11; Am. 2015, Ord. No. 15-33, sec. 4.) SidneyFuke, Plariv j Consultant ` 100 Pauahi Street,Suite 212•Hilo, Hawaii 96720 •Planning•Variance•Zoning A#Fr _ Telephone:(808)969-1522•Cell:(808)989-0640 •Subdivision•Land Use Permits E-mail:sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net •Environmental Reports March 27,2014 Mr.Duane Kanuha,Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAII 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 • Dear Mr. Kanuha: •. . Subject: Rezoning Application—Hilo Medical Center Punahoa 2m1,South Hilo,Hawai'i,TMK: 2-3-035: 018 Transmitted herewith for your review and processing is a.renewal of a rezoning application for 9,230 square feet of land to allow the construction of a25+parking lot on the subject property for its existing and future employees located on the adjoining parcel. The subject site fronts the south side of Punahele Street, approximately 200 feet makai of its intersection with Komohana Street. The transmittal includes the a) original and twenty(20) sets of the application and environmental report; b)processing fee of$500; c) list of surrounding property owners within three hundred(300)feet of the subject parcel; d)real property tax clearance form; and e) metes and bounds description. A letter from the SHPD affirming that no historic properties would be affected is also found in the report. As your records will indicate, a similar application was submitted and subsequently withdrawn on November 18, 2011. The thought was to give the applicant to address some of the concerns raised in the Department's recommendation on this matter. You will note that the application now consists of a letter of no objection and/or support of this request from one of the adjoining property owners. I am also enclosing a copy of an undated letter of support from another property owner along Punahele Street provided me on March 24 by the owner of the subject property. In the hopes of providing a heightened level of medical services to the community in a convenient manner,the applicant-Hilo Medical Center-has relied upon the buildings and - facilities at the Punahele Professional Center. In addition to providing outpatient surgical services, this area now provides orthopedic and urology services and houses HMC's billing services. Future plans include pediatric outpatient services. Understandably, while parking for patrons are available,parking for those staffing these services are at a premium, given the absence of off-street parking in this area. The proposed parking lot will help address this need and, in turn,the provision of community medical services. �' - T,_ IWO 1116 2 '1 Planning Dept- Exhibit_.2_____ ( ( Mr. Duane Kanuha, Director March 27, 2014 Page 2 As outlined in the report,the applicant intends to take mitigative measures that address concerns raised by one of the neighbors. We trust that everything is in order for your acceptance and processing of this application. If not or if there are questions relating to this matter,please feel free to direct them to me. Thank you very much. incerrely, � Vl \I\I\A,) SIDNEY M. FUKE Planning Consultant Enclosures Copy—Mr. Howard Ainsley, Hilo Medical Center w/enclosures _�i:a i F:' tr..a,2 i:-Y , 6' riv ilttt Mr. Sidney Fuke OF,P i Sidney Fuke Planning Consultant 100 Aupuni Street, Suite 212 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Fuke: Re: Rezoning of TMK: (3) 2-3-035:18 49 Punahele Street Please allow this letter to express my wholehearted support for the rezoning of TMK: (3)2-3-035:018, located at 49 Punahele Street, Hilo, Hawai`i, to allow for employee parking for the Puuhonu Medical Complex. I am a neighboring resident and do understand the congestion and lack of parking in the medical complex area. I support the efforts of the landowners in trying to make this parking available, rather than requiring the County to deal with this problem on its own. I do not believe this request will create significant impact for our neighborhood. Sincerely you 77 I A6 0907Pi APPLICATION FOR COUNTY REZONING (RS-7.5 to CN-7.5) HILO MEDICAL CENTER Punahoa 2", South Hilo, Hawaii TMK: (3) 2-3-035: 018 Prepared For: Hilo Medical Center Prepared By: Sidney M. Fuke, Planning Consultant March 2014 CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT (Type or legibly print the requested information) APPLICANT: Hilo Medical Center .LLQ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: ` e { �� ` / DATEf {i ;' ADDRESS: 1196Waianuenue Avenue -` Hilo, Hawaii 96720 LIST APPLICANT'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER: LIST PRINCIPAL(S) INCLUDING NAMES OF MAIN OFFICERS: Howard N. Ainsley PHONE:(Bus.) (808) 974-4727 (Res.) (Fax) LANDOWNER(S): GELOCAG LANDOWNER SIGNATURE(S): - DATE: J 14 (May be by letter) LANDOWNER(S) ADDRESS: 2: anoelani Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 _ REQUEST: Single Family Residential (RS- ,TO Commercial Neighborhood (CN-7.5) (Existing zoning) (Proposed Zoning) TAX MAP KEY: (3) 2-3-035: 018 STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 49 Punahele Street Hilo, HI 96720 SIZE OF PROPERTY OR AFFECTED AREA(S) TO BE REZONED: 9,230 square feet AGENT: Sidney M. Fuke, Planning Consultant ADDRESS: 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 Hilo, H1 96720 TELEPHONE:(Bus.) 969-1522 (Res.) (Fax) Please indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sent. 000722 ORIGINAL: Sidney Puke COPIES: Hilo Medical Center ATTACHMENT Commercial, RM, Resort, & Industrial PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HAWAII APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE 1 . if your request is approved, do you intend to subdivide the subject land in accordance with the approved change of zone? No If yes, please answer the rest of question I and then to question 3. a. How many acres of the requested area do you intend to subdivide? b. Into what lot sizes? c. if your request is approved, approximately how long after the date of approval do you expect to submit your subdivision plans to the Planning Department for preliminary approval? If you intend to subdivide, please submit a preliminary schematic subdivision plan together with your change of zone application form. 2. If you nave no firm plans of subdividing the subject area, do you intend to: a. Sell or lease the land to someone who has fiLm plans? No b. Sell or lease the land to someone who has tentative plans? No c. Sell or lease the land to someone who has no plans? No d. Keep it? Yes e. other (please state) f. If you intend to do either a, b, or c, please elaborate on the kind of plans the other party has. Please, also, include in your answer approximately how soon after approval of your rezoning do you expect to transfer the subject land to another party. N/A 3. What specific building plans do you have for the subject land? Include in your answer the following: type of building (apartment, office, launderette, etc. ) ; financing arrangement; timetable for construction; and any other information which you feel might help us in evaluating your request. Use the property as a parking lot. 4. Have you performed any study which would demonstrate a need for your proposed building and/or development? No if so, please elaborate on your findings in the space provided below. -2- 5. Have you performed any study which discusses the environmental impacts your request would nave on the surrounding area and/or the County? Yes If so, please elaborate on your findings in the space provided below. Please refer to accompanying planning and environmental report 6. Are there any buildings on the subject area? No If so, what kind? What do you intend to do with those buildings if your request is approved? 7. Is the subject land currently being used for any agricultural activity? No if so, please list the kinds of products grown on and how many square feet or acres of land per product? -3- 8. To your knowledge, has there been any flooding and/or drainage problem on the subject area? No If so, please describe the problem. 9. Do you think that the roads leading to the subject area needs improvement? No If so, what kind? Is the road adequate for the proposed traffic volume or load? Yes 10. What sort of governmental assistance and/or improvements do you feel will be needed in the subject area when developed? yes NO a. Schools x b. Roads c . Sewer x d. Drainage x e. Police Protection x f. Fire Protection g. Recreational Facilities x h. Recreational Facilities i. -4- For those checked "yes, " please elaborate what type or kinds of improvements and/or assistance are needed. 11. Have you performed any historic sites study and/or survey of the subject area? If so, what were the results? Please, also, submit a copy of the study together with this change of zone supplement. Historic study done earlier;no further studies done,as the site is already disturbed. Signature: Address: 1190 aianuenue Ave Hilo,HI 96720 Telephone: 974-4727 Date: March 11,2014 -5- 6338A/50A P. D. 5/84 COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT APPLICATION COUNTY REZONING REQUEST (RS-7.5) to CN-7.5) HILO MEDICAL CENTER PUNAHOA 2ND, SOUTH HILO, HAWAI'I TAX MAP KEY: (3) 2-3-035: 018 I. INTRODUCTION The applicant, Hilo Medical Center ("HMC"), presently owns 30% of Punahele Professional Building, commonly referred to as the "Hilo Surgery Center" and is the largest tenant/owner of that building. It also occupies about 20% of an adjacent building fronting Pu'u Honu Place which was formerly occupied by Straub Clinic. (For the sake of this application, this building is being referred to as the "Pu'u Honu Professional Building.") HMC wishes to expand its outpatient surgical facilities as well as provide supportive medical offices and services at this location. As such, it is in the process of negotiating the lease or purchase of the entire building. While there is on-site parking that satisfies the minimum requirements of the Zoning Code, HMC projects that additional parking proximate to these buildings is still needed for the convenience of its patients and guests. To accommodate this demand, it would like to have its staff park in a designated area proximate to but away from these buildings. In that regard, in conjunction with its planned acquisition of the Pu'u Honu Professional Building, HMC is proposing to acquire and improve an adjoining 9,230 square foot parcel fronting Punahele Street for staff parking. As this site is zoned Single-Family Residential (RS-7.5), the applicant is proposing to have it rezoned to Commercial Neighborhood (CN-7.5). The CN-7.5 designation is being requested, as the requested area is less than 10,000 square feet. A similar rezoning application was filed May 25, 2011. The application was subsequently withdrawn on November 25, 2011. The applicant believed that additional time was needed to address concerns raised during the course of the staff and public's review of the application. The applicant believes that much of the concerns can be addressed and hence is resubmitting the application for consideration. II. PROJECT LOCATION The subject property, consisting of 9,230 square feet, is located at 49 Punahele Street. More specifically, it is located on the south side of Punahale Street, across of the Hawai'i Community Correctional Facility. The intersection of Komohana Street and Punahele Street is located 1 approximately 200 feet to the west. It is situated within the land division of Punahoa 2nd, South Hilo, TMK: 2-3-035:018. (Figures 1 and 2) III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Property Land Use History In 2007, the Association of Apartment Owners of Punahele Professional Building ("AOAO") submitted an application to rezone the subject site into the CN-10 district for a parking lot. The AOAO maintained that the 95-stall parking lot for the Punahele Professional Building was insufficient for both its patrons and staff and hence wanted to convert the subject site for parking. Although recommended for approval by both the Planning Director and Planning Commission (Exhibit A), the County Council did not approve of the request. Since that time, HMC has expanded its medical care in this area and wants to expand it even further with the planned acquisition of up to 75% of the Pu'u Honu Professional Building. This expansion, however, would be more feasible only with the provision of additional parking stalls for its staff. If successful, HMC would own and occupy significant portions of both the Pu'u Honu Professional Building and the Punahele Professional Building. As such, the current applicant is HMC and not the AOAO. The subject site is unimproved and has been periodically and • informally used by visitors to and staff of the Hawaii Community Correctional Facility. Over the past few years, the landowner neither allowed nor disallowed the use of this area for parking. However, upon receipt of a notice of violation, dated April 20, 2011, from the Planning Director, the landowner has since gated this area, thereby preventing its informal parking use. As noted earlier, this property has a land use entitlement history. Specifically: • In 2007, a similar application for the same use was filed by the landowner (Association of Apartment Owners of Punahele Professional Building (AOAO) • On April 5, 2007, the Planning Commission —for the reasons outlined in the Planning Director's favorable recommendation — favorably recommended passage of the request to the County Council. (Exhibit A) 2 I cidress Pupate vt .664 Get the at1 arse Googie � tfif�a, Ht 9�&72t1 P `'' R , f E ,baa?f, 3'i�c .r -� a"- ,� ( - £' ,.' .moi kit: v ,' ';' ''''''' ''. i S � � �P r a i . .-* '14 w kyu 7i7 Ya ly i�'S5.3 II 7 r • f� � 4 ' m It , Koh i � }( 0030 1 " xi2tf� 11°64291e- ..., Figure 1 `s.... { sal . • . Y �[ i Y I 3 9 o-c .`,., y 1 . q f id — iv ti / Q 0 _ 111 1 i` \ t �`y S • L � O(} I . • 111h .� yg —--4.''"7"-. • li .�[..( --------- ,. L_l • _ .. , I fid) I)) � • A • - . . b . . .• .. _ , . L , , . . . ,, . i�.. • a t Y' ' fry i,.,.„w. 4 r, . .. . ,.®. . F �_ , ;4 • . , . • 3 O" 4,64�{ om;'L' ANOHnnd •N,1X3 t33bls •- ~, NN fr... ' i" iii J3 C'D . ,. / • Rn . f • ' i 1: • ' Z it I r 4- 4 Jit ,ir � L • • G J } :3 • J o ' o < C a J Y y♦ 1 � V • //4`"'-' r- WAIMINA KAGE,, • ' © " 1 .t ,, t ‘,- k 1- 1.11-, i . . . �' z ~ 4 i Tn 0 i l 4'14 z.4-a• ,Fi 7: i 11; / o . U .t � F'r %'Y♦ i it r �.x� � �_ i o ai STREET NOONANA r+- E2 1 i- rr sf ' r% z •4 _ C 0 4 - Figure 2 . • On October 3, 2007, the Council Planning Committee elected not to forward a favorable recommendation to the full Council. • A similar rezoning application was filed May 25, 2011 this time by the Hilo Medical Center and not the landowner. The Planning Department initially recommended its approval. (Exhibit B) However, it subsequently submitted a revised recommendation, one recommending its denial. (Exhibit C) The applicant subsequently withdrew its application on November 25, 2011. As will be noted herein, the applicant believes that the concerns noted within the Planning Department's unfavorable recommendation can be addressed. B. Project Concept As noted earlier, the applicant, HMC, is proposing to increase its medical presence in this area with its planned lease/acquisition of up to 75% of the Pu'u Honu Professional Building. Part of this expansion, however, will require the provision of additional parking for the applicant's staff. As such, HMC is in the process of negotiating the acquisition of the subject site for staff parking. The location of the two existing buildings (Pu'u Honu Professional Building is identified as New Building "A", and New Building "B"" for the Punahele Professional Building) and the proposed employee parking lot (identified as the "bubbled" area) is shown in Figure 3. The subject site would yield approximately 24-26 parking stalls. Although the site plan (Figure 4) reflects 20 stalls, it was predicated upon having a road connection to the complex of medical buildings. However, to minimize traffic going through this area and to have better control of the parking lot, the concept of a proposed connection was deleted. In its place, there would be space for an additional 4-6 parking stalls. HMC's staff usually works between 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m, Monday to Friday and some weekends. The use of the parking lot would generally correspond to these hours. Should the rezoning request be approved, the applicant will improve this area into a fully paved and striped parking area. Construction plans will be prepared and submitted to the appropriate County agencies for review and approval prior to commencement of the work. Furthermore, landscaping adjoining the east and west property 3 II 81 B 91"S.4 z'1.12 can`XFrl ILtF.b 1[sM14i•Oivl i ca+.��v w•F.a.. t 3 Y� �, �':dF 5v^Ib1 14V-1-Tv' aavDvx •a MYR=1 t cxgp l�2 , I I r $ r N\$ $ a ,„,-7,/ (1NOW?,I ld ..:" • \ I a\fib �'F' k 1ce I i N 1 •�PlT1`Nfll� 1. I y I It III: f ;I ' , 11 th. i jI Bdundary of Subject Property . tr. 7 eezlp:au7 \ I '�� 1 f rev: a sty:— F•? Ric.i tY , p N ' �.I. f ) ( - Jam-- 4*4, : -. Y'i. �ryj 1 � I • CV CD 04 0 14 0,0 I I \ • ►ate . ...i i - . .. :, , . .., � � C \9 c� \ • I • us p ' LEEE— — \`\\\\ d ik 1 1 . sc— IiI ,�,�..��1 1111111 { „ e .bY , . T 40,L • .Duos— .rs I1 , ,' '' Delete Access Point s $ I I I; I • 1 ► '. • 4,t-.'' i /. .L.ZT�.S }{ Figure 3 - --e ' ... . ,-, • 1.••,-.„-- 0 % ; 62:: -cf-' rx ; o CS So\ ..,.‘'ilk.' ,,,,IE.,•i h 4 4 .\ ...1 • Z g „, 21 -4 -1 1 I.. Q f 1-' 4 if 4' r 2 Xq.'” T -Iq 8 V 4.<..27.-..._- // ,-§ i p . -4 i I 1 ' ' 2... i2 ; , ii 0 2,:, ... .. ,4113 1, _____ igH eg, 1 Z z 4 i 0 kb )b ta ^ L.-.-- bk4a4i f":"="''' _ ;:---'-- tb s It IL z 1 .5' -.• ..7.`''S:..514.*Attl..,:*. ,1, %'1 '.3. ..( 0 V ll..1 I ‹ ei I .,..,444,.,:04, -.0.-...d•,',1*..-.-- '4.-A.-vill i .e... () fA,0 it-z1J0`>". 5 • I N m ' . . 17,-r.Zfit.,11'.•L.'4_'t"i',." -.'.1-e-.1:2-,r cw ri--f-4-4 i 1° 1 ' , -- _ w 11, 1 a ,....,,,,,.., -F-...,awkol,--,141:,-- ,..-,,^,•--V ", 4:-.-1 1 1 v},,,it.T4t1 ,3/4'kr If'424- .,c ,,,,,•,. 4...e.4,1? P 0 ft_ K o 11- P(- ' Or'••-1.-nr.'-'z-",- --$`1 t.r.,t,ft.'.),A,-..., •A.,,,AA., , 1: I-- k v!-11- p§ . I \ -F-----2----"--- I 4 ',-.4--1',.*-44*--,,kirNlet,', ,e,Ct,r,,6',,,,"V„..4, n r i k•L -1 V.:i:54,%,zt.4%,,F;-.1.:>4-ay."ci- -""lti•-•77P,v,,Z;k'N i ,.., k3 >. , i \ 1 I „. ..,. ,,4,„...,-, .„„,..,-..— ,,,,m,„.,.,„ . 1‘,--:,,..,.,,,,,!-___,;...2.40.1,,,,,,,,,,,,,, -:,,,,,,,,,,t,,,,,* f'0. 1 - ,w4.0.16,,,n,,,,,,,,o-re,,,,„-.4/4;„4,,,,,,, ...z ,.,- 'al WI ' < 0 IN z -1 V .-3 <I- ,, IQ .. ..,•44,047, , ,,,,- -4 a '6 9 i - ir s.:\ 'A.'s M-Fi. s.,,kn.iit.4,- ;.,.v.g,. 1 :1 5 f. • , *.,',Xk'..z7;,:.^R...-.-,..;.....- -,-;,..---k,-.0.,,..,-.k.:10-7,1z. 111 \ ; 1 4AYtc,14,2SVktente.:a'ie4;,-Y41* k) 0 i-isj N , 1 q41,7-1,V.111,1W=4.,W4,v 3: •,,,,Ii.7.4(-171,ir,1R-V-:ss'at g 1 mplit.;J:551-izIlivi.A.W3ttlA ..., .,.. 2. 49-Z•c •-',,•-f-'f.f..4,---,--e,,--,,i7,...r.'-'14,-,,.plo, ,, z ,s i ,_ ;4e0, ;"4,7 ,.. :,1"-4-::" --e--,4-01,4riV ill ft i , 1 , ---- , -.. ,,.: A fn Ihk I ,a I *1, hifek;ii'.:)!--14-11'-'''.1.?,-4-h's - •. " •°;' i if i , 2 k 000 .'la%76,. -17,41 1111 ' ) _. ._ __ I1Z ‘..::,}.tass;Zsa-,'Tiajnla4V,11,1 R i 2/I 0 ev,.....s.51 641.7x3 % 0 - i P 04 0 vt 7-. 6 it I ; , , • , 0 •at. gi U1 Ir. a V it — 1,-61 • • III 61-141 a- 1 ° . -......,,....-,--2 6........,r r^c.-Ar" 11 IL; 0111 X I D_ Figure 4 1 1 boundaries will be provided to minimize impacts to the neighboring properties. At this time, no lighting within the parking lot is being proposed. The applicant intends to have the lot gated after hours. At this time, the applicant is unsure whether this property would be consolidated with the adjoining Punahele Professional Building lot (TMK: 2-3-35:042). Even if the lots were consolidated, there still would be no direct vehicular access between these two parcels. C. Project Timetable and Costs The applicant intends to secure the required construction plan approval and begin making the appropriate improvements within 6 months of the rezoning approval. Hopefully, this can be done by the early part of next year, with completion 30-60 days thereafter. The applicant estimates the improvements to cost $100,000. IV. INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS A. State Land Use The subject property is designated Urban. As such, no State Land Use boundary amendment is required to accommodate the proposed CN-7.5 zoning request. B. County General Plan The County General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map designates the site Medium Density. As such, a General Plan amendment to the LUPAG map would not be required. Relative to the Medium Density designation, the General Plan allows consideration for "Village and neighborhood commercial and residential and related functions (3-story commercial; residential- up to 35 units per acre." The requested zoning and planned uses would be consistent with the uses envisioned within the Medium Density area. C. Hilo Community Development Plan ("CDP") The Community Development Plan (CDP) attempts to further define the General Plan and serves as a guide for decision-makers. It was adopted by the Planning Commission in 1975, over 25 years ago. Although reviewed by the County Council, the CDP was never adopted. 4 The CDP's Land Use Concept map identifies a RS/RM PUD designation for this area. Although the proposed uses are not residential, it should be noted that requested CN-7.5 zoning would allow single and multi-family residential uses. Notwithstanding the technical inconsistency, however, it should be noted that the General Plan has been amended three (3) times, and much has occurred in the way of development in Hilo and its outlying areas. Accordingly, some of the planning assumptions reflected in the CDP are obsolete. An updated CDP would be timely. Absent the availability of a relevant intermediary planning document, one must rely only on the General Plan LUPAG map and policies. In the end, the General Plan is more critical, as the County Charter requires all zone changes to be consistent with it. D. County Zoning The County zoning of the requested area is Single Family Residential (RS-7.5). If the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-7.5) request were approved, all related land use and development codes such as Plan Approval, landscaping, and the like would be complied with by the applicant. E. Other Permitting Considerations The site is not located within the County Special Management Area (SMA). As such, no SMA Use Permit would be required. However, as noted earlier, other construction-related permits would still be required. These would be of the "ministerial" variety, such as Plan Approval, grading permit, and the like. V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS A. General Description The 9,230 square foot parcel is rectangular in shape. Its width is 71 feet, with a length of 130 feet. The land gently slopes in a northeasterly direction with an average grade difference of no more than 5%. The site is vacant of any structures and has been used in the recent past as an unimproved parking area. There is a 345-square foot easement fronting Punahele Street in favor of the Department of Water Supply for a water meter box. There are also water and sewer lines that bisect the subject property from the adjoining Punahele Professional Building to Punahele Street. (See Figure 4) 5 B. Climate, Soil and Topography According to the State Commission on Water Resource Management, the nearest rain gauge in this area is the Hilo Airport. The rainfall data of this gauge notes that over the past 37 years, the annual median rainfall for this area was 131.1 inches. The wetter months tend to occur between October through April. The average daily temperature ranges from a minimum of 61 degrees to a maximum of 79 degrees Fahrenheit. Wind patterns are generally tradewinds (easterly) during the day and westerly or mountain winds during the evenings. The property's elevation is approximately 300 feet above mean sea level. There are no perceptible topographic or geologic constraints on the subject site. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (now known as the Natural Resource Conservation Service) Land Study Bureau Overall Master Productivity Rating designates this site of the Hilo Series. This Series is characterized by well-drained, silty clay loam soil. The surface layer is about 12 inches, while the subsoil is about 48 inches. Permeability is rapid, runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard slight. Because the site is part of a built up urban area, the University of Hawai'i Land Study Bureau Overall Master Productivity Rating map does not classify this site and immediate surrounding areas. Likewise, the site is not classified under the Agriculture Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) classification system. Thus, the State's classification system does not recognize this site as being agriculturally important. C. Natural Hazards 1. Drainage The Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) identifies the subject area to be within Zone X (areas outside of 500-year flood). As there will be an added level of impervious surface resulting from the proposed parking lot, there may be an issue relating to potential increased run-off. In that event, drywell(s) or similar type of accommodations will be implemented, subject to the review and approval of the Department of Public Works and State Department of Health via the Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit process. With the proposed on-site drainage improvements, all potential drainage and/or flooding issues could be reasonably addressed and mitigated. 6 2. Tsunami Hazard Given its elevation (300+ feet) and distance from the nearest shoreline (1± miles), it is located outside of the Civil Defense's Tsunami Evacuation Zone. Thus, there should be little or no threat from high waves. 3. Volcanic and Earthquake Hazards The United States Geological Survey (USGS) classifies the subject site as Lava Flow Hazard Zone 3, on a scale of ascending risk, 9 to 1. This designation applies to all of Hilo There is very little that can be done to protect structures and improvements on the site from lava flows. Relative to protection of life, however, this would be achieved through the evacuation routes and warning systems provided by the County Civil Defense agency. Such notices will be prominently placed within the existing office buildings. Nevertheless, as this site is intended for parking, the impact of lava flows should not be as pronounced as habitable properties. The entire island of Hawaii falls within Earthquake Zone D, according to the County Building Code. The proposed parking lot will not be subject to a building permit, and hence, this provision is not applicable. D. Faunal and Floral Resources Although there was no professional survey conducted of the faunal resources of the site, the applicant does not believe that rare or endangered faunal resources are likely to be found within or proximate to the subject site. This is due to the site having been graded in the recent past and used as an unimproved parking lot. The surrounding area is also developed residentially or other public-related type of uses. With the absence of vegetation on the site, the parcel should not provide a habitat for any rare or endangered bird or animal species. It should also be noted that the faunal resources of this specific area are somewhat typical of other neighboring areas. One may thus find bird species such as the Spotted Dove, Japanese White-eye, House Finch, Common Myna, and the like. Domestic animals such as cats and dogs, and other animals like rats and mongoose are also common. None of these are endangered. As such, it is unlikely that the development of this property would cause any adverse faunal or floral impacts. E. Historic/Cultural/Archaeological Resources In conjunction with the 2007 rezoning application, an archaeological assessment was conducted by PHRI. In a letter, dated February 20, 2007, the State Department of Land and Natural Resources— Historic Preservation Division accepted the report and concluded that no historic properties would be affected by the proposed development of this site. (Exhibit D) Nonetheless, during the course of further improving the site, should any unanticipated archaeological features or sites be uncovered, work will cease and the applicant will immediately notify the Planning Department. F. Valued Cultural Resources The recent Hawaii State Supreme Court's "PASH" and "Ka Pa'akai O Ka'Aina"decisions require decision-makers to consider a project's impact to native Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights. Specifically, there must be a discussion of the cultural, historical, and natural resources and associated traditional and customary practices of this site and the impact of this project to these resources and practices. In this situation, the subject site is not adjacent and/or proximate to the shoreline. As such, fishing and coastal access is not an issue. Furthermore, there are no known endemic or threatened plants on the site, particularly as most of the site has had its vegetation removed. Furthermore, neither the applicant nor the landowner has observed any native Hawaiians gathering plants within or proximate to the subject site in the recent past. As such, it would appear very unlikely that the site would serve as a place for gathering of plants or worship. Nonetheless, if legitimate claims are made and proven, the applicant and/or landowner will make the appropriate access accommodations. Based on the above, it does not appear that the project would have any potential adverse impacts relating to native Hawaiian cultural and historical resources and/or practices. G. Water and Coastal Resources The subject site is located over a mile from the coastline. As such, coastal impacts resulting from discharge of drainage systems from the site should not be significant. Being a non-coastal property, no coastal access will be affected. 8 The proposed use is a parking lot and will thus not generate any wastewater needs. Further as noted earlier, prior to the installation or use of any drywells on the site to address on-site drainage concerns, the appropriate UIC permit from the State will be taken. At that time, impacts to water and coastal resources will be carefully examined. F. Noise, Air Quality, and Dust The existing background ambient noise level in this area is wind, foliage, birds, and the like. However, the significant manmade noise is influenced by the traffic associated along both Punahele Street and Komohana Street. With the traffic, the noise level, particularly from Komohana Street, is relatively high, averaging 55 Ldn and higher during peak hour traffic. There are single-family residences on the east and west side of the subject site. As such, to mitigate noise and related impacts to these properties, the applicant intends to work with the homeowners to plan and implement appropriate buffers (such as fence) and landscaping. Then, too, the parking lot will be secured nightly, thus minimizing vandalism and nocturnal noise. There will be short-term noise impacts during the construction phase. To mitigate this impact, the development of this project will be limited to daylight hours and on weekdays. Contractors will also be required to comply with established State Department of Health guidelines and standards relating to noise and emission controls. It is anticipated that this work could be completed within a month. The proposed development should not generate any direct air quality impacts. As the project itself is not expected to have uses that generate adverse air pollutants, the only discernible air quality impact would be associated with vehicular traffic to and from the site. While the added traffic will have an impact to the ambient air quality, the impact should not be significant. This is due in part to the higher EPA standards for vehicular air emissions and the prevailing tradewinds. The parking area will be paved with an all-weather, dust free surface. Landscaping will also be required as part of the Plan Approval requirement. As such, with the exception of minimal construction dust in the beginning, long term dust generated by the project should be insignificant. 9 G. Scenic and Visual Considerations In the Natural Beauty element of the General Plan, there are sites or areas listed as scenic resources. The subject site is not listed as a scenic site. However, there are a few examples cited for the Hilo area. The most notable are the backdrop of Mauna Kea and the Hilo Bay. The proposed parking lot should not have any visual impacts of Mauna Kea or Hilo Bay. As the site is located on the Puna or south side of Punahele Street and makai of Komohana Street, the views of Mauna Kea from Punahele and Komohana Streets would not be affected. Relative to Hilo Bay, in the area of the subject site, Hilo Bay is not visible from either Komohana Street or Punahele Street. VI. SOCIAL AND RELATED CONSIDERATIONS A. Surrounding Land Uses The surrounding land uses in this area are a mixture of low to moderately dense residential and commercial uses. While there are a number of single-family residences, there are also a number of commercial medical office buildings in this general area along Komohana and Ponahawai Streets. The Hawai'i Community Correctional Facility is also located directly across of the subject site along Punahele Street. The requested rezoning would be generally consistent with the evolving mixture of commercial and residential land use pattern in this area. Given the residences along the east and west side of the subject site, however, appropriate mitigative measures will be taken. These measures deal principally with landscaping, lighting, hours of use, and access and other matters as will be discussed below. During the course of the construction and operation of the Hilo Surgery Center, there have been concerns raised by some of the neighbors at the developer, its contractors, employees, and rental management agency. These concerns included matters such as the perception of non-fulfillment of representations; display of disrespect; and general lack of concern of its neighbors. Some of these concerns have unfortunately festered and have been directed at the subject request. Since that time, the landowner has reached out to some of the adjoining neighbors. In that regard, one of the neighbors is now openly supportive of the request. (Exhibit E) However, it should be emphasized that it may not be possible to assuage all concerns and/or secure the support of all adjoining property owners, inasmuch as some of the concerns could be historical and personal and not necessarily directly project related. 10 Notwithstanding the above, the applicant and landowner have proposed a number of additional conditions to address the articulated concerns of the immediate neighbors. These include the items outlined in a letter to the Planning Director, dated July 28, 2011. (Exhibit F) Generally, these would be: • Having restrictive covenants that would limit the use of the property for parking only. (This would address the concern of having a use other than the parking lot because of the CN-7.5 zoning.) • Making mitigation improvements such as fence and landscaping along the immediate adjoining properties prior to having the parking lot occupied. • Having rules regarding the terms and hours of use of the parking lot. B. Economic Impacts The requested zoning would have some measure of direct and indirect economic impact, as it would provide short-term employment opportunities for those in the construction and related industries. When completed, however, it would help stabilize and/or should increase the medical uses of the medical offices adjacent to the subject site. In so doing, it would indirectly help with the area's employment situation. A commercial rezoning would also increase the tax revenues to the County. However, there could be some real property tax consequences for the adjoining residentially zoned properties. As the assessed valuation of the subject property rises due to the higher commercial use, there could be some fallout to neighboring properties. However, a landowner who wishes to retain the residential use would have the option of dedicating its land for residential use. C. Agricultural Impacts The subject site has not been used for agricultural purposes for over 50 years. It was vacant and more recently used as an unimproved parking area. Given the urban setting of the site, the agricultural impacts resulting from this rezoning should not be significant. 11 VII. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS A. Road and Traffic The subject site fronts Punahele Street, approximately 200 feet makai of its intersection with Komohana Street. That intersection is not signalized. Punahele Street is a 2-lane County road which serves as a secondary mauka-makai road in this part of Hilo. Waianuenue Avenue and Ponahawai Street are the more significant mauka/makai roads. Punahele Street has a right-of-way of 50 feet with a 20-22-foot wide pavement. This portion of Punahele Street is straight, and the posted speed limit is 20 miles per hour. As such, there is adequate sight distance for ingress and egress movements. While there is an existing driveway, if required, the applicant will make the necessary driveway improvements to meet with the commercial driveway standards. . At the Punahele Street intersection, Komohana Street has a right-of-way of 60 feet. Komohana Street is one of several major north/south roads in the City of Hilo. As such, traffic on Punahele Street must yield to Komohana Street. At this intersection, there are dedicated left and right turn lanes from Komohana Street into Punahale Street. There are left turn/through and right turn lanes for the mauka bound traffic at Punahele Street. The applicant does not anticipate vehicular movements to and from the site to be substantial. With about 25 parking stalls, the projected vehicular movements will be less than the required threshold of 50 vehicular movements for a Traffic Impact Analysis Report ("TIAR") as called for in the Zoning Code. Generally, traffic will be associated with the applicant's staff between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. As the lot is intended for employees, no client traffic is anticipated. Komohana Street has a dedicated left turn lane for the southbound movement and a dedicated right turn lane for the northbound movement at Punahele Street. As such, AM peak movements through this intersection to the proposed parking lot should not impede traffic flow. Although there are left turn/through and dedicated right-turn lanes for the mauka bound Punahele Street traffic, PM peak may require a little more wait time for mauka-bound left turn movements. Because of the signal lights at the Komohana Street/Ponahawai Street intersection, breaks will occur along Komohana Street that would enable reasonable and periodic left turn movements from Punahale Street. • 12 B. Water Water service to the project site is from the Piihonua well source. There is an existing line along Punahele Street that can reasonably service the subject site. While unlikely, a 5/8-inch meter could be installed largely for landscaping purposes. Should this application be favorably considered, if necessary, the applicant could secure the required water commitment from the Department of Water Supply for this project. C. Wastewater While not needed, the subject area can be serviced by the sewer line that currently bisects the subject property D. Solid Waste Like the wastewater response, the proposed use should not inherently generate a waste demand. Nevertheless, the applicants could provide receptacle(s) on the site and do periodic pickups. As the site is already cleared, there should be no significant land clearing or construction material that needs to be disposed of in conjunction with the development of this site as a parking lot. The existing material will be leveled and retained on site. In the unlikely event some material need to be hauled away, efforts will be taken by the contractor to have the material disposed of at approved disposal sites. This and other waste reduction methods will be taken during the construction of this project. E. Other Government Services As this area is already part of an urban area, it already has access to a number of services. All of the required police, fire, and related services are available. Police protective services are provided from the main station along Kapiolani Street, about a mile from the site. Likewise, the nearest fire station would be at central, also less than a mile from the subject site. There are also the Kaumana and Kawailani stations, located less than 3 miles away. Emergency medical and paramedical services are also provided from these stations. The Hilo Medical Center is located approximately 1 mile from the site and is managed by a quasi-State entity, the East Hawaii Region of the Hawaii Health System Corporation. This facility is one of 5 licensed hospitals on the island. 13 As this project is a commercial one, it should have little or no direct impacts to schools, parks, and other related facilities. As the project may indirectly generate a school demand, it should be noted that the site is proximate to the K-12 Hilo Complex and Waiakea Complex, both of which are less than 2 miles from the site. There are also a number of public parks within a 2-mile radius. Thus, no extension of government services would be required, and existing facilities should be sufficient to accommodate the indirect demand expected from this project F. Other Utilities While not required for the proposed parking lot, all other utilities such as telephone and electrical services are available to the site. VIII. IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS A. Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity The short-term use of the site would probably be the same as the current use, which is a vacant lot. This will continue until the hopeful and eventual conversion of this site into an improved parking are, which will hopefully be by spring of 2015. This project should not result in any significantly adverse short or long- term impacts that cannot be properly mitigated. There will be direct and indirect economic benefits resulting from the construction and implementation of this project. There will be construction jobs created in the short-term and at least the stabilization of employment in the medical field in this area. Relatedly, the project will generate increased tax revenues that can supplement the State and County's fiscal resources. Because of its location, this parking lot will provide a direct supportive service to the medical profession in this area. The required infrastructure - if needed - will be implemented by the applicant to mitigate potential impacts of this project. B. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources The area of the requested rezoning has already been extensively disturbed. As such, the commitment of natural or other resources (such as botanical, avifaunal, and archaeological), would not appear to be significant. 14 C. Mitigative Measures The applicant intends to provide any required off and on-site infrastructure in conjunction with the development of this project. These will include on- site drainage system and landscaping. All of these will be done in conjunction with the permitting and permit implementation phases of this project. The driveway approach from Punahele Street will also be consistent with the applicable County code. If any inadvertent archaeological discoveries are made during any phase of this project, the Planning Department will be notified and appropriate mitigation will be taken before work is resumed. Landscaping will also be incorporated within the project site, as well as along its boundaries. The landscaping would be consistent with the Planning Department's landscaping rules. Other mitigations as outlined in Chapter VI-A will be implemented. D. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 1. No Project Under the status quo alternative, the site would remain in its present vacant, cleared use. Under this scenario, the site would not be utilized to its highest and best use, as envisioned by the General Plan and the commercial and residential growth of the general area. It would also frustrate the ability to strengthen and/or expand the medical services in this area. 2. Development Based on Existing RS-7.5 Zoning Under this alternative, the site could not be further subdivided. As such, the only alternative would be its use as a residence. However, given the location of the existing water and sewer line that bisects the subject site, it would make the placement of structures quite problematic. 3. Residential Rezoning Another option could be to utilize this site for a denser residential project. While that would still be consistent with the General LUPAG's map Medium Density designation, it may not be the highest and best use, given the need for parking in an area where alternatives appear to be somewhat limited. 15 4. Evaluation of Alternatives Leaving the property in its current state would not maximize the use of the land. The land could be used residentially in the future, although the location of the existing utility easements would compromise the location of the structure. At the same time, there is a growing need to stabilize the commercial office and medical uses adjacent to the subject site. Without the use of this area for much needed parking, it would frustrate the ability of those uses to expand and/or be stable. That could, in turn, compromise the effective delivery of much needed medical services to the community. There would also be diminished tax revenues and fewer services to the public. Furthermore, the request is consistent with the General Plan LUPAG map. In view of the aforementioned, it would appear that none of the alternatives would be more prudent and beneficial than the requested CN-7.5 zoning alternative. IX. REGULATORY ANALYSIS - County and State Land Use Policies A. General Plan LUPAG Map The General Plan provides for the long-range comprehensive development of the island of Hawaii. It provides direction for balanced growth in the County. The LUPAG map designates the site Medium Density, a designation that allows the requested CN-7.5 zoning. Accordingly, this request would be consistent with the LUPAG map. B. General Plan Policies The requested zoning would be consistent with the goals, policies, and standards of the Economic and Land Use Elements of the General Plan. Specifically, the more pertinent ones follow: Economic Element Goals • Provide residents with opportunities to improve their quality of life. 16 • Economic development and improvement shall be in balance with the physical and social environments of the island of Hawaii. • The County of Hawaii shall strive for diversity and stability in its economic system. • The County shall provide an economic environment which allows new, expanded, or improved economic opportunities that are compatible with the County's natural and social environment. Policies • The County shall provide an economic environment which allows new, expanded, or improved economic opportunities that are compatible with the County's natural and social environment. • The County shall strive for an economic climate which provides its residents an opportunity for choice of occupation. • The County shall strive for diversification of its economy by strengthening existing industries and attracting new endeavors. • The County shall encourage the development of a visitor industry which is consistent with the social, physical, and economic goals of the residents of the County. Land Use Element (Commercial} Goals • Provide for commercial developments that maximize convenience to its users. • Provide commercial developments that complement the overall pattern of transportation and land usage within the island's regions, communities, and neighborhoods. Policies • Commercial facilities shall be developed in areas adequately served by necessary services, such as water, 17 utilities, sewers, and transportation systems. Should such services not be available, the development of more intensive uses should be in concert with a localized program of public and private capital improvements to meet the expected increased needs. • Distribution of commercial areas shall be such as to best meet the demands of neighborhood, community and regional needs. • The development of commercial facilities should be designed to fit into the locale with minimum intrusion while providing the desired services. Appropriate infrastructure and design controls shall be incorporated into the review of such developments Standards • Commercial developments shall be located in areas adequately served by transportation, utilities, and amenities. Commercial developments shall provide for adequate internal circulation amongst commercial facilities in the area. • Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be provided. • Commercial development shall maintain or improve the quality of the present environment through the consideration of visual, access, landscaping, and other design elements in their development. • Preference shall be given to commercial lands with a reasonably level topography. Discussion If approved, the project would provide needed infrastructure (parking) to service much needed uses (medical related) in the city of Hilo. Its location is convenient for employees of the adjoining medical offices. Relatedly, all required infrastructures are there or, if not, will be provided by the applicant without taxing government's servicing ability. 18 The site has limited on-site developmental constraints. The site is not designated a floodway and instead designated "X", areas outside of the 500 year storm. Because of its prior clearing, archaeological, floral., or faunal concerns should not be significant, if at all. Relatedly, although there may be a potential for some endemic birds to visit this area, the development of this site would not remove a critical habitat. Then, too, there are alternative areas that would be more suitable for any habitats. Furthermore, if there are inadvertent archaeological features found on the site, work will stop and the State DLNR and County Planning Department will be consulted before further activities occur within the affected area. Finally, all improvements will comply with appropriate construction codes of the State and County relative to a parking lot. C. Zoning If the request were approved, the site would be eventually used as a parking lot to support adjoining medical offices. The lot would be developed consistent with the appropriate construction codes of the State and County. No variances from the Code are anticipated. D. Hawaii State Plan Chapter 226, Hawaii Revised Statutes, outlines the long-range goals and policies of the Hawaii State Plan. Said Plan is intended to serve as a guide for the growth and future long-range development of the State. Pursuant to said requirement, a discussion of the pertinent policies and goals and the project's relationship follows: Goals • A strong, viable economy characterized by stability, diversity, and growth that enables the fulfillment of the needs and expectations of Hawaii's present and future generations • A desired physical environment characterized by beauty, cleanliness, quiet, stable and natural systems, and uniqueness that enhances the mental and physical well-being of the people 19 • Physical, social and economic well-being for individuals and families that nourishes a sense of community responsibility and caring of participation in family life. Discussion The proposed project would achieve these goals. It would provide both direct and indirect employment opportunities for current and future residents of the island; contribute to the island's overall tax base and hence, increase both State and County revenues; and complement and support other economic uses and in turn, contribute to the stability, diversity, and growth of local and regional economies. This employment opportunity would come without adversely affecting the environment. There is no known wildlife or plant life listed as either endangered or threatened on the subject site. Then, too, because of its previous site clearance and past use as an unimproved parking area, the likelihood of finding archaeological features on the site is quite remote. Impacts to the surrounding areas would also not be significantly adverse. All required infrastructures will be in done by the applicant. Appropriate mitigation, such as landscaping and fencing for security, will be taken to help mitigate any adverse visual and noise impacts to neighboring residential properties G. Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program The objectives of the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program are outlined in Chapter 205a, Hawaii Revised Statutes. The principal goal is to assure the protection and maintenance of the State's coastal resources. Although the entire State falls within the CZM area, the permitting process is geared for those areas proximate to the coast and identified by the County as the Special Management Area. Nonetheless, a general review of a project's consistency to the CZM policies - regardless of its location - must still be made. In that regard, please note the following: • The proposed project will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect. (Please refer to discussions in Chapters V, VI, and VII). Any effect that may result will be minimized to the extent practicable and will be clearly outweighed by public interest. 20 • The proposed development would be consistent with the objectives of the CZM program. Specifically: • there would be no impact to the area's recreational resources. This is not a shoreline property; • because of its previous clearing and use as an unimproved parking area, the project site should not have any remaining historical resources. Any inadvertent find during the course of construction can be appropriately mitigated; • the project will not affect any scenic and open space resources; • the coastal ecosystem will not be impacted; • there will be more employment opportunities, and hence furthering the economic uses of the site; • the site is more than a mile from the shoreline, and thus there would be no coastal hazard or beach erosion or marine resource impacts; and • public participation will be achieved through the hearings on this request. • The proposed development is consistent with the County General Plan and other appropriate regulatory tools, such as the Zoning Code. The surrounding land uses in this area are a mixture of low to moderately dense residential and commercial uses. There are residences adjacent to the subject site. There are also some commercial uses adjacent and south of the subject property, as well as the Hawai'i Community Correctional Facility fronting the site. The requested zoning would thus be consistent with the evolving mixture of commercial and residential land use pattern in this area. Nonetheless, because of there are some residential developments proximate to the subject area, mitigative measures will be taken. These measures deal principally with landscaping, lighting, access, and security. 21 /116 • .✓J4r. Hy„ •e• 41 • County of Hawaii PLANNING.COMMISSION Aupuni Center o 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 u Hilo,Hawaii 96720 Phone(808)961-8288 0 Fax(808)961-8742 April 23, 2007 Pete Hoffmann, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawai`i 333 Kilauea Avenue, 2nd Floor Hilo,HI 96720 Dear Chairman Hoffmann and Council Members: Change of Zone Application(REZ 06-000060) ” - Applicant: Association of Apartment Owners of Punahele Professional Building Request: RS-7.5 to CN-10 Tax Map Key: 2-3-35:18 The Planning Commission, after a duly held public hearing on April 5, 2007,voted to recommend for your approval the proposed legislative bill for a change of zone from Single- Family Residential—7,500 square feet(RS-7.5) to a Neighborhood Commercial— 10,000 square feet(CN-10)district for 9;230 square feet of land. The property is located along the south side of Punahele Street, approximately 200 feet east of the Komohana Street-Punahele Street intersection, across from the Hawaii Community Correctional Facility,Punahoa 2nd, South Hilo, Hawaii. The Commission concurs with the following Planning Director's reasons for recommending favorable consideration of the change of zone: The applicant is requesting a Change of Zone from RS-7.5 to CN-10 to develop an uncovered,paved parking lot to provide 20 additional employee parking spaces to service the adjoining Punahele Professional Building. The applicant intends to consolidate the property with the adjoining Punahele Professional Building lot,parcel 42, which is zoned CN-10. Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer EXHIBIT A Pete Hoffinann, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 3 The project site is located within close proximity to schools, commercial areas, employment centers and public safety services. The project site is in close proximity to commercial areas and employment centers in Hilo town and is located less than one mile from the nearest police and fire stations. The property is a vacant,rectangular shaped lot,which is 9,230 square feet in size. The property has been fenced,grubbed and graded by the applicant to provide additional parking for the medical building employees. Surrounding lands are in a mix of commercial, agricultural and single-family residential uses. Properties adjacent to the east and west of the project site are zoned RS- 7.5 and consist of single family dwellings. The Punahele Professional Building borders the property to the south and is zoned CN-10. The Hawaii Community Correctional Facility is located to the north directly across Punahele Street and is zoned RS-7.5. The project site has no severe geological or topographical problems which cannot be properly rectified or which would render the land unusable. The Flood Insurance Rate Maps(FIRM)indicate that the project area is located in Zone"X," areas determined to be outside of the 500-year flood plain. There are no significant drainage ways that adversely affects the project site. While there are no indications of surface water flow on-site,the applicant will be required to abide by all applicable County guidelines for run-off generated by the development. Although the property has no severe geological or topographical problems that would render the land unusable,the property does have a sewer line and water line that extends from Punahele Street to the rear of the property which renders the property unbuildable. Although a single-family dwelling cannot be constructed with these utility lines running through the property,the property could be utilized as a parking lot. All utilities and services are or can be made available to the site. Access to the property is currently from Punahele Street. The applicant is proposing to consolidate the property with the adjoining Punahele Professional Building lot and close access from Punahele Street. After consolidation,access to the parking lot will be from Puuhonu Place, which is a 50-foot wide paved County road with curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Conditions of approval are being added to require the applicant to consolidate parcels 18. &42 within one year and to restrict access from Punahele Street. County water and County sewer are available to the property but are not needed for the proposed use of a parking lot. Electrical and telephone services are also available to the property. Police and fire services are available less than one mile from the site. 6 Pete Hoffmann, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 5 are exercised,the proposed action will not affect traditional Hawaiian rights; therefore,no action is necessary to protect these rights. Based on the above findings, the request to reclassify the property from a Single Family Residential (RS-7.5) to a Neighborhood Commercial (CN-10)zoned district would result in an appropriate land use pattern and further benefit the general public. For your favorable consideration, an amendment to Section 25-8-33 (City of Hilo Zone Map), of the County Zoning Code is transmitted. We are enclosing copies of the staff Background and Planning Director's Recommendation for your information. Sincerely, Wi Graham, Chairman Planning Commission Laoaopunahele02PC Enclosures cc: Sandra P. Song,Esq. Ms.Nancy Cabral Department of Public Works Department of Water Supply Department of Land &Natural Resources-HPD/Kona DOT-Highways,Honolulu / Lincoln Ashida,Esq., Corporation Counsel Mr. Robert Usagawa RHi]oMedCtrREZ.doc 7/21/11 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION REPORT HILO MEDICAL CENTER CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 11-139) Upon careful review of the request against the guidelines for granting a change of zone, the Planning Director is recommending that a favorable recommendation of the Change of Zone request to a CN-7.5 zoning district, as agreed to bythe applicant, be forwarded to the County Council. Since this recommendation is made without the benefit of public testimony, the Director reserves the right to modify and/or alter this position based upon additional information presented at the public hearing. This favorable recommendation is based on the following findings:. The applicant is requesting a Change of Zone from the Single-Family Residential- 7,500 square feet (RS-7.5) to Neighborhood Commercial-7,500 square feet (CN-7.5) zoning district for 9,230 square feet of land, in order to establish an approximately 25- stall paved parking lot for Hilo Medical Center employees to use that work at the adjacent Punahele Professional Building and nearby medical building fronting Pu`u Honu Place. Although off-street parking meeting the minimum Zoning Code requirements is currently available at the adjacent medical buildings, the applicant believes additional off-street parking is needed for the convenience of its patients and guests. To accommodate this demand, the applicant would like to have its staff park on the subject property. A pedestrian access is proposed for employees to walk from the parking lot to the nearby medical buildings on the adjacent properties to the south. The applicant is unsure whether the subject property would be consolidated with the adjacent Punahele Professional Building lot, but regardless, no vehicular access is proposed between these properties. Landscaping will be provided to minimize impacts to surrounding properties and no lighting within the parking lot is being proposed. Additionally, the applicant intends to have the subject property gated after hours. Rezoning is the primary method for changing the allowed uses of land. Rezoning must be consistent with the goals, policies and standards of the General Plan EXHIBIT B and the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map. Other factors beside the map consistency must be taken into account during the rezoning process, which requires specific consideration of a number of factors to determine the suitability of the property for the proposed zone. These include proximity to roads, utilities, and public services, environmental factors such as drainage, slope, and soil types, and other public concerns. It is only through a comprehensive policy analysis approach that evaluations and decisions can be made to better time and stage developments to achieve growth determined by the General Plan and related planning documents. The implications of these evaluations and decisions must also be considered as they may have an impact on similar areas in the County. The change of zone request from an RS-7.5 to a CN-7.5 zoning district conforms to applicable goals, policies, standards and LUPAG Map of the General Plan. The LUPAG Map component of the General Plan is a representation of the document's goals and policies to guide the coordinated growth and development of the County. It reflects a graphic depiction of the physical relationship among the various land uses. The request to change the zoning to a CN-7.5 district conforms to the LUPAG Map, which designates the property and the surrounding area as Medium Density Urban. Such designation allows village and neighborhood commercial uses and single-family - and multiple-family residential uses and related functions, up to 35 dwelling units per acre. Surrounding lands are in a mix of commercial and single-family residential uses. Properties adjacent to the east and west of the project site are zoned RS-7.5 and consist of single family dwellings. The Punahele Professional.Building which borders the property to the south is zoned CN-10. The Hawai`i Community Correctional Facility is located to the north directly across Punahele Street and is zoned RS-7.5. The County is responsible for the general welfare of its residents and must continue to make every effort to ensure that adequate health services are provided. Policies within the Land Use Element of the General Plan state that the developer is required to provide basic infrastructure necessary for development and that the development of commercial facilities should be designed to fit into the locale with 2 minimal intrusion while providing the desired services. Although sufficient off-street parking was originally provided for the adjacent medical buildings, there has been a substantial increase in demand for medical services at the Punahele Professional Building and added parking is needed to accommodate the additional vehicles. The applicant is requesting the Change of Zone to accommodate the need for the additional parking. According to Planning Department Rule No. 17 (Landscaping Requirements),in order to partially exclude visual contact and reduce noise intrusion between commercial and residential uses, a landscape buffer is required that is opaque from the ground to three (3) feet in height and intermittent from three(3) feet to at least twenty(20) feet in height. Due to concerns by neighboring residents of increased noise, dust and odors,the Planning • Department recommends that the applicant provide more landscaping than would normally be required for commercial uses along the perimeter of the property to minimize any adverse impacts the parking lot may create on the surrounding properties. Thus, a condition will require that the applicant provide a landscape buffer that is opaque from the ground to six (6)feet in height and intermittent from six (6) feet to at least twenty(20) feet in height,which is the minimum buffer yard landscaping requirement between industrial and residential uses. All utilities and services are or can be made available to the site. Access to the property is from Punahele Street, which is a 2-lane paved County roadway within a 40-foot wide right-of-way. The General Plan identifies Punahele Street as a collector street which requires a minimum right-of-way width of 60 feet. Therefore, a condition will require the applicant provide a 10-foot wide future road widening strip along the property's frontage. Vehicular access to the property will be via the existing gravel driveway from Punahele Street,which is gated. This access may need to be upgraded to commercial standards. The applicant is proposing a pedestrian-only access between the subject property and adjacent Punahele Professional Building property. Condition D of Ordinance No. 95 33, which rezoned the Punahele Professional Building property, specifically prohibits vehicular access between this property and the subject property due to concerns from neighboring residents regarding increased vehicular traffic and noise that would be caused by connecting the medical building property to Punahele Street. -3- These same concerns were raised at public hearings for a previous request(REZ 07- i 000060) in 2007 to rezone the subject property to CN-l0. This 2007 rezone request was never approved by the County Council. Based on these continued concerns from neighboring residents, the Planning Depai anent recommends a condition prohibiting access between the subject property and neighboring medical center properties. Additionally, to be consistent with the concurrency requirements of the Zoning Code, a condition of approval will require submittal of a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) if a land use is developed that would generate over 50 peak hour trips. The applicant will be responsible for constructing any improvements identified in the TIAR required by the Department of Public Works. County water can be provided to the property for the development of commercial uses. However, the 8-inch waterline fronting the property is not capable of providing the required pressure of 2,000 gallons per minute of water flow for fire protection for commercial land uses. Typically, the Department of Water Supply recommends that the applicant consult the Fire Department to determine fire protection requirements or alternatives. Conditions of approval will be included to address the Department of Water Supply's standard requirements prior to development of the property. A County sewer line runs along Punahele Street fronting the property. Should the property be developed with a land use that generates wastewater, the applicant will be required to connect to the County sewer system. There are no municipal waste collection services in the County, thus all solid waste generated by development of the property will require private disposal at the Hilo landfill. The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) indicates that the property is located in Zone"X,"which is an area determined to,be outside of the 500-year flood plain. There are no significant drainage ways that adversely affect the property. The applicant will be required to abide by all applicable County guidelines for water run-off generated by development of the property. All essential utilities and services are available to the property. Police, fire and medical services are available nearby in Hilo. The request is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes, relating to Coastal Zone Management. The property is not located in the Special -4- Management Area. The project site is not proximate to the shoreline and therefore will not be impacted by coastal hazard and beach erosion. There is no record of a designated public access that traverses the property. No valued cultural,historical or natural resources exist on the property and there is no evidence of any traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights being practiced on the site. Thus, it is not anticipated that the proposed request will have any adverse impact on cultural or historical resources in the area. In view of the Hawai`i State Supreme Court's "PASH" and"Ka Pa'akai 0 Ka'Aina"decisions, the issue relative to native Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights must be addressed in teiius of the cultural,historical, and natural resources and the associated traditional and customary practices of the site: Investigation of valued resources: An archaeological assessment of the property was conducted by PHRI in July of 2006. The assessment concluded that no archaeological resources were identified during the pedestrian survey. By letter dated February 20, 2007, the State Department of Land and Natural Resources-State Historic Preservation Division found that the report is acceptable and that no historic properties will be affected by development of the property. No professional floral or faunal survey was submitted with the application, as the property was previously graded and there is no vegetation on the property. The valued cultural,historical, and natural resources found in the rezoning area: As the property has been previously grubbed and graded, there are no valued cultural, historical and natural resources found in the rezoning area. Additionally, the presence of any known rare, threatened, or endangered species or endangered floral and fauna species is remote. Possible adverse effect or impairment of valued resources: As the property has been graded, there are no valued cultural, historical or natural resources located in project site. Feasible actions to protect native Hawaiian rights: According to the applicant,no burials, ceremonial features, gathering resources or trails appear to be located on the property. Thus, to the extent to which traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights -5- are exercised, the proposed action will not affect traditional Hawaiian rights; therefore, no action is necessary to protect these rights. Based on the above findings, the request to rezone the property from a Single- Family Residential—7,500 square feet(RS-7.5) to Neighborhood Commercial—7,500 square feet(CN-7.5) zoned district would result in an appropriate land use pattern that would further benefit the general public. The accompanying draft bill to amend Section 25-8-33 (City of Hilo Map), Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawai`i County Code is provided for your favorable consideration. Please note the proposed conditions of approval attached to the draft bill. -6- RHiloMedCtrRE-UnfavRec.doc 10/11/11 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVISED RECOMMENDATION REPORT HILO MEDICAL CENTER CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION(REZ 11-139) Upon careful review of the request for a Change of Zone from Single Family Residential —7,500 square feet(RS-7.5) to Neighborhood Commercial—7,500 square feet (CN-7.5) for approximately 9,230 square feet of land against the guidelines for granting a change of zone, the Planning Director recommends that the Planning Commission forward an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council. Since this recommendation is made without the benefit of public testimony,the Director reserves the right to modify and/or alter this recommendation based upon additional information presented at the public hearing. This unfavorable recommendation is based on the following findings: The applicant is requesting a Change of Zone from the Single-Family Residential- 7,500 square feet(RS-7.5)to Neighborhood Commercial-7,500 square feet(CN-7.5) • zoning district for 9,230 square feet of land,in order to establish an approximately 25- stall paved parking lot for Hilo Medical Center employees to use that work at the adjacent Punahele Professional Building and nearby medical building fronting Pu`u Honu Place. Although off-street parking meeting the minimum Zoning Code requirements is currently available at the adjacent medical buildings,the applicant believes additional off-street parking is needed for the convenience of its patients and guests. To accommodate this demand,the applicant would like to have its staff park on the subject property. A pedestrian access is proposed for employees to walk from the parking lot to the nearby medical buildings on the adjacent properties to the south. The applicant is unsure whether the subject property would be consolidated with the adjacent Punahele Professional Building lot,but regardless,no vehicular access is proposed between these properties. Landscaping will be provided to minimize impacts to surrounding properties and no lighting within the parking lot is being proposed. Additionally, the applicant intends to have the subject property gated at Punahele Street after hours. EXHIBIT C The change of zone request from an RS-7.5 to a CN-7.5 zoning district does not conform to applicable goals,policies, and standards of the General Plan. Rezoning is the primary method for changing the allowed uses of land. Rezoning must be consistent with the goals, policies and standards of the General Plan and the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map. Other factors beside the map consistency must be taken into account during the rezoning process, which requires specific consideration of a number of factors to determine the suitability of the property for the proposed zone. These include proximity to roads,utilities, and public services, environmental factors such as drainage, slope, and soil types, and other public concerns. It is only through a comprehensive policy analysis approach that evaluations and decisions can be made to better time and stage developments to achieve growth determined by the General Plan and related planning documents. The implications of these evaluations and decisions must also be considered as they may have an impact on similar areas in the County. The primary factor for this unfavorable recommendation is that the proposed request for commercial zoning(CN-7.5)would not result in an appropriate land use pattern at this time, and therefore the existing residential (RS-7.5) zoning district should be retained. The subject property is one of seven residentially-zoned lots known as the Hala`i Kopa'a Subdivision which was created in 1967,many years prior to establishment of the Punahele Professional Office Building. This subdivision is bound by Punahele Street to the north, Hala`i Hill to the east, the Punahele Professional Building properties to the south and Komohana Street to the west, with the exception of two of the 7 lots which are located just mauka of Komohana Street. In the early 1970's, a single-family residence was established on each of the lots in the subdivision, except for the subject property which is vacant. At that time,the Hawai`i Correctional Facility was already established on the property across Punahele Street to the north,but lands to the east,west and south were primarily in agricultural use for sugar cane. For forty years this subdivision has maintained its residential character, even after it was bisected by the Komohana Street extension and commercial development began to encroach to the south with development of the Punahele Professional Office Building complex. -2- The General Plan LUPAG Map designation for the subject property is Medium Density Urban,which allows village and neighborhood commercial uses and single- family and multiple-family residential uses and related functions. However, commercial zoning is not necessarily appropriate for all areas designated Medium Density Urban by the LUPAG map. For example,there are many residential subdivisions in Hilo located entirely within Medium Density Urban designated areas that should remain residential for the near future since residential uses are still firmly established. Introducing commercial uses into residential subdivisions sometimes breaks up the cohesiveness of the overall land use pattern and creates nuisances such as noise, light,-aid traffic. Usually these nuisances can be reduced by providing landscaping between residentially and commercially-zoned properties but often times these nuisances cannot be completely eliminated. As a result of complaints filed with the Planning Department,the landowner has been cited twice for allowing the subject property to be used as a parking lot, which is not permitted in an RS-zoned district. During a previous attempt to rezone the property to Neighborhood Commercial in 2007, the former applicant and neighboring property owners could not reach an agreement about what measures could be implemented to reduce nuisances affecting neighboring residential properties as a result of a parking lot. Due to this lack of agreement,the County Council did not approve the rezoning request. Based on discussions with neighbors of the immediately adjacent residential properties and testimony received from the Hala`i Kumiai and its members, it is our understanding that an agreement for mitigating nuisances from the proposed parking lot has still not been reached by the applicant and neighbors. Therefore, establishing a parking lot or other land use permitted in the CN-zoned district would introduce nuisances that cannot reasonably be mitigated and thus commercial zoning would not be suitable on the subject property at this time. Additionally, the request is not consistent with the following goals, policies, and standards of the Land Use, Single-Family Residential Development and Commercial Development Elements of the General Plan, which indicates that commercial zoning -3- should be established in areas that are compatible with adjacent land uses and in balance with the neighborhood's social environment: Land Use * The County shall encourage the development and maintenance of communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment. • Zoning requests shall be reviewed with respect to General Plan designation, district goals,regional plans, State Land Use District, compatibility with adjacent zoned uses, availability of public services and utilities, access and public need. Single Family Residential Development * Ensure compatible uses within and adjacent to single-family residential zoned areas. • Enhance the overall quality of life in our residential communities. Commercial Development. * Provide commercial developments that complement the overall pattern of transportation and land usage within the island's regions, communities, and neighborhoods. * The development of commercial facilities should be designed to fit into the locale with minimal intrusion while providing the desired services. Appropriate infrastructure and design concerns shall be incorporated into the review of such developments. The General.Plan provides a minimum 20-year vision that helps the County formulate its land use policies. It is not a mandate for land use in any specific area;it provides guidance. There are instances where it is simply not the appropriate time to introduce a new land use within an established area. Perhaps in 10 to 20 years, land tenure and circumstances may change enough to warrant a rezoning of this particular section along Punahele Street to a commercial-zoned district such as Neighborhood Commercial. But today, the subject property is still part of an established neighborhood where long-time residents should be able to enjoy a lifestyle that they have long become accustomed to. -4- Based on the above, the request for a Change of Zone from a Single-Family Residential (RS-7.5)to a Neighborhood Commercial (CN-7.5) zoned district would not result in an appropriate land use pattern and would not further the public convenience,necessity and general welfare. Therefore, it is recommended that this request be denied. A draft bill to amend Section 25-8-33 (City of Hilo Zone Map), Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code)of the Hawai`i County Code is provided for your information. However, please note that due to the unfavorable recommendation, there are no conditions attached to the draft bill. -5- ,--1 F& 21-200T 03:15pm From-STATE Hi , -F. rva.ion 808 802 8020 -T t- .''' - , T 802 P.001/001 F-252 '. me .i'';.5 Ziff=F rim •1- ProzazyouNd • Co./Dept, Oa- I CHAII.Modr — Paws ONIA141AND*MAL 7.713:71,1na AO'S'-'...-.4. colotrutag.mov....rnostiocusNwo.acktors Phalle ii Phone 4 •-•p. ;1:-',..',la Ffct 2',...,- -.. i — .. ....i,A .. • L.' i-( PIf 2 .--' i[ rtnEtzrx.gArmA ' . Fax it qCe_t-LP-7C41- Fax 4 } ::,t . . „Q........ ••,-.2•-• -: . ..: ti-,,,,ii- -.... '_ -- ..-'.,I.rts..,frat,IT swa......,.....3...., ip,-,..., -4-,,,, i ( , , -.,,e1'iA,”; COSIISOMOK 14.WASZIklallOVICS}WarMICCir '44 P;' f:17e, g 1074-) 4 I ••••••_ -se.. —— ,• t....,r 1--1/-4.-i47--Ri im,thigv-Ab..rrAx4...iNs .*:-44."‘tmle" cxnant.vATEr.t.a.towdootcrinmeacmcorr vaprecoaG massixtwini,Poil - . =TOW rallavAitm.1 STATE OF HAWAII r....651..w.g.d.oumrsixac.haway utILD *441.'24:W4 DIPARTMETT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES 73.1)vx. STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION 601 IC.A.MOKILA.BopLEVARD,ROOM 5S5 KAPOLtAW-Art 96701 . " . . . • February 20,2007 . . Pau1H.Rmenr,ialal,Ph.D, LOGNO: 2007.0394 Paul R Rosenaahl,Ph.D., Inc. . DOC NO: 0702/V11(15 224 Waianuenne Avenue - .ArchPilolOgy . . Hilo.Hawaii 96720 . . . . . . • .. . • . . . - . pear Dr.Roseridahl: . i ' • . . . . . . . . . SUBJECT: Chapter 6E-42 Historic Preservation Review— - .• , . , ...- , . . . Archaeological Assessment for the.Punahele Professional Building Parking Lot , ranahoa 2"Ahuputot,South Hilo District,Island-oftlawaii • T1VH -035:01.8 , • . .. .. , ..-.• •. . . Thank you for The opportunity to review this report which otir staff received on October 10;2006 (Corbin . . .. 2006,Punahele Professional)14ilding Parking Lot, Land of Punahoci,21d, South filo District, Island of Hawaii ITMK: 3-2-035-0181 Archaeological Asseprnent for SHPD Determination of "No Histotic .. . • Propirties dhrected"_MARI,Inc., ms), • . . , - . . . . . . The assessment meets,our minimum.requirements, as set forth in HAR.276-5 (a) and (c), and-therefore does not provide any detailed background information. The parcel is 0.2119 acres(9,230 sq.feet),and is located off of Waiamtenue Avenue,in the vicinity of the Hawaii Community Correctional Facility. . • . -.. . The surVeyhas adequately covered the project area documenting no historic properties_The project area .- •.represents a former portion of LCA 387,awarded to Mr. D.B..Lytaan,an early missionary arrival on the• Island of Hawaii, - . . ' . We find this report to be acceptable. The historic preservation review process is concluded. No historic properties will be affected by the proposed development. As always, if you disagree with our comments or have questions, please contact Dr.Melissa Kirkendall at(808)243-5169 as soon as possible to resolve these concerns. Aloha, 4`..../ OP' • .7e-Chmen,Administrator 'it e$Estoric Preservation Division • MK:kf . • • c: Chris Yuen, Director Planning,County of Hawaii,FAX:808-961-8742 EXHIBIT D • • . . . Feb. 19, 2014 Thomas&Louisa Yamauchi 73 Punahele Street Hilo, HI 96720 To whom it may concern: We,Thomas& Louisa Yamauchi,has no objections to having a Parking on the empty lot on Punahele Street. It will keep the visitors from parking along the side of the road and in people's yards or driveways. If you have any questions you may call me at(808-238-9622). Thank you To as Yamauc • \ e" uisa Yamauc i EXHIBIT E • ( } SidneyFuke, Pl. Aing Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212• Hilo, Hawaii 96720 •Planning••Variance••Zoning 427.Inur Telephone: (808)969-1522• Fax: (808)969-7996 •Subdivision-Land Use Permits E mail. sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net Environmental Reports July 28, 2011 Ms.BJ Leithead Todd, Director Planning Department COUNTY. OF HAWAII 101 •Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Ms. Leithead Todd: Subject: Rezoning Application—Hilo Medical Center (REZ 11-0000139) Punahoa 2nd, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-3-035: 018 As you may know, although the subject property was favorably considered for a CN- 10 zoning by the Planning Director and Planning Commission, it was ultimately denied by the County Council in 2007 due, in part,to concerns raised by the neighbors. In an effort to better understand and hopefully address those concerns, I met with the property owners immediately adjacent to the subject property. Some of the expressed concerns related to the way the Punahele Professional Building complex, covered by TMK: 2-3-035: 042,was developed and subsequently managed. While those concerns were duly noted and shared with the appropriate persons, my meetings were intended to address and focus on potential issues associated with the use of the subject property as a parking lot. In that regard and based on those meetings and discussions with the applicant and landowner,please be informed that neither would have any objections to rezoning conditions that would accomplish the following: a. Limit the use of the subject property, in spite of its CN zoning, to a parking lot reserved only for employees covered by TMK: 2-3-035: 042 and 037; b. Prohibit a vehicular connection between the subject property and TMK: 2-3-035: 042; c. Provide a gate at the site's entrance from Punahele Street that would be closed between 6:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m., daily; d. Have a sign(s)within the parking lot that prohibits reverse parking,vehicular idling, littering, and loitering and articulates enforcement or penalty provisions as well as time and use limitations; and EXHIBIT F Ms. BJ Leithead Todd, Director July 28,2011 Page 2 e. Consult with the immediately adjoining property owners identified by TMK: 2-3- 035: 017 and 019 in the development and implementation of a landscaping buffer program. Relative to the adjoining property identified, by TMK: 2-3-035: 017, however,the landscaping bather shall also include a solid fence bather at or near the subject property line. The fence shall be at least equal to the height of the existing roof line of the dwelling on TMK: 2-3-035: 017 but no higher than six feet tall and shall extend at least to the length of the dwelling. The landscaping buffer system must be implemented prior to the subject site's use as a parking lot. If there are further questions on this matter,please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much. Sincerely, ' 1 \AV) SIDNEY M. FUKE Planning Consultant Copy—Ms. Cheryl Reis via email Mr. Paul Guishiken via email Mr. Howard Ainsley, Hilo Medical Center, via email GELOCAG via email � 1 HILO MEDICAL CENTER REZONING In conjunction with the submittal of plans for Plan Approval,the applicant shall provide a program that addresses the terms, restrictions, and enforcement measures of the proposed parking lot for the review and approval of the Planning Director. Said program shall conceptually reflect the applicant's initial representations and which, after consultation by the applicant or its successors or assigns with the adjoining property owners to the west and east of the subject property, can be updated from time to time by the Planning Director. • SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street,Suite 212•Hilo,Hawaii 96720 1^ ttlg t `?" n t' r •Planning•Variance•Zoning Telephone:(808)969-1522•Cell:(808)989-0640 'Jj y i •Subdivision•Land Use Permits E-mail:sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net •Environmental Reports \I-1- May 31, 2016L Mr.Duane Kanuha,Director County Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 Dear Mr. Kanuha: Subject: Rezoning Application (REZ 14-000175)—Hilo Medical Center Punahoa 2"d, South Hilo,Hawaii,TMK: 2-3-035: 018 As you may be aware, this application has been deferred at the applicant's request to enable the applicant and/or the landowner to discuss and hopefully reach an understanding with two (2) adjoining property owners (Ms. Cheryl Reis and Mrs. Marjorie Gushiken). Although considerable progress has been made to identify and address their concerns, a memorandum of understanding unfortunately could not be consummated. The discussions were essentially between Ms. Reis,the spokesperson for both property owners, and this office. Based on these discussions,the proposed mitigations to address or mollify their concerns are outlined in the attached draft of a Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA"). This MOA was developed by the landowner and subsequently shared with Ms. Reis. However,no progress has been made since then,and the MOA regrettably remains unconsummated as of this date. There is no telling whether one can or will ever be reached. Accordingly,the applicant respectfully requests that your office finalize your review of the pending application and schedule it for your meeting of July 7, 2016. During the interim, however,the applicant will continue to see whether a MOA can still be reached. Notwithstanding the absence of an executed MOA,the applicant is still prepared to accept most of the conditions outlined in the draft MOA. If the request were favorably considered,the applicant understands that there may be an issue regarding the appropriateness of incorporating some of the conditions outlined in the draft MOA as part of the rezoning ordinance. Given that,the applicant would like to note that: a. Proposed conditions (A-2 to A-4)relate to design and not use restrictions and thus could be deemed appropriate in the rezoning ordinance; b. Restricting the site for only parking and prohibiting uses otherwise permitted in the CN zoning may be questionable. As such,the applicant would be willing to accept a condition where, prior to issuance of Plan Approval for any non-parking lot use,the Windward Planning Commission be asked to provide comments on the new use and recommend appropriate mitigation(such as setback, hours of use,landscap' ) N for the Planning Director's consideration; Planning Dept. i N _ 22016 Exhibit B Jho It , Mr. Duane Kanuha, Director May 31, 2016 Page 2 c. The applicant/landowner is still prepared to adhere to proposed condition A-5 relating to constructing additional landscaping barriers along the common boundaries of all parties; and d. Finally, with respect to proposed condition B, that would be applicable only if a MOU is executed. Nevertheless,the applicant and landowner intend to earnestly and responsibly comply with the terms of all conditions of the rezoning ordinance so as to obviate the need for the neighbors to pursue their independent enforcement. Should you have further questions or comments on this matter,please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much. l '\)\1\1\) Sinc rely SIDNEY . FUKE Planning Consultant Enclosure Copy—Hilo Medical Center w/enclosure via email GELOCAG w/enclosure via email Ms. Cheryl Reis w/enclosure Mrs. Marjorie Gushiken w/enclosure MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WHEREAS,GELOCAG is the owner of Tax Map Key: (3)2-3-035:020,which is situated between the Reis and Gushiken properties; and WHEREAS, GELOCAG is seeking to rezone said lot to be used as a parking lot for the benefit of the ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS of the Puuhonu Professional Building's employees and staff; and WHEREAS, in order to support the rezoning which is being sought, Mrs. Reis and Mrs. Gushiken would Like to see conditions placed on the property to assure its reasonable use; and WHEREAS, to ensure compliance with these terms, an escrow fund will be set up that may be used to remedy any such violations of the conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: That the following conditions shall run with the land: A. 1) Use of the subject property, in spite of its CN zoning, shall be restricted to a parking lot reserved for only staff and employees of businesses situated on TMK: 2-3-035: 042 and 037. 2) There shall be no vehicular connection between the subject property and TMK: 2-3-035: 042. 3) There shall be a gate at the site's entrance from Punahele Street that would be opened no earlier than 6:00 a.m. and closed no later than 6:30 p.m., daily. 4) There shall be a sign(s)posted within the parking lot that prohibits reverse parking, excessive vehicular idling, and loitering and outlines enforcement or penalty provision as well as time and use limitations. 5) After consultation with Mrs. Reis and Mrs. Gushiken, construct and implement a landscaping barrier such as a solid fence or vegetative barrier between TMK: 2-3-035: 042 and along their respective common property boundaries. Said barrier shall be installed prior to the subject site's use as a parking lot. B. In order to ensure enforcement, GELOCAG and AOAO of Puuhonu Professional Building, its successors or assigns, shall create an escrow fund of$5,000.00, which can be used by Mrs. Reis/Mrs. Gushiken to ensure compliance with the above conditions. C. An Administrator of the fund,to be mutually selected, shall be named who will be responsible for taking the complaints,insuring reasonable compliance, and if it is determined that noncompliance is taking place, may authorize the use of the fund to ensure compliance with the above conditions,to include legal action to ensure compliance_ D. Should the funds be depleted because of noncompliance by GELOCAG or AOAO of Puuhonu Professional Building, its successors, assigns,tenants, staff or employees, where the Administrator has authorized the use of the escrow fund to ensure compliance,the fund will be replenished to its $5,000 limit. E. This agreement shall continue for a period of ten{10) years or until Mrs. Reis or Mrs. Gushiken,their heirs or assigns,no longer have an interest in the property, whichever comes first. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands this day of , 2015. GELOCAG By CHERYL R. REIS MARJORIE M. GUSHIKEN ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF PUUHONU PROFESSIONAL BUILDING By COUNTY OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII BILL NO. 21 (Draft 2) ORDINANCE NO. 95 33 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 25-114 (CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP) , ARTICLE 3 , CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE, BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-7. 5) AND AGRICULTURAL (A-la) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN-10) AT PUNAHOA 1ST AND 2ND, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY 2-3-35: 16 . BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII : SECTION 1. Section 25-114, Article 3, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code, is amended to change the district classification of properties described hereinafter as follows : The district classification of the following area situated at Punahoa 2nd, South Hilo, Hawaii, shall be Neighborhood Commercial (CN-10) : PARCEL 1 : Beginning at the southwest corner of this parcel of land and on the northeasterly side of Komohana Street, the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "HALAI" being 103 . 21 feet North and 688 . 32 feet West and running by azimuths measured clockwise from True South: 1 . 140° 40 ' 70 . 00 feet along Komohana Street ; 2 . 232° 49' 374 . 30 feet along Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the subdivision of R. P. on Confirmation 1946, Number 1 to D.B. Lyman, L.C. Aw. 387, Part 4, Section 1 to American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions; 3 . 322° 49' 70 . 00 feet along the remainder of R.P. on confirmation 1946, Number 1 to D.B. Lyman, L.C. Planning Dept. Exhibit Lf Aw. 387, Part 4 , Section 1 to American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions; 4 . 52° 49 ' 27" 371.67 feet along the remainder of R.P. on Confirmation 1946 , Number 1 to D.B. Lyman, L.C. Aw. 387, Part 4, Section 1 to American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions to the point of beginning and containing an Area of 26, 100 Square Feet or 0 .599 Acre . (Refer to Parcel 1 as shown on Exhibit "A" . ) The district classification of the following area situated at Punahoa 1st and 2nd, South Hilo, Hawaii, shall be Neighborhood Commercial (CN-10) : PARCEL 2 : Beginning at the northwest corner of this parcel of land and on the northeasterly side of Komohana Street, the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "HALAI" being 103 .21 feet North and 688 .32 feet West and running by azimuths measured clockwise from True South: 1. 232° 49 ' 27" 371. 67 feet along the remainder of R. P. on Confirmation 1946 , Number 1 to D.B. Lyman, L.C. Aw. 387, Part 4, Section 1 to American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions; 2 . 322° 49 ' 106 . 16 feet along the remainder of • R.P. on Confirmation 1946, Number 1 to D.B. Lyman, L. C. Aw. 387, Part 4, Section 1 to American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions; 3 . 328° 13 ' 295.21 feet along the remainder of R.P. on Confirmation 1946, -2- t"4 Number 1 to D.B. Lyman, L.C. Aw. 387, Part 4, Section 1 to American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions; 4 . 58° 02 ' 10" 69 .26 feet along Lot 9 of Komohana 79 Subdivision; 5 . Thence along Road A of Komohana 79 Subdivision, along a curve to the left having a radius of 45 . 00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 102° 55 ' 35" 63 .76 feet; 6 . 147° 49' 192 . 65 feet along Lot 10 of Komohana 79 Subdivision; 7. 57° 49 ' 246 . 89 feet along Lots 10 and 11 of Komohana 79 Subdivision; 8 . Thence along Komohana Street, along a curve to the left having a radius of 2040 . 00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 140° 53 ' 48" 16 . 38 feet; 9 . 140° 40 ' 115 . 16 feet along Komohana Street to the point of beginning and containing an Area of 80, 037 Square Feet or 1. 838 Acres . (Refer to Parcel 2 as shown on Exhibit "A" . ) All as shown on the map attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof. SECTION 2. These changes in district classification are conditioned upon the following: A. The applicant, its successors, or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all of the stated conditions of approval. -3- B. The applicant shall secure Final Plan Approval of the proposed commercial development from the Planning Director. Plans to be submitted shall indicate a minimum 50-foot structural setback from the subject property' s northwestern property boundary. Plans shall also include a minimum 6-foot high privacy wall or landscaping buffer along the subject property' s common boundaries with adjoining single family residential properties along Punahele Street for the purpose of mitigating any potential adverse noise and visual impacts. Should a landscaping buffer be utilized for this purpose, it shall be provided to the extent that a continuous, unbroken, heavy planting screen, no less than 6 feet in height, is established prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any portion of the commercial development. C. Construction of the proposed commercial development shall be completed (Certificate of Occupancy) within five (5) years from the effective date of this ordinance . D. Access to the subject property from Pu'uhonu Street shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works. Access to the subject property from Punahele Street shall not be permitted. E. The widening and realignment of that portion of Komohana Street in the vicinity of its intersection of Pu'uhonu Place, the installation of a left-turn storage lane, and all attendant signing, striping and street lighting improvements, shall be provided at or in the vicinity of the Komohana Street-Pu'uhonu Street intersection for the purpose of improving sight distance from Pu 'uhonu Place along Komohana Street . These roadway improvements shall be provided in a manner meeting with the approval of the -4- Department of Public Works, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the establishment of any commercial use on the subject property. F. Commercial-standard curb, gutter, sidewalk and related pavement improvements shall be provided along the subject property' s entire Komohana Street frontage in a manner meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the establishment of any commercial use on the subject property. In lieu of constructing commercial- standard curb, gutter, sidewalk and related pavement improvements, the applicant may contribute a monetary fee in the sum of eight thousand dollars ($8, 000) to the County of Hawaii to be used for roadway improvements in the vicinity of the subject property. The entire payment shall be paid prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the establishment of any commercial use on the subject property. G. On-site drainage improvements, if required, shall be installed in a manner meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the establishment of any commercial use on the subject property. H. Should any unidentified sites or remains, such as artifacts, shell, bone or charcoal deposits, human burials, rock or coral alignments, pavings or wall be encountered, work in the affected area shall cease and the Planning Director immediately notified. Subsequent work shall proceed upon an archaeological clearance from the Planning Director when it finds that sufficient mitigative measures have been taken. -5- I . Comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations and requirements of the affected agencies, including those of the Department of Health and the Fire Department. J. Should the Council adopt a Unified Impact Fees Ordinance setting forth criteria for the imposition of exactions or the assessment of impact fees, conditions included herein shall be credited towards the requirements of the Unified Impact Fees Ordinance. K. An initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within the ordinance may be granted by the Planning Director upon the following circumstances : 1 . The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicants, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence. 2 . Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the general plan or zoning code. 3 . Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the change of zone. 4 . The time extension granted shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for performance (i .e . , a condition to be performed within one year may be extended for up to one additional year) . 5 . If the applicant should require an additional extension of time, the Planning Director shall submit -6- the applicant ' s request to the County Council for appropriate action. Should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Director shall initiate rezoning of the area to its original or more appropriate designation. SECTION 3 . In the event that any portion of the ordinance is declared invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other parts of this ordinance. SECTION 4 . This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval . INTR D 'COUNCIL MEM= R, COUNTY OF HAWAII Hilo, Hawaii Date of Introduction: February 15, 1995 Date of 1st Reading: February 15, 1995 Date of 2nd Reading: March 1, 1995 Effective Date: March 7, 1995 APPROVb AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: L.-7 �. : L, Z CORPORATION COUNSEL' DATED: -3/3/'?..S--- -7- Mr" Ng; I R5-7.5 i 4A410111111 AV* oPND GN (o) .. 3 Trlur< f N6R7H -ter LILT -.V1.7 SCALE=0 - Q 1..,2ao' • 1-- Z A r o Ct L. Ifs _ N-20 L 'MALAI =IV-ICJ Cti t gaP hyo o \01-6v,0--V ' ,frefro ' � ' ' 1a a .4 -p e 41F- .p s s goo `9z G CoA e 3'0 VI4144 P*�, 014-10A . stir. R s. 'ilk :"iii' �a• Q4 tte �'s.sprit► , `� ,\''' (1". ir--`140. /'wci 1�Ctt74^NT1fA1-.(RS-25) o ';,jam •I TO TNI e 1G o ado J �o CO 1NfEtRCIAL- (C14-10) CC o• �� N AREA=0.54D ACRtE NTA2CCs ANP ry. \ `, \ COtHNi U Ni TY ,0�0�/ �5_'-S. \�0 O 1'�R RC L 2 11, CerAMMmC-(-IoNAS- 6�rP C>=NTcsR AGRiGUL.TU(RAL (A-in) -5)„, TO 1'tE1GHtJot' F-ionto R9- .5CON1r"1tRCIAL.- CCN-10) 1-, N-1?". AREA =1-938 ACRES -, ‘...., (9., N . litilk R -7 S , L -110'\ J „...........-\71.,4 7 \7 \ i AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE AMENDING EC"r'1CN 25-IH cCrT7' Q1= HtL.0 ZONE MAF') . ARTICLE a, CHAPTER 2.5` (zCNING Cope) op THE HAI ?AII CoUNT'y' CODE, 87 CHANGING -THE. C) s-T'meCT CLAAS•1FtCATlON F O1` 1 SINGLE FAt'vt1L.'/ E'5TDEI'4- TIAL (Te-7W AND. AGr2'lCuL.TuFAL (A-Ica) To NEIGH13oRHooD Coh'f1v11✓V CtAL. (CN-1o) AT PuNAHOA 13'T AND 2N p, ©UT H H 1 LO, t , Nbt\i i. rim C1z,Arzi✓o 13-/ PLANNING DCIpART1v1NT GOU NT'7' 01= HAINA11 TMK ° -2-a-3 - 0 le SGPc'r. 9, 19J4 (G Cl-o CA<5 t'ARTT.Mr2SH f P/AI.L.Ard '7'AtKAgM, M.O.) EXHIBIT "A" OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK County of Hawaii Hilo • , Hawaii (DRAFT' 2) :'ri r.-`', ,7 , i .. L ROLL CALL VOTE AYES` NOES ABS -,-EX Introduced By: K e o l a Childs Arakaki X Date Introduced: February 15, 1995Bonk_Abramsan X First Reading: February 15, 1995 X Published: N/A De Lima X REMARKS: Domingo X Osorio _ X Rath X Ray X Smith X 9 0 0 0 ROLL CALL VOTE Second Reading: March 1, 1995 AYES NOES ABS EX To Mayor: March 2, 1995Arakaki X Returned: March 7.. 1995 Effective: March 7, 1995 Bonk-Abramson X Published March 15, 1995 Childs X - De Lima X REMARKS: Domingo X Osorio X Rath X Ray X Smith X 8 0 1 0 I DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing BILL was adopted by the County Council and published as indicated above. APPROVED as ' 0 FOR , a LG 6TY avec ao_e___{.... - CD L CHAT' CORPORATION COUNSEL / COUNTY OF HAWAII // _44 IrAirifte' x,41 Dote ISAR 7 1995 COUNTY CLERK Approved/ a . . • '".7 tS 'ay of 71tAal, 1 ,/9 11 . .64A_______ MAY MINTY OF HAW Bill No.: 21 (Draft 2) Referee C-140/PC-19 Ord No.: 95- 33 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: May 15, 2007 Re: Comm. No. 376/Bill No. 96 PLACE: Councilroom Ben Franklin Building 333 Kilauea Avenue, 2114 Floor Hilo, Hawai`i TIME: 1:45 p.m. Council Chair and Members Hawai`i County Council Hilo, Hawai`i 96720 Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Bill Na 96, reports as follows: Bill No. 96, transmitted via Communication No. 376 from Mayor Harry Kim, dated April 23, 2007, presents a Change of Zone Request by ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF PUNAHELE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, at Punahoa 2nd, South Hilo, Hawai`i, TMK: 2-3-035:018. Bill No. 96 seeks to amend Section 25-8-33 (City of Hilo Zone Map), Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), by changing the District Classification from Single Family Residential —7,500 square feet (RS-7.5)to Neighborhood Commercial— 10,000 square feet(CN-10). Communication No. 376 reports that the Hawaii County Planning Commission, as required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6-4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter, considered the above request on April 5, 2007. The Commission concurred with the Planning Director's reasons for recommending favorable consideration of this change of zone. Communication No. 376 transmits the following findings and recommendations: 1. The subject property is located at 49 Punahele Street approximately 200 feet east of the Komohana Street and Punahele Street intersection and across from the Hawaii Community Correctional Facility, Punahoa 2nd, South Hilo, Hawaii. 2. Applicants are requesting a change of zone from RS-7.5 to CN-10 to develop an uncovered, paved parking lot to provide 20 additional employee parking spaces to service the adjoining Punahele Professional Building and intend to consolidate the subject property with the adjoining Punahele Professional Building lot(Parcel 42), which is zoned CN-10. 3. The applicant is requesting the change of zone to address the need for additional parking for approximately thirty-one (31) employees of Punahele Professional Building who presently have to find on-street parking a considerable distance away from the facility. Planning Dept. PC Report No. 30 Exhibit .S Communication 376 Bill 96 Page 2 of 5 The Punahele Professional Building currently has 95 off-street parking stalls which include 61 regular stalls, 28 compact stalls and 6 handicap stalls. 4. Access to the property is currently from Punahele Street, however, applicant proposes to consolidate the property with the adjoining Punahele Professional Building lot and close access from Punahele Street. Upon completion of consolidation, the parking lot will be accessed from Puuhonu Place, a 50-foot wide paved County road with curbs, gutters and sidewalks. 5. The project site is located within close proximity to schools, commercial areas, employment centers and public safety centers. Surrounding lands are in a mix of commercial, agricultural and single-family residential uses. Adjacent properties to the east and west of the project are zoned RS-7.5 consisting of single-family dwellings. South of the project is bordered by the Punahele Professional Building and is zoned CN- 10. Directly north across Punahele Street is the Hawai`i Community Correctional Facility which is zoned RS-7.5. 6. County water and County sewer are available to the property but are not needed for the proposed use of a parking lot. Electrical and telephone services are also available and police and fire services are located less than one mile from the site. 7. The Planning Director recommended favorably on this request based on the following: • The change of zone request conforms to the goals, policies and standards of Land Use (Commercial) and Economic Elements of the General Plan. • The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG)Map designates the property and the immediately surrounding area as Medium Density Urban which may allow neighborhood commercial uses, including office and retail uses. Therefore,the requested Neighborhood Commercial zoning is consistent with the Medium Density Urban designation. • The Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map(FIRM) indicates that the project area is located in Zone "X," areas determined to be outside of the 500-year flood plain. • The Change of Zone request is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawai`i Revised Statutes relating to Coastal Zone Management as the project area is not located in the Special Management Area and will not be impacted by coastal hazard and beach erosion. • An archaeological assessment of the property was conducted in July of 2006 which concluded that no archaeological resources were identified as the entire project area is currently a gravel parking lot. A February 20, 2007 letter from the State Department of Land and Natural Resources-State Historic Preservation Division states that it finds PC Report No. 30 Communication 376 Bill 96 Page 3 of 5 the report acceptable and that no historic properties will be affected by the proposed development. • Requisite of the Planning Director's favorable recommendation for the change of zone request, are thirteen(13) conditions contained in Bill No. 96 which outline specific requirements for the proposed project. The conditions include provisions that restrict use of the property to an employee parking lot only and that there shall be no access from Punahele Street (except for emergencies). At the May 15, 2007 Planning Committee meeting there were approximately 20 members of the public at the Hilo Council Chambers who provided oral testimony. Testifying in support of Bill 96 were: Craig Shikuma, M.D.,Alice Chin, Scott Grosskrevtz, M.D.,Alan Takase,M.D., Cathi Niel, Sean Matsumura, Deborah Laga,Tina Benevides,Barbara Engle, Marianne Saragosa and Melinda Walker. Nancy Cabral introduced herself as the manager of the condominium association and stated that a lot of the concerns expressed can be satisfied with the conditions of the proposed application. Ms. Cabral read written testimony in support of the application for change of zone from the following persons: John Uohara, M.D.,Wayne Leong, DDS, Pete's Belly Bustazs and Gerald Lau, M.D. Testifying in opposition to Bill 96 were: Marjorie Gushiken,Kapuaokalani Andrade, Vianne Reis and Cheryl Reis. Council Member Ikeda stated he is quite familiar and very informed of the problems and issues and was hoping at one time for a resolution. He noted that applicant was in violation of a lot of the conditions they had agreed to and disregarded the fact that the residential zoned property could not be used for commercial purposes. He stated he hoped that the owners could come to an agreement with their neighbors and what bothered him the most was the disrespect shown to resident neighbors. Mr. Ikeda said he felt that as physicians, the owners should have more compassion towards their neighbors and the fact that the applicant had not complied with previously imposed conditions he could not support this application. Council Member Emily Naeole noted that all the neighbors are not in favor of this application and said that it was"our kuleana" as council members is to protect the safety of our people of this island. Ms. Naeole stated it upsets her when things get shoved down people's throats and because a medical facility is applying for the change of zone, then it should consider the health and safety of its neighbors. Diana Van De Car appeared as the attorney for applicant in place of Sandra Song, Esq. who was unable to attend due to medical reasons. Ms. Van De Car stated that concerns expressed by Mr. Ikeda are valid, however he has not had the benefit of hearing from physicians who would have PC Report No. 30 Communication 376 Bill 96 Page 4 of 5 appeared to testify, but were unable to do so because these doctors and their staff are very stressed and busy. Ms. Van De Car noted that the subject property is vacant and that the people who park there are not patients of Punahele Professional Building or its employees but are people who are not authorized to park there. Council Member Yagong stated he's trying to make sense out of the fact that while applicant states 31 of its current employees are forced to park off-street, adding 20 more parking spaces for its employees will still result with an 11-stall parking stall deficit and therefore 20 additional parking spaces will not add more patient parking. Mr. Yagong also stated that at first glance the application seemed to make sense and appeared an easy thing to accomplish. However, hestated that when he reviewed information from the past he was very bothered because there appeared to be a very big disregard to rules and to following conditions of rezoning. He noted conditions should be satisfied and followed by applicant as a matter of fact and should not have to wait until a complaint is filed. Council Chair Pete Hoffmann's concern was whether the complex, as designed, had exceeded its capacity as it relates to parking and the nature of commercial enterprises and impacts of businesses having changed, now draws a much larger crowd demanding greater parking. Director Yuen stated there is one classification with some guidelines relating to different types of commercial uses but that from an administrative point of view there is no specifics relating to this situation to determine what happened. Mr. Yuen could not say whether the Department did not review the plans properly, but said it most likely had the number of parking stalls called for in the code. Mr. Yuen stated that because of the type of activity taking place at Punahele, there isn't enough parking stalls. Mr. Hoffmann stated he would support Mr. Ikeda's position and strongly recommended a further attempt at resolution among the neighbors and applicant. Mr. Ikeda stated that he had a meeting last week with Dr. Takase, Ms. Nancy Cabral and Ms. Cheryl Reis however, their positions are quite far apart. Council Member Bob Jacobson stated that considering the knowledge of the people who own the subject property they should have known better and should have followed the law. Mr. Jacobson noted there seems to be a lot of assumptions already in place with regard to this application and it bothered him a great deal. Mr. Jacobson stated he could not see how the rezoning would resolve some of the complaints. Council Member Brenda Ford noted that for a building size of approximately 25,000 square feet of rentable space she estimated that the current code requirement is approximately 1 stall for every 400 square feet, noting that a building of this size would require approximately 60 parking spaces. Mr. Yuen noted that the national parking standards for medical buildings have not been looked into. Council Member Stacy Higa stated that he won't be supporting the rezoning because where the Gushiken and Reis residences are located, it's all residential. Mr. Higa said even if he wanted to help the doctors and provide more parking, it could be a parking lot today but later on, who knows what it could end up being. Mr. Higa stated he sympathizes with the people who use the Punahele facility but he does not want another entrance on Punahele Street. Mr. Higa inquired PC Report No. 30 Communication 376 Bill 96 Page 5 of 5 whether there was a way to condition the use of the vacant lot to ten parking stalls as a test through a conditional use permit and not a rezoning application. Director Yuen stated a Use Permit only allows certain things in a residential area and cannot be utilized to permit a parking lot. The only mechanism is to apply for rezoning and condition the rezoning on limiting the number of parking stalls to ten. Mr. Higa encouraged compromise between the residents and the applicants. Council Bob Jacobson stated it was clear in his mind that doctors are not leaving Punahele Professional Building simply because of poor parking. Mr. Jacobson stated that the use of the property as a parking lot has been tested and the neighbors don't want it. Additionally, he noted that twenty more stalls will not resolve the parking problem. Council Member Yoshimoto stated that in light of Ms. Reis's disclosure of her pending medical procedure and her request to continue this matter until she recovers and is able to attend, he wants to guarantee Ms. Reis's ability to attend. Council Member Ikeda will take care of coordinating the schedule to assure that Ms. Reis can be available at the council meeting. A motion to approve this measure was unanimously denied. Pursuant to Council Rules, 5 aye votes are needed to pass a measure. Therefore, your Committee on Planning forwards Bill No. 96 to the Council with a negative recommendation. and AYES NOES A&E EX Respectfully submitted, FORD X HIGA X COMMITTEE ON PL• G r, HOFFMANN X (-77‹: IKEDA X JACOBSON X NAEOLE X K. ANGEL PILA . CHAIR PILAGO X YAGONG X PC REPORT NO. 30 YOSHLMOTO X ADOPTED: OCT 0 3 2007 • 'Harry Kim 4%- ',;'+z/„;\f Christopher J.Yuen Mayor ..'/! Director Brad Kurokawa,ASLA, LEEK AP sing IIf ati Depaytkreday PLANNING DEPARTMENT 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo,Hawaii 96720.3043 (808)961-8288 • FAX(808)961-8742 CERTIFIED MAIL 7002 2410 0003 0232 8905 March 10,2006 Puuhonu Professional Building Association of Owners do Ms.Nancy Cabral,Property Manager DayfLum Rentals 2 Kamehameha Avenue Hilo,HI 96720 Dear Ms. Cabral: SUBJECT: Notice of Violation and Order(ZCV 05-095E) Operation of a Vehicle Parking Lot in a Single-Family Residential District Tax Map Key: 2-3-035: 018,Por. Punahoa 15'&2nd,South Hilo,HI Use of a Single-Family Residential(RS)zoned property, as an employee parking lot to service a commercial operation(an accessory use to commercial)is not permitted. Our Zoning Inspector conducted a site inspection on January 24,2006. The site inspection and further investigation has revealed the following: 1. The property is located within the State Land Use Urban district and the County's Single-Family Residential(RS-7.5)zoned district. 2. The property is located at 49 Punahele Street in Hilo. This is in the South Hilo District of Hawaii. The Tax Map Key is 2-3-035:018 and the lot size is 9,230 square feet. The listed owner of the property is GELOCAG,but was recently sold to Puuhonu Professional Building Association of Owners. Planning Dept. • Exhibit b Hawai`i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. MAR 1 0 2006 a • Puuhonu Professional Building Association of Owners do Ms.Nancy Cabral,Property Manager Day/Lum Rentals Page 2 March 10,2006 3. According to Section 25-4-4 of Chapter 25 (Zoning Code),Hawaii County Code,any use not listed among the permitted uses in a Zoning District is a prohibited use within that district, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. 4. According to Section 25-5-3 (Permitted Uses)of Chapter 25 (Zoning Code),Hawaii County Code, a"parking lot"to service a commercial operation is not a permitted use in the Single-Family Residential District. 5. Verification was made by our inspector that there were a total fourteen (14),vehicles parked within the subject property on the day of the site inspection. Our inspector observed a person parking their vehicle in one of the stalls and walking into the Punahele Professional Building located on an adjacent property, at 82 Puuhonu Place. The subject property is fenced with a perimeter chain-linked fence on the North, East and West sides,with a double-gated entrance from Punahele Street. The Southeastern property line is open and unobstructed to the parking lot of the Punahele Professional Building. A concrete ramp has been constructed on the southeastern side of the property leading to the parking lot of the surgery center. Further,the graveled parking area is marked,on the East and West sides with short white strips of paint near the chain-linked perimeter fence marking off a total of eleven(11)stalls on each side. Further,during a conversation with Ms.Nancy Cabral,Property Manager for AOAO Puuhonu Professional Building,on February 22, 2006,our inspector was informed that the subject property has been used in the past as a parking lot to service the Punahele Professional Building and at times used by workers of the Hawaii Community Corrections Center. Based on all of the above,the Planning Director finds you in violation of Section 25-2-30 and subject to enforcement action pursuant to Section 25-2-35 of Chapter 25 of the Hawaii County Code. Pursuant to Section 25-2-35(c) of the Hawaii County Code you are hereby ordered to complete the following corrective action, at your own expense, April 18, 2006. Puuhonu Professional Building Association of Owners do Ms.Nancy Cabral,Property Manager Day/Lum Rentals Page 3 March 10,2006 Corrective action consists of: 1) Cease and desist the use of the subjeaproperty as a"parking lot"to service commercial activities and/or workers of the Hawaii Community Corrections Center; and 2) Remove the pedestrian concrete ramp on the southeastern side of the property; and 3) No further use of the Single-Family Residential(RS)zoned property as an accessory use to commercial. 4) Close and padlock the double-gated entrance from Punahele Street to ban any further use of the subject property, as a parking lot. Upon completion of corrective action,you are responsible for contacting Zoning Inspector Robert Usagawa by telephone and to notify the Planning Director in writing to verify the completion of corrective action. If corrective action has not been completed by April 18,2006, a fine of$100 per day will be assessed until corrective action is completed. Further,in accordance with the • Department's Rules of Practice and Procedure,the daily fines will be increased quarterly per the daily fine schedule,until the violation is corrected. Checks are payable to the Director of Finance,County of Hawaii and should be mailed or delivered to the Planning Department, 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3,Hilo,HI,96720. This Order shall become final thirty(30)days after receipt of the Order. On or before the final date, any person(s)subject to this Order may appeal the Order. This means that before the Order becomes final,you must either correct the violation or appeal the Order. The appeal must be received within thirty(30)calendar days from the date of receipt of the Order. The appeal must be made in accordance with the Board of Appeals Rules and Procedures. The appeal must be received within thirty(30)calendar days from the date of receipt of the Order. An appeal to the Board of Appeals shall stay the provisions of the director's order pending the final decision of the Board of Appeals.The appeal must be made in accordance with the Board of Appeals Rules and Procedures or it may result in the dismissal of the appeal. Contact the Planning Department for a Board of Appeals General Petition Form. 4,0 Puuhonu Professional Building Association of Owners do Ms.Nancy Cabral,Property Manager Day/Lum Rentals' Page 4 March 10,2006 Address the Appeal to: Board of Appeals 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo,HI 96720 Pursuant to Section 25-2-35(i)of Chapter 25 of the Hawaii County Code,fines assessed under this Section shall constitute a lien upon the subject property upon filing of said lien with the Bureau of Conveyances. This matter may be referred to the Office of Corporation Counsel for civil remedy and/or the Prosecuting Attorney's Office for criminal prosecution. Please be advised that in the future, if you violate Chapter 25 in the same manner as stated above,the violation will be considered as recurring and will be subject to an immediate fine,up to a maximum of$500 per violation. In addition, a daily fine may be imposed. Should you have any questions on this matter,please contact Zoning Inspector Robert Usagawa of this office at 961-8288, extension 263. • Sincere]-y;, CHRISTOPHER J,, tJEN Planning Director RSU:cd p:\wpwin6O3rnoseknfouxO5\2005-095Eb.doc" cc: Long Range Planning Section Corporation Counsel Counsel member Donald Ikeda Real Property Tax Office-Hilo Mr.Robert Usagawa,Zoning Inspector 1 cr}5'h 'r' \, a garry '"{4� !::�!(' ' Christopher J.Yuen Mayor . � _.:. .:. Director �''!'o:'+►"':" Brad Kurokawa,ASIA LEED®AP artuit#g Atfinxtt Deputy Director PLANNING DEPARTMENT 141 P uahi stmt, sum 3 •Hilo,Hawaii 96720-3043 (808)961-8288 • FAX(808)961-8742 CERTIFIED MAIL 7004 2510 0003 5891 2674 December 22, 2006 GELOCAG and AOAO Punahele Professional Building c/o Ms.Nancy Cabral,Property Manager Day-Lum Rentals 2 Kameharneha Avenue Hilo,HI 96720 Dear Ms_Cabral: SUBJECT: Violation of Section 25-4-4 and Section 25-5-3,Hawaii County Code "FIRST RECURRING VIOLATION"(ZCV 06-150E) Complaint: Operation of a Vehicle Parking Lot in a Single-Family Residential Zoned District. Tax Map Key:2-3-035: 018,Por. Punahoa 1"'&2"d,South Hilo,HI This office received word that the subject property has again been used as a"vehicle parking lot"even after a settlement agreement was made on October 13,2006 between the property owners and the County regarding its pending appeal before the Board of Appeals- Our zoning inspector conducted a site inspection on December 6,7,and 8,2006 and has verified that the subject property was being used as a vehicle parking lot. The site inspection and further investigation has revealed the following information: 1. The property is located within the State Land Use Urban district and the County's Single-Family Residential(RS-7.5) zoned district. ._ w. Plannint Dept. Exhibit 7 hlawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. I DEC 2 2 2005 ti • GELOCAG and AOAO Punahele Professional Building do Ms.Nancy Cabral,Property Manager Page 2 December 22,2006 2. The property is located at 49 Punahele Street. This is in the South Hilo District of Hawaii. The Tax Map Key is 2-3-035: 018 and the lot size is 9,230 square feet. The listed owners of the property are GELOCAG and AOAO Punahele Professional Building. 3. According to Section 25-4-4,Hawaii County Code, any use not listed among the permitted uses in a Zoning District is a prohibited use within that district,except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. 4. According to Section 25-5-3 (Permitted uses in the RS zoned district), Hawaii County Code, a"parking lot"to service a commercial operation is not a permitted use in the Single-Family Residential District. 5. According to our files the property owner of the subject property was previously cited for"operating a vehicle parking lot in a Single-Family Residential District" in our letter dated March 10,2006. After filing an appeal on April 10,2006, an agreement was made between your client and the County's Corporation Counsel. The agreement stated that the subject property would be closed within 30 days(or no later than November 13, 2006)and the property owner would plant a full planting screen along the border with neighboring properties. Subsequently the gate to the subject property was closed on November 13, 2006,as agreed. Corporation Counsel considered that they complied with the agreement. 6. On December 6,2006,this office received word,through Ms. Sandra Pechter Song,Attorney for the property owner,that Ms.Nancy Cabral, Property Manager for the owners of the subject property,decided to use the subject property as a"temporary"parking area. This decision was based on receiving word that the Department of Land and Natural Resources(DLNR)hired Tree-Works to cut down trees along the slopes of Haili Hill above the parking lot of a parcel she manages. DLNR requested that all vehicles parking within the area of the tree cutting be temporarily moved. Ms. Cabral stated that she decided to use the subject property temporarily, because she had no where else to place these vehicles. Ms. Cabral acknowledged the possibility that she may have to pay a fine of$100 per day. f • e ' GELOCAG and AOAO Punahele Professional Building do Ms.Nancy Cabral,Property Manager Page 3 December 22,2006 On this same day,Deputy Corporation Counsel,Ms.Bobby-Jean Leithead-Todd,informed Ms. Song that she could not agree to allow the opening of the RS property for a temporary parking area,not even for tree cutting. Also,on this day,our Zoning Inspector contacted Ms. Cabral to inform her that the subject RS zoned property should not be used as a parking lot. Our inspector asked that the vehicles be immediately relocated and the gate closed and no further use of the property as a temporary parking lot. Our inspector further explained that it is not"in-good-faith"to allow this type of activity, since a settlement agreement was made between her client and the County for the previous(identical)violation settlement. Based on all of the above, the Planning Director finds that in light of your decision, you have placed your client(s) in violation of Section 25-4-4 and Section 25-5-3 of the Hawaii County Code and subject to enforcement action pursuant to Section 25-2-35 of the Hawaii County Code. Pursuant to Section 25-2-35(c)of the Hawaii County Code, your client(s) are hereby ordered to complete the following corrective action, at your own expense, and cease and desist any further use of the subject property as a "parking lot" to service a commercial operation IMMEDIATELY. Corrective action consists of: 1) Cease and desist any further use of the subject property as a "parking lot".to service a commercial operation; and 2) No future parking of cars on the subject property for any reason, unless the property has been rezoned to allow such activity; and 3) Pay,a civil fine of$500.00 for this "recurring violation," plus $600 ($200 per day for this "first repeated violation") for three days that the subject property was being used as a vehicle parking lot(December 6, 7, and 8, 2006). The total fine accessed is $1,100.00 payable within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter. Checks are payable to the Director of Finance, County of Hawaii, and should be mailed or delivered to the Planning Department, 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3, Hilo, HI, 96720. • • 0:tZ :5�;%fib. ire�g`,j • GELOCAG and AOAO Punahele Professional Building do Ms.Nancy Cabral,Property Manager Page 4 December 22,2006 Upon completion of corrective action, you are responsible for contacting Zoning Inspector Robert Usagawa by telephone and in writing to the Planning Director to verify the completion of corrective action If you do not complete the above-mentioned corrective actions within the time allotted, the Director may assess additional fines to a maximum of$500 for each day that the violation remains uncorrected. Further, in accordance with the Department's Rules of Practice and Procedure,the daily fines will be increased quarterly per the daily fine schedule,until the violation is corrected. This Order shall become final thirty (30) days after receipt of the Order. On or before the final date, any person(s) subject to this Order may appeal the Order. This means that before the Order becomes final, you must either correct the violation or appeal the Order. In accordance with Section 25-2-20 of the Hawaii County Code, Rule 8 of the Board of Appeals and Section 6-10.2 of the Hawaii County Charter, you may appeal the director's decisio n as follows: (a) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the director in the administration or application of this chapter, may, within thirty days after the date of the director's wri tten decision, appeal the decision to the Board of Appeals. (b) A person is aggrieved by a decision of the director if: (1) The person has interest in the subject matter of the decision that is so directly and immediately affected, that the person's interest is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public; and (2) The person is or will be adversely affected by the decision. (c) An appeal shall be in writing, in the form prescribed by the Board of Appeals and shall specify the person's interest i n the subject matter of the appeal and the grounds of the appeal. A filing fee of$250 shall accompany any such appeal. The person appealing a decision of the director shall provide a copy of the appeal to the director and to the owners of the affected property and shall provide the Board of Appeals with the proof of service. (d) The appellant and the director shall be parties to an appeal. Other persons may be admitted as parties to an appeal. Other persons may be admitted as parties to an appeal, as permitted by the Board of Appeals. (0. . , GELOCAG and AOAO Punahele Professional Building do Ms.Nancy Cabral,Property Manager Page 5 December 22,2006 According to Section 25-2-23, Hawaii County Code, the Board of Appeals may affirm the decision of the director, or it may reverse or modify the decision or remand the decision with appropriate instructions if based upon the preponderance of evidence the board finds that: (a) The director erred in its decision; or (b) The decision violated this chapter or other applicable law; or (c) The decision was arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. In view of the above, we have enclosed County of Hawaii Board of Appeals General Petition for Appeal of Decisions by The Planning Director. Address the Appeal to: Board of Appeals 101 Pauahi Street, Room 3 Hilo, HI 96720 • The appeal must be received within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt of the Order. An appeal to the Board of Appeals shall stay the provisions of the director's order pendin g the fmal decision of the Board of Appeals. The appeal must be made in accordance with the Board of Appeals Rules and Procedures or it may result in the dismissal of the appeal. Pursuant to Section 25-2-35(i)of Chapter 25 of the Hawaii County Code, fines assessed under this Section shall constitute a lien upon the subject property upon filing of said lien with the Bureau of Conveyances. This lien shall be considered for the purpose of priority, to be the equivalent of liens that arise pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 19 of this Code. This matter may be referred to the Office of Corporation Counsel for civil remedy and/or the Prosecuting Attorney' s Office for criminal prosecution. Please be advised that in the future,if you violate Chapter 25 in the same manner as stated above, the violation will be considered as"recurring"and will be subject to an immediate fine, up to,a maximum of$500 per violation. In addition, a daily fine may be imposed. GELOCAG and AOAO Punahele Professional Building c/o Ms.Nancy Cabral,Property Manager Page 6 December 22, 2006 Should you have any questions on this matter, please contact Zoning Inspector Robert Usagawa of this office at 961-8288, extension 263. Sincerely, • CHRISTOPHE 1. YUEN Planning Director RSU:cd P:1 WP W IN601MooselBnforce0612006.150E.doc Enclosure: General Petition for Appeal of Decisions by The Planning Director cc: Ms. Amy Self, Deputy Corporation Counsel Mr. Robert Usagawa, Zoning Inspector Ms. Sandra Pechter Song Attorney at Law 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 238 Hilo, HI 96720 • • ,Y os BJ Leithead Todd William P. Keno' s `I �� ''' Planning Director of toc.P.•• _ County of Hawaii PLANNING DEPARTMENT Aupuni Center• 101 Psualti Suit,Suite 3 • Hilo.Hawaii 96720 Phone(808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742 March 11,2009 GELOCAG and AOAO Punahele Professional Building 287 Kanoelani Street • Hilo,HI 96720 To Whom It May Concern: SUBJECT: "Closing" of Zoning Code Violation/Complaint File(2005-095E) References: (1)Notice of Violation and Order (ZCV 05-095E) dated March 10,2006 (2)Board of Appeals letter Acknowledging receipt of Appeal dated April 20,2006 (3)Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law,Decision and Order for Board of Appeals Nos.BOA 06-000022 dated October 18,2007 Complaint: Operation of a Vehicle Parking Lot in a Single-Family Residential District Tax Map Key:2-3-035: 018,Por.Punahoa 1'`&2",South Hilo,HI As you may remember,the property owner(s)of the subject property were cited for the operation of a vehicle parking lot in a Single-Family Residential zoned district in our letter dated March 10, 2006. As stated in the letter:"Use of a Single-Family Residential (RS)zoned property, as an employee parking lot to service a commercial operation(an • accessory use to commercial)is not permitted?' The Notice of Violation and Order(NOV)dated March 10,2006 listed four corrective actions,to be completed by April 18, 2006. According to the"Findings of Fact"of"Appellee Christopher J. Yuen,Planning Director, • County of Hawaii's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order" dated August 16, 2007: "6. Appellant appealed the decision of the Director to issue the NOV dated March 10,2006 and the appeal was heard by the Board on October 13, Nawar i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer • Planning Dept. MAR 12 2449 Exhibit GELOCAG and AOAO Punahele Professional Building Page 2 March 11, 2009 2006. (See, Board of Appeals Hearing Transcript October 13,2006 (hereinafter :HT 10/13/06") at 1-2. 7. During the October 13, 2006 hearing,the parties reached an agreement that the Appellant would cease using the Property as a parking lot thirty :days from the date of the hearing(i.e.,November 13, 2006)and the gate on the Property would be closed and locked so that nobody could access it. See, HT 10/13/06 at 49. 8. The oral agreement from the October 13,2006 hearing was never memorialized in writing and the.Appellant did not withdraw the appeal regarding the NOV dated March 10,2006 until February 7,2007 at a subsequent hearing before the Board. See, Board of Appeals Hearing Transcript April 13, 2007 (hereinafter"HT 4/13/07")at 14 and 24. 9. On November 13,2006, Appellant closed the parking lot. See, HT 4/13/07 at 5." (The closing of the parking lot was verified and confirmed by Zoning Inspector Robert Usagawa on November 13,2006). Further,within the Board of Appeals(BOA 06-000020) adopted"Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,and Decision and Order,"dated October 18,2007, it states,in part: "51. Appellants and the Planning Department stipulated that Appellants had complied with the requirements of corrective action for ZCV 05-095E by closing the parking lot. As to that appeal,the matter was closed,the . citation would be withdrawn and no fine for the violation levied." Based on the above,this Zoning Code Violation/Complaint file is"closed." Please be advised that in the future,if you violate Chapter 25 in the same manner as stated above,the violation will be considered as recurring and will be subject to an immediate fine,up to a maximum of$500 per violation. In addition,a daily fine may be imposed. • GELOCAG and AOAO Punahele Professional Building Page 3 March 11, 2009 Should you have any questions on this matter,please contact Zoning Inspector Robert Usagawa of this office at 961-8288,extension 268. Sincerely, BJ LEITHEAD TODD Acting Deputy Planning Director RSU:mad P:\WPWIN604vtoose\Enforce0512005-095Ee(Closure Ur).doc cc: Amy Self, Esq. Counsel member Donald Ikeda Mr. Robert Usagawa,Zoning Inspector Sandra Pechter Song,Esq. Attorney at Law 101 Aupuni Street,Suite 238 Hilo,HI 96720 .Z.&1.1` ----- Bi Leithead Todd William P. Kenoi .f ,• Planning Director mayor 1 County of Hawaii PLANNING DEPARTMENT Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 • Hilo,Hawaii 96720 Phone€808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742 • March 11,2009 GELOCAG and AOAO Punahele Professional Building 287 Kanoelani Street Hilo, HI 96720 To Whom It May Concern: SUBJECT: Rescinding of"FIRST RECURRING VIOLATION(ZCV 06-150E)" dated December 22,2006 and"Closing"of Zoning Code Violation/Complaint File Complaint: Operation of a Vehicle Parking Lot in a Single-Family • Residential Zoned District Tax Map Key: 2-3-035: 018,Por. Punahoa 1"&2°d,South Hilo,III We apologize for the length of time taken to respond to the decision made by the Board of Appeals on April 13,2007. The Board of Appeals rendered the decision that the director erred in deciding that there was a violation of the zoning code. The Board ordered and reversed the decision of the Director on the grounds that the matter was still under appeal from the prior order of the Director and that the appeal was not decided until February 7,2007. Therefore,this letter is to"rescind"the Planning Director's Letter: Violation of Section 25-4-4 and Section 25-5-3,Hawaii County Code,"FIRST RECURRING VIOLATION' (ZCV 06-150E)dated December 22,2006. Further,this Zoning Code Violation/Complaint file is"closed." Planning Dept. Exhibit 9 • Hawaii Counq•is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer t! MAP 12 ? 109 • GELOCAG and AOAO Punahele Professional Building Page 2 March 11,2009 If you have any further questions,feel free to contact our Zoning Inspector,Robert Usagawa at 961-8288, extension 268. Sincerely, / 7 �77 • BJ LEITHEAD TODD Acting Deputy Planning Director RSU:mad P:lwpwin60\Moose Enforce0612006-]50Eb(Rescind 1st Recurring Violation Ltr dtd I2-22-06).doe cc: Amy Self,Esq. Mr. Robert Usagawa,Zoning Inspector Ms. Sandra Pechter Song Attorney at Law 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 238 Hilo,HI 96720 • 1 William P.Kenoi r i\ BJ Leithead Todd !1 Mayor .7 ; % • \•, Director / elll)' Margaret K.Masunaga County of Hawaii PLANNING DEPARTMENT Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 • Hilo,Hawaii 96720 Phone(808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742 CERTIFIED MAIL 7010 0780 0000 9781 0068 April 20,2011 GELOCAG and AOAO Punahele Professional Building 287 Kanoelani Street Hilo,HI 96720 To Whom It May Concern: SUBJECT: Notice of Violation and Order(FIRST RECURRING VIOLATION) Complaint: Vehicle Parking Lot in a Single-Family Residential District File No.: 2011-036E TMK: 2-3-035:018,Portion Punahoa 1"&2nd,South Hilo,HI We have received a complaint alleging that you are improperly using the subject property for a"vehicle parking lot"which is not a permitted use within a residential district. FINDINGS Our initial investigation based on a complaint has revealed the following: 1. The property is located within the State Land Use "Urban" district and the County's "Single-Family Residential"(RS-7.5)zoning district. 2. The property is located at 49 Punahele Street,Hilo,HI. 3. Our Zoning Inspector conducted a site inspection on April 14, 2011 and observed • that there were ten(10)vehicles parked on the subject property; APR 21 2011 Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Planning Dept. Exhibit I 0 GELOCAG arid AOAO Punahele Professional Building Page 2 April 20,2011 a. The License Plate numbers are: 1. 'HHS641=2005 Dodge pickup truck 2. 'HBR771=2002 Nissan pickup truck 3. ,HBC822=2000 Toyota 4 door sedan 4. 'HMS522=2005 Ford pickup truck 5. ;HKP668=2003 Dodge pickup truck 6. '1-MZX124=2000 Nissan Multipurpose vehicle 7. -HMN658=2005 Nissan pickup truck 8, :HFT633=2005 Ford pickup truck 9. ''HJN621=2006 Nissan 4 door sedan 10.A vehicle covered with a car cover. (Photographs enclosed). 4. The property owners were previously issued a Notice of Violation and Order dated March 10, 2006 for the illegal operation of a "vehicle parking lot" on the subject property. 5. After filing an appeal on April 10, 2006, a settlement agreement was made between the property owners and the County's Corporation Counsel. The agreement stated that the subject property would be closed within 30 days (or no later than November 13, 2006)and the property owner would plant a full planting screen along the border with neighboring properties. Subsequently the gate to the subject property was closed on November 13, 2006, as agreed. Corporation Counsel considered that .they complied with the agreement. 6. The oral agreement from the October 13,2006 hearing was never memorialized in writing and the Appellant did not withdraw the appeal regarding the NOV dated March 10, 2006 until February 7, 2007 at a subsequent hearing before the Board. See, Board of Appeals Hearing Transcript April 13, 2007 (hereinafter "HT 4/13/07")at 14 and 24. 7. The Zoning Code Violation/Complaint File (ZCV 05-095E) for the above- mentioned Notice of Violation and Order dated March 10, 2006 was "closed" in our letter dated March 11,2009 and the following advisory was added: "Please be advised that in the future,if you violate Chapter 25 in the same manner as stated above, the violation will be considered as "recurring"and will be subject to an immediate fine, up to a maximum of$500 per violation. In addition,a daily fine may be imposed." GELOCAG and AOAO Punahele Professional Building Page 3 April 20,2011 VIOLATION You are in violation of the County Zoning Code due to using your residentially zoned property for a"vehicle parking lot"on your property which is not a permitted use for this property. This improper use has been confirmed by our zoning inspector on April 14, 2011 and is considered as"RECURRING." Prohibited Uses: According to Section 25-4-4 (Uses Prohibited)of Chapter 25 (Zoning Code),Hawaii County Code, any use not listed among the permitted uses in a zoning district is a prohibited use within that district,except as otherwise provided in this chapter. Permitted Uses: According to Section 25-5-3 (a)(Permitted uses in the RS District), Hawaii County Code, a"vehicle parking lot"is not listed as a permitted use. ORDER You are hereby ordered to take the following corrective action(s) at your own expense by the"Deadline Date" of May 23,2011: 1. Discontinue the use of the subject property as a"vehicle parking lot"by the "Deadline Date;"and 2. Lock the gate. No further use of this property as a"vehicle parking lot"will be allowed until such a time that you receive proper approvals,permits and/or approvals(in writing)from this office to allow the use of the property for a "vehicle parking lot." 3. Provide a letter to our office by the"Deadline Date"(Attention to:Robert Usagawa,Zoning Inspector)with the following: a).; A statement that you have stopped operating a`vehicle parking lot on the subject property"and you have"locked"the gate. b) Include any supporting information such as pictures of your property • showing before and after pictures. 4. You are being accessed a civil fine of$500.00 for this"First Recurring Violation"of using the residentially zoned property as a"vehicle parking lot." 5. Pay all fines due to this office by the"Deadline Date.". Payment may be made only by cash,cashier's check,or money order. Personal checks are not accepted. Make cashier's check or money order payable to County Director of 1 GELOCAG and AOAO Punahele Professional Building Page 4 April 20,2011 Finance. If you do not know the amount you owe,please contact this office for the amount due. 6. Contact our zoning inspector listed at the end of this letter to arrange a date and time to have the property inspected to verify compliance. Upon receipt of your letter and after our satisfactory review we may close the complaint process with no further action depending on the evidence that you provide to this office. GENERAL INFORMATION What happens if you do not correct the violation? A violation that is not corrected by the"Deadline Date"will be assessed daily fines starting at$200 per day beginning the day after the"Deadline Date"because it is a "recurring"violation(see table below). After 3 months the fine increases to$300 per day, after 6 months to $400 per day, after 9 months to$500 per day until the case is resolved. It is in your best interest to correct this problem before or on the"Deadline Date"as indicated above. Daily Fines: According to County of Hawaii Planning Department Rules of Practice and Procedure Rule 9-5(d): When a violation is not corrected by the deadline set by the order,the Director may assess additional fines to a maximum of$500 for each day that the violation remains uncorrected in accordance with the following schedule: DAILY FINES FIRST Al~thR AFTER AFTER FOR VIOLATION 3 MOS. 3RD MO. 6TH MO. 9TH MO. Initial violation $100 $200 $300 $500 First Recurrence $200 $300 $400 $500 Second Recurrence $300 $400 $500 Third Recurrence $400 $500 Fourth and subsequent recurrences will be assessed$500 per day of additional daily fines from the date that the violation was to cease as set forth in the order. Can you appeal this Notice of Violation? Yes. If you feet that you are not in violation you can appeal. In accordance with Section 25-2-20 of the Hawaii County Code, you may appeal the director's decision as follows: • GELOCAG and AOAO Punahele Professional Building Page 5 April 20,2011 (a) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the director in the administration or application of this chapter,may,within thirty calendar days from the date of receipt of the Order appeal the decision to the Board of Appeals. (b) A person is aggrieved by a decision of the director if: (1) The person has interest in the subject matter of the decision that is so directly and immediately affected,that the person's interest is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public; and (2)"The person is or will be adversely affected by the decision. (c) An appeal shall be in writing, in the form prescribed by the Board of Appeals and shall specify the person's interest in the subject matter of the appeal and the grounds of the appeal. A filing fee of$250 shall accompany any such appeal. The person appealing a decision of the director shall provide a copy of the appeal to the director and to the owners of the affected property and shall provide the Board of Appeals with the proof of service. (d) The appellant and the director shall be parties to an appeal. Other persons may be admitted as parties to an appeal,as permitted by the Board of Appeals. According to Section 25-2-23,Hawaii County Code,the Board of Appeals may affirm the decision of the director,or it may reverse or modify the decision or remand the decision with appropriate instructions if based upon the preponderance of evidence the board fmds that. (1) The director eimd in its decision;or (2) The decision violated this chapter or other applicable law;or (3) The decision was arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. For your convenience,we have enclosed the"County of Hawaii Board of Appeals General Petition for Appeal of Decisions by Planning Director"form. Address the Appeal to: Board of Appeals 101 Pauahi Street,Room 3 Hilo,HI 96720 Due Date for Appeal I C- The appeal must be received within thirty(30)calendar days from the date of receipt of this Notice of Violation and Order. An appeal to the Board of Appeals shall not stay the provisions of the director's order pending the final decision of the Board of Appeals. The appeal must be made in accordance with the Board of Appeals Rules and Procedures or it may result in the dismissal of the appeal. • • GELOCAG and AOAO Punahele Professional Building Page 6 April 20,2011 What happens if I lose my appeal? The assessment and accumulation of fines do not stop when you file for an appeal.' If the Board of Appeals rejects your appeal then you will be required to pay your fines from the day the fines began to the date the violation(s)has been corrected which must be verified by the Planning Department. You can also take corrective action as described in this letter and stop the daily fines,'while appealing. If you do not take corrective action,daily fines will continue to accrue incrementally as per the table listed above. Can I get a time extension to have more time to correct the violation? If you know you can not complete the corrective action by the"Deadline Date", you may want to submit a"request for a time extension"before the"Deadline Date", including all of the following information with your request: 1. Describe what you have accomplished prior to requesting this time extension. 2. The amount of additional time necessary to complete the corrective action. 3. The name and telephone number of the person assisting you in this effort. 4. The date in which you expect the violation to be fully corrected. The submission of a time extension request does not guarantee the approval of the request nor does it extend your right to appeal. If your time extension is denied,daily fines will continue until the violation is corrected. If approved,the daily fines will be delayed until the new deadline date. Should you have any questions on this matter,please contact Zoning Inspector Robert Usagawa at(808)961-8150. Sincerely, • /AY 44'd Bd LEITHEAD TODD Planning Director RSU: nci P:\wpwin601Moose\Enforee 1112011.036E(NOV-Recurring Violation)(Vehicle Parking Lot in RS)(Oelocag&AOAO Punahele Prof Btdg).doc • William P.Kenai ;Apr''?Y o� ti• BJ Leithead Todd Mayor :1 _ Director :`• �• /.•• Margaret K.Masunaga *�.. Deputy County of Hawai#i PLANNING DEPARTMENT Aupuni Center• 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 • Hilo,Hawaii 96720 Phone(808)961-8288 • Fax(808)9614742 May 31,2011 GELOCAG and AOAO Punahele Professional Building 287 Kanoelani Street Hilo,HI 96720 To Whom It May Concern: SUBJECT: "Closure Letter"due to Completion of Corrective Action and Payment of Civil Fine for a First Recurring Violation Reference: Notice of Violation and Order(First Recurring Violation) dated April 20,2011 Complaint: Vehicle Parking Lot in a Single-Family Residential District File No: 2011-036E TMK: 2-3-035:018,Punahoa 1"t&2",South 11110,111 We thank you for your letter dated May 23, 2011 informing us that the gate to the subject property has been locked,as requested. Pictures have been included to support your notification and a cashier's check to the County Director of Finance in the amount of $500.00 has been submitted in payment of the civil fine assessed in the above- referenced Notice of Violation and Order. Our inspector conducted a follow-up site inspection on May 25, 2011 and confirmed that the chain-linked fence gate at the entrance to the subject property remains locked. We are therefore "cluing" this First Recurring Violation/Complaint file. You have completed the corrective action listed in our Notice of Violation and Order and have paid the assessed $500.00 civil fine. We are enclosing Planning Department Receipt No. 9959 dated May 25, 2011 as recdnning Dept of the civil fine payment of$500.00. Exhibit " Please be advised that in the future, if you violate Chapter 25 of the Hawaii County Code in the same manner as stated above,upon verification by a Planning SCANNED Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Ls+t ' 2011 JUN 2 JUN .2 2011 By: 1 1410 GELOCAG and, AOAO Punahele Professional Building Page 2 May 31,2011 Department official, the violation will be considered as a "Second Recurring" and will be subject to an immediate fine, up to a maximum of$500 per violation. In addition,a daily fine of$300 per day may be imposed." Should you have any questions on this matter, please contact Zoning Inspector Robert Usagawa at(808) 961-8150. Sincerely, BJ LEITHEAD TODD Planning Director RSU:nci P:iwpwin60VvfooseeEnforce 1 112011-036Eb(Closure Ltr-Completion of Corrective Action&Payment of Civil fineXGELOCAG).doc Enclosure: Planning Department Receipt No. 9959 cc: Amy Self,Esq. Mayor's Office,Attention:Mr. Kevin Dayton Amy Miwa,Legislative Assistant to Counsel Member Donald Ikeda Mr.Robert Usagawa,Zoning Inspector GELOCAG : , 287 Kanoelani St. `'1 Hilo, Hi 96720 May 23,2011 :,, Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd Director Planning Department County of Hawaii 101 Pauahl Street Hilo, HI 96720 RE: Notice of Violation File No. 2011-036E,TMK 2-3-035:018 Dear Ms. Leithead-Todd, Enclosed please find a cashier's check to the County Director of Finance for $500.00 and pictures of the property which has been locked as requested by the Department. Your inspector is welcome to visit the property at anytime to verify compliance. While we would still dispute that it is a recurring violation, since the parking was not done by any parties that were associated with us,we do not wish to belabor this point. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, GELOCAG SCANNED , IMO MAY 26 1011 111) (, By:071662 , it 11)i RA �p� • <<', 1•r` s•'E $.; Q, DEPART kriE€�l e OF 'A' T r t UPP [ ,p, �` Ltt `i �. C�' tr% 4r‘t ` w Tly� r �P3 !E r. l'.f''. C' S rF.EE { 4 IL!J. i-1rt‘A'4t l 9:.7)7.'20 zpFF10_WP _ _ _ May 7, 2014 TO: Mr. Duane Kanuha, Director Planning Department FROM: Quirino Antonio, Jr., Manager-Chief Engineer SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 14-000175) APPLICANT—HILO MEDICAL CENTER REQUEST - RS-7.5 TO CN-7.5 TAX MAP KEY 2-3-035:018 We have reviewed the subject application and have the following comments. We understand that the proposed application is only to allow the construction of a parking lot on the subject parcel with no other commercial development. If an irrigation system is to be installed within the parking lot area, a reduced pressure type backflow prevention assembly must be installed within five feet of the meter on private property. The installation of the backflow prevention assembly must be installed and approved by the Department. Should there be any questions, please contact Mr. Ryan Quitoriano of our Water Resources and Planning Branch at 961-8070, extension 256. r-+h Sine, e1y , ours, Quiri ,E Antonio, Jr., P.E. Mai :v-r-Chief Engineer RQ:dfg copy— Hilo Medical Center r 777 Mr. Sidney M. Fuke, Planning Consultant u " ' i � l F P Fianning Dept, .n ,� 14;11 Exhibit 1 x':119 1 6 6 f . . .Nater, Our 7vtost Precious resource . . . Ka'INai A pane . . The Department of Water Supply is an Equal Opportunity provider and employer. f DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS COUNTY OF HAWAII H I LO, HAWAII DATE: May 7, 2014 WeeinOtAlitailt TO: Duane Kanuha, Planning Director FROM: 41-Department of Public Works, Engineering Division SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 14-000175) Applicant: Hilo Medical Center Request: RS-7.5 to CN-7.5 Tax Map Key: 2-3-35: 018 We have reviewed the subject application forwarded by your memo dated April 10, 2014 and offer the following comments for your consideration. All development-generated runoff shall be disposed of on site and not directed toward any adjacent properties. A drainage study shall be prepared and the recommended drainage system shall be constructed meeting the approval of the Department of Public Works. The subject parcel is in an area designated as Zone X on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Zone X is an area determined to be outside the 500-year floodplain. Any earthwork activity shall conform to Chapter 10, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, of the Hawaii County Code. The Zoning Map (Ordinance No. 187) classifies Punahele Street as a collector. It has an existing right-of-way width of 40 feet fronting the subject parcel. Access shall conform to Chapter 22, County Streets, of the Hawaii County Code. Based on the intended zoning, we recommend the applicant provide improvements to the property's entire frontage along Punahele Street consisting of, but not limited to, pavement widening with concrete curb, gutter, sidewalk and any required utility relocation, meeting the approval of the Department of Public Works. The improvements shall be located within any proposed future road widening setback as established by the Planning Department. This recommendation does not sanction the specific plans submitted with tlaapplicati.Qp as they may be subject to change given specific code and regulatory requ er s � F1> Questions may be referred to Kelly Gomes at ext. 8327. ti9) 1,11,4 Planning Dept. - FYk i k j♦ %' County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Harry S.Kubojiri William P.Kenoi Mayor * Police Chief •„tE°`"�� Paul K.Ferreira Deputy Police Chief County of Hawai i POLICE DEPARTMENT 349 Kapi'olani Street • Hilo,Hawaii 96720-3998 (808)935-3311 • Fax(808)961-2389 April 22, 2014 TO : DUANE NUHA, PLA ING DIRECTOR FROM : HEN . TAVARE , J SSISTANT POLICE CHIEF ARE I PERATION SUBJECT : CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 14-000175) APPLICANT: HILO MEDICAL CENTER REQUEST: RS-7.5 TO CN-7.5 TAX MAP KEY: 2-3-035:018 Staff reviewed the Change of Zone Application and has a concern related to the parking area on Punahele Street located across of the Hawaii Community Correctional Center (HCCC). Staff is concerned of access to this parking lot, especially during the hours when the parking lot is not utilized by Hawaii Medical Center Staff. The application notes there will be signs posting the hours of use for the parking lot but no comment on the enforcement of these hours. This parking area was once "informally” used by visitors and staff of HCCC as an unimproved parking area. This is due to the fact that HCCC at this time does not have adequate parking to support their staff and visitors, especially during visitation hours which are usually scheduled for the weekends. Our department eventually received nuisance complaints from the community against users of the area. Officers responded to complaints of loud noise, drug and alcohol use, and other community concerns as the area became a gathering place. Staff recommends an access gate or other security measure to prevent unauthorized vehicles from utilizing this parking lot. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Captain Richard Sherlock, South Hilo Patrol Commander, at 961-2214 or via e-mail at rsherlock@co.hawaii.hi,us. RS:Ili 140246 SCAN I , 1 APR 252O1 By.L ' 34 Planning Dept. Exhibit I "Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer" William P.Kenoit." BJ Leithead Todd Mayor _-.Aver Director aFP• Walter K.M.Lau 4 os%tell- John A.Medeiros • Managing Director Deputy Director County of Hawai`i DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 345 Kekuanao`a,Suite B • Hilo,Hawaii 96720 (808)961-8083 - Fax(808)961-8086 MEMORANDUM Date : April 28,2014 To : DUANE KANUHA, Planning Director From: BJ LEITHEAD TODD,Director (l41 Subject: Change of Zone Application(REZ-14-000l 75) Applicant: Hilo Medical Center Request: RS-7.5 to CN-7.5 TMK: 2-3-035:018 The Wastewater Division has reviewed the subject application and offers the following recommendations (please note Solid Waste Division comments will be submitted separately): DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: WASTEWATER COMMENTS: (Contact Wastewater Division for details.) ( ) No comments (X ) Require connection of existing and/or proposed structures to the public sewer in accordance with Section 21-5 of the Hawai`i County Code. ( ) Require Council Resolution to approve sewer extension in accordance with Section 21-26.1 of the Hawaii County Code. Complete Sewer Extension Application. ( ) Require extension of the sewer system to service the proposed subdivision in accordance with Section 23-85 of the Hawai`i County Code. ( ) Check or line out as applicable: [ ] if required by the Director of the Department of Environmental Management("Director of DEM"), [ ] applicant shall conduct a sewer study in accordance with the then applicable wastewater system design standards prior to approval to connect to the County sewer system. Applicant shall provide such sewer line or other facility improvements as the Director of DEM may reasonably require,which the sewer study may indicate are advisable for mitigation of impacts of the proposed project. Contact Wastewater Division Chief for details. ( X ) Other: Section VII.0—The sewer line which crosses the property is a private sewer line and is NOT a part of the County sewer system. A County sewer lateral is currentlyuidedaia the parcel. `ar- t ` '* MAY 2 2014 4 54 Planning Dept• B3 91 Exhibit 15 County of Hawai`i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. NEIL ABERCROMBIEa F LINDA ROSEN,M.D.,M.P.H. GOVERNOR 59w; - DIRECTOR OF HEALTH y,t ° STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH P.O. BOX 916 H I LO, HAWAII 96721-0916 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 25, 2014 TO: Duane Kanuha Planning Director, County of Hawaii FROM: Newton Inouye 1-1- District District Environmental Health Program Chief SUBJECT: Change of Zone Application (REZ-14-000175) Applicant: Hilo Medical Center Request: RD-7.5 to CN-7.5 Tax Map Key: 2-3-035:018 The subject project is located within or near proximity to the County sewer system. a. All wastewater generated shall be disposed into the County sewer system. The applicant would need to meet the requirements of our Department of Health Air Pollution Rules, Chapter 60.1, Title 11, State of Hawaii for fugitive dust control. If there is need to discuss these requirements, please contact our Clean Air Branch staff at Ph. 933-0401. Construction activities must comply with the provisions of Hawaii Administrative Rules, Chapter 11-46, "Community Noise Control." 1. The contractor must obtain a noise permit if the noise levels from the construction activities are expected to exceed the allowable levels of the rules. 2. Construction equipment and on-site vehicles requiring an exhaust of gas or air must be equipped with mufflers. 3. The contractor must comply with the requirements pertaining to construction activities as specified in the rules and the conditions issued with the permit. Should there be any questions on this matter, please contact the Department of H-; 0917. ` C .J 1''4li y-_._.. APR30 .),11'� Planning Dept. ay: ) 1 4 Exhibit tip Duane Kanuha April 25, 2014 Page 2 of 2 We recommend that you review all of the Standard Comments on our website: http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/env-planning/landuse/landuse.html. Any comments specifically applicable to this project should be adhered to. The sante website also features a Healthy Community Design Smart Growth Checklist (Checklist) created by Built Environment Working Group (BEWG) of the Hawaii State Department of Health. The BEWG recommends that state and county planning departments, developers, planners, engineers and other interested parties apply the healthy built environment principles in the Checklist whenever they plan or review new developments or redevelopments projects. We also ask you to share this list with others to increase community awareness on healthy community design. WORD:REZ-14-000175.ni kfV- () .- (3./`/ P1 AKI!1Xd'110P [ EC. ; . r i 10#' SPR 2 t : 51/e, (.- 2 . c., , 4 7)/2 /t r c-, T /y/ Z 0 /1,,i 6-1) 1( ci ry G1 1) 0 Wit_ n r:, 4./7-1-1 /// /0 /// 7 n`) X _ ("; > . <__, / ,o L. '�✓ // f. C _ 1,-a 1-, C L,) )/ (- r - t C.. 1-1 7 2, / r e �— ,y / / J yc--)U /t._) Gi' �J ,Q Ci 7- C,� 0 c-t /-/' / 1// /o / /v_1/ S 7-Z C c / __1 _.._/ .".-/ - j /-r, r ,/// -7 �, ) / 1 2 c -5'. -7,7-1, ., _1, / / -` / q :> / 1. A.,, A: c c,, _ ,--z' ` ' c), ` ( /l r"/ 7 C %/ ll I .% / `.1) / / — C' C. 4 G G // G1 Ll ci / V l7 rV 41, -/ Y . C' G'l 5 (.-,,ti/' C // 1M6 /2E f' ,fa / c G )"-) .% /tel1 $ 7- r r f 7- c.,, ,1 G '-, }J Z C_. C._ /SI Z )/ J . V c 5 C -C )`\-/` /J /71 / 72 => y x_,-. ti! m. cl A0, ki/o n5 .„.) , 1 K (.2/ Gr dl c cy 6 r../ il,/ /..5 ,..y C,74 Planning Dept. Exhibit, "1 A/056 ,.,2 i) (--/ / / 1) -7--(--1 6-7r- ‹-- - , / c c c /, rt ( il c.,... I.! / „ r- i) ,,,/ ,/,:> --- ---) / 4 '' (.-:--- /6 . ( --- (,:„,-•/\„} -7.- " ' / C. ,,,..-:7 , c- 7/ - • . J__.-- ; i•- ,,,, tz,,,) (._,_„ _,,,, 4,) • -- ''') ,/ . . , i I J ,:,.,t_,: 'I • ..--) /i,, ( i/ /1 CI (,/'•j ' ''..- 7 - it- c' C ct r) .) -7--/ k) ci ), ,, ,,, Ar7 1- ------/ c „. r 5 (---7 /-? cr; i -::::,---- 2-7 A2 r, /.-;) /:5" ;,•>--ci / e.--, ct i:" ( / Ci 0 ,---/ i; _ -7. / _ I / / (7 Cr (/// / c - 04, V2 7- / c 7- -,7-- 4 / f c,„ 4 1/ / 6u'iP ,-._---> s- / 1 / 5 / ,, (iC { t A r 1-"C 67 ki z:..- (___ I—/ k 71.-7 a 7/V/ "1 j / /I C-4 k"1 C/ S--- 6 , 71-7) , / j /---- ne , t m/ ,f, , AA.0-6 --- C Ile- g I 6; CO g,.0 yo i- -j 0 i>/A/.5"6)/k} , " • Hala`i Kumiai c/o Ms. Sally Kegler, Secretary 40 Hina Street Hilo, HI 96720 May 8,2014 Mr. Duane Kanuha, Director Hawai`i County Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Kanuha: I am writing on behalf of the Hala`i Kumiai regarding REZ 14-175, an application for a Change of Zone from Single Family Residential (RS-7.5)to Neighborhood Commercial (CN-7.5) for TMK 2-3-035:018 located at 49 Punahele Street in Hilo. The Hala`i Kumiai was established more than 60 years ago to promote harmonious and friendly relationships and mutual welfare among its members,to offer assistance in the case of bereavement and disaster, and to provide a voice whereby its members can communicate with community authorities regarding matters of common concern to the Kumiai. It represents approximately 80 households in the neighborhoods between Komohana, Waianuenue, Kapiolani, and Ponohawai in mauka downtown 1-filo. During its April 21, 2014 meeting, the duly elected Board of the Hala`i Kumiai, with eight of twelve members present, voted unanimously(with one abstention and one member recusing herself)to convey to you the following: 1. Residential Remains the Best Use of This Parcel: Punahele Street is a residential street, and the Puna side of the street in this block is uniquely single family residences and zoned Single Family Residential. It is incumbent upon the applicant to clearly demonstrate that it is infeasible to build a residence on the subject lot. 2. Explore Alternatives to the Proposed Project: Hilo Medical Center's parking problem is not the neighborhood's problem. When the Surgery Center and nearby offices were built, the parking needs were underestimated. However,there seems to be ample parking in adjacent medical developments that the Medical Center could lease. In its discussion of alternatives to the proposed project,the applicant needs to demonstrate that there are no other viable options for resolving its parking challenges. 3. Permitted Uses are Inappropriate: The permitted uses in Neighborhood Commercial Districts include automobile service stations, convenience stores, repair establishments, and parking lots. None of these uses should be located in the middle of a residential street. Once the zoning is changed, the County must allow these permitted gses, so non- residential zoning is simply inappropriate at this location. , zi„ 4/10. 09 Planning Dept. Exhibit t% 4. Strictly Condition any Approval: We understand that the applicant is not currently considering any development other than a parking lot. Therefore, if the change of zone is approved, it should include clear conditions that are established as restrictive, legal covenants. Those covenants should limit uses and address past concerns raised by the Kumiai and neighbors, as proposed by the applicant and summarized below: a. Limit the use of the subject property to a parking lot that is not connected to the adjoining Punahele Professional Building lot. b. Reserve use of the lot for only employees of the Hilo Surgery Center and the Pu`u Honu Professional Building. c. Do not install any lighting. d. Gate the entrance. e. Lock the gate outside of normal business hours, between 6:30pm and 6:30am. f. Prohibit reverse parking, vehicular idling, littering, and loitering. g. Strictly enforce use, hours of use, and prohibitions with signage, security patrols, and penalty provisions. h. Consult with the Kumiai and immediate neighbors in the development and implementation of solid fence and landscaping buffers. Approve variances as necessary to accommodate necessary fence heights. Install the buffers prior to the use of the lot for parking. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Please continue to keep us informed of the progress of this application and of other applications for projects within the Kumiai. BesLregar , i/ ` ; Annette Fujii, Pr`esi�ient 419 Haili Street Hilo, HI 96720 xc: Mr. 3 Yoshimoto, Hawai`i County Council RHiloMedCtrREZ-UnfavRec.doc 6/16/16 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION REPORT HILO MEDICAL CENTER CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 14-000175) Upon careful review of the request for a Change of Zone from Single Family Residential —7,500 square feet (RS-7.5) to Neighborhood Commercial —7,500 square feet (CN-7.5) for approximately 9,230 square feet of land against the guidelines for granting a change of zone, the Planning Director recommends that the Planning Commission forward an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council. Since this recommendation is made without the benefit of public testimony,the Director reserves the right to modify and/or alter this recommendation based upon additional information presented at the public hearing. This unfavorable recommendation is based on the following findings: The applicant is requesting a Change of Zone from the Single-Family Residential- 7,500 square feet(RS-7.5) to Neighborhood Commercial-7,500 square feet (CN-7.5) zoning district for 9,230 square feet of land, in order to establish an approximately 24-26 stall paved parking lot for Hilo Medical Center employees to use that work at the adjacent Punahele Professional Building and nearby Pu`u Honu Professional Building. Although off-street parking meeting the minimum Zoning Code requirements is currently available at the adjacent medical buildings, the applicant believes additional off-street parking is needed for the convenience of its patients and guests. To accommodate this demand, the applicant would like to have its staff park on the subject property. A pedestrian access is proposed for employees to walk from the parking lot to the medical buildings on the adjacent properties to the south. The applicant will consolidate the subject property with the adjacent Punahele Professional Building lot, but regardless no vehicular access is proposed between these properties. Access to the parking lot would be from Punahele Street. Landscaping will be provided to minimize impacts to surrounding properties and no lighting within the parking lot is being proposed. Employees usually work between 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and some weekends. Use of the parking lot would generally correspond to these hours and the applicant intends to have the subject property gated after hours. Commercial parking lots are only permitted in the Village Commercial (CV), General Commercial (CG), and Industrial zoning districts (MCX, ML, MG) but not the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zoning district. Parking lots are permitted in the CN district if they are directly accessory to a land use permitted in the district, such as medical clinics. Therefore, should the request be approved the subject property must be consolidated with the adjacent medical center property in order to establish the proposed parking lot. Upon consolidation, the parking lot would be permitted in the CN-zoning district as a land use that is directly accessory to the medical center. The change of zone request from an RS-73 to a CN-7.5 zoning district does not conform to applicable goals, policies, and standards of the General Plan. Rezoning is the primary method for changing the allowed uses of land. Rezoning must be consistent with the goals, policies and standards of the General Plan and the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map. Other factors beside the map consistency must be taken into account during the rezoning process, which requires specific consideration of a number of factors to determine the suitability of the property for the proposed zone. These include proximity to roads, utilities, and public services, environmental factors such as drainage, slope, and soil types, and other public concerns. It is only through a comprehensive policy analysis approach that evaluations and decisions can be made to better time and stage developments to achieve growth determined by the General Plan and related planning documents. The implications of these evaluations and decisions must also be considered as they may have an impact on similar areas in the County. The primary factor for this unfavorable recommendation is that the proposed request for commercial zoning(CN-7.5) would not result in an appropriate land use pattern at this time, and therefore the existing residential (RS-7.5) zoning district should be retained. The subject property is one of seven residentially-zoned lots known as the Hala`i Kopa`a Subdivision which was created in 1967, many years prior to establishment of the Punahele Professional Office Building. This subdivision is bound by Punahele Street to the north, Hala`i Hill to the east, the Punahele Professional Building properties -2- to the south and Komohana Street to the west, with the exception of two of the 7 lots which are located just mauka of Komohana Street. In the early 1970's, a single-family residence was established on each of the lots in the subdivision, except for the subject property which is vacant. At that time,the Hawai`i Correctional Facility was already established on the property across Punahele Street to the north, but lands to the east, west and south were primarily in agricultural use for sugar cane. For forty years this subdivision has maintained its residential character, even after it was bisected by the Komohana Street extension and commercial development began to encroach to the south with development of the Punahele Professional Office Building complex. The General Plan LUPAG Map designation for the subject property is Medium Density Urban, which allows village and neighborhood commercial uses and single- family and multiple-family residential uses and related functions. However, commercial zoning is not necessarily appropriate for all areas designated Medium Density Urban by the LUPAG map. For example, there are many residential subdivisions in Hilo located entirely within Medium Density Urban designated areas that should remain residential for the near future since residential uses are still firmly established. Introducing commercial uses into residential subdivisions sometimes breaks up the cohesiveness of the overall land use pattern and creates nuisances such as noise, light, and traffic. Usually these nuisances can be reduced by providing landscaping between residentially and commercially-zoned properties but often times these nuisances cannot be completely eliminated. As a result of complaints filed with the Planning Department, the landowner has been cited twice for allowing the subject property to be used as a parking lot, which is not permitted in an RS-zoned district. The current request is the third attempt by the landowner or applicant to rezone the property to Neighborhood Commercial zoning in order to establish a parking lot. During these previous attempts to rezone the property, the landowner/applicant and neighboring property owners could not reach an agreement about what measures could be implemented to reduce nuisances affecting neighboring residential properties as a result of a parking lot. Due to this lack of agreement, the County Council did not approve the rezoning request in 2007 and the Planning -3- Department and Planning Commission did not recommend approval of the rezone request in 2011. Based on testimony received from the Hala`i Kumiai and its members and the lack of signature on the applicant's proposed Memorandum of Agreement, establishing a parking lot or other land use permitted in the CN-zoned district would introduce nuisances that cannot reasonably be mitigated and thus commercial zoning would not be suitable on the subject property at this time. Additionally, the request is not consistent with the following goals, policies, and standards of the Land Use, Single-Family Residential Development and Commercial Development Elements of the General Plan, which indicates that commercial zoning should be established in areas that are compatible with adjacent land uses and in balance with the neighborhood's social environment: Land Use * The County shall encourage the development and maintenance of communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment. * Zoning requests shall be reviewed with respect to General Plan designation, district goals,regional plans, State Land Use District, compatibility with adjacent zoned uses, availability of public services and utilities, access and public need. Single-Family Residential Development * Ensure compatible uses within and adjacent to single-family residential zoned areas. * Enhance the overall quality of life in our residential communities. Commercial Development * Provide commercial developments that complement the overall pattern of transportation and land usage within the island's regions, communities, and neighborhoods. * The development of commercial facilities should be designed to fit into the locale with minimal intrusion while providing the desired services. Appropriate -4- infrastructure and design concerns shall be incorporated into the review of such developments. The General Plan provides a minimum 20-year vision that helps the County formulate its land use policies. It is not a mandate for land use in any specific area; it provides guidance. There are instances where it is simply not the appropriate time to introduce a new land use within an established area. Perhaps in 10 to 20 years, land tenure and circumstances may change enough to warrant a rezoning of this particular section along Punahele Street to a commercial-zoned district such as Neighborhood Commercial. But today, the subject property is still part of an established neighborhood where long-time residents should be able to enjoy a lifestyle that they have long become accustomed to. Based on the above, the request for a Change of Zone from a Single-Family Residential (RS-7.5)to a Neighborhood Commercial (CN-7.5) zoned district would not result in an appropriate land use pattern and would not further the public convenience, necessity and general welfare. Therefore, the Planning Director is recommending that the Windward Planning Commission send an unfavorable recommendation for the proposed change of zone request to the Hawai`i County Council. A draft bill to amend Section 25-8-33 (City of Hilo Zone Map), Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawai`i County Code is provided for your information. However, please note that due to the unfavorable recommendation,there are no conditions attached to the draft bill. -5- r Os h .. t • COUNTY OF HAWAII : '" !:• STATE OF HAWAII -µJ4 Ece,‘,,,,,,.,n(A 1'', 4 OFN���`` , ('Ct, l� 1 1ti e,1,-(--) J BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 25-8-33 (CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL—7,500 SQUARE FEET (RS-7.5) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL—7,500 SQUARE FEET (CN-7.5) AT PUNAHOA 2ND, SOUTH HILO, HAWAI`I, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-3-035:018. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAI`L• SECTION 1. Section 25-8-33, Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), is amended to change the district classification of property described hereinafter as follows: The district classification of the following area situated at Punahoa 2nd, South Hilo, Hawaii, shall be Neighborhood Commercial— 7,500 square feet (CN-7.5): Beginning at the west corner of this parcel of land and on the southeasterly side of Punahele Street, the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "HALAI" being 401.48 feet North and 627.55 feet West and running by azimuths measured clockwise from True South: 1. 232° 49' 71.00 feet along the southeasterly side of Punahele Street; 2. 322° 49' 130.00 feet along Lot 7; 3. 52° 49' 71.00 feet along the remainder of L.C. Aw. 387, Part 4, Section 1, A.B.C.F.M., R.P. on confirmation number 1946, number 1 to D.B. Lyman; 4. 142° 49' 130.00 feet along Lot 5 to the point of beginning and containing an area of 9,230 square feet. All as shown on the map attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof SECTION 2. In the event that any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other parts of this ordinance. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INTRODUCED BY: COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII Hilo, Hawai`i Date of Introduction: Date of 1st Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Effective Date: -2- • -7.5 Zy5-7.5 8ligk K5-7.5 � • ‘401111 , 41Wito 4*, R.-7. RS- .. 10 R5-•.5 10 ler.5 85-7.5 NINA ST �O yQ 401.48'N �' 62755'111111 W 97i9 "HALA'Ple •--'�,Cj QJ .10 �P� 111 1.ii°111 -10 '0 CN-10 is, -10 /::::7 O Rig fr SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL- JQ� 7,500 SQFT(RS-7.5) O� 9A TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL- ��� OG 7,500 SOFT(CN-7.5) Q G 4k• 9,230 SQFT TOTAL -Q Ri* 10 9 N PD <tY 'S 7. R5- CN- 0 A-la Feet 0 125 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE AMENDING SECTION 25-8-33 (CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP) ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - 7,500 SQFT (RS-7.5) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL - 7,500 SQFT (CN-7.5), AT PUNAHOA 2nd, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII MAP PREPARED BY: COUNTY OF HAWAII, PLANNING DEPARTMENT TMK:(3)2-3-035:018 DATE:April 9,2014 EXHIBIT "A" Hilo Medical Center y. 1 11 sawse rl qx ' f�2,,, ,Ltd+, '' ,,4' < 4 O N O a) Is v r z C C ! 1�e r N O '510, kij 111 4(;)1 ;s' SI '• 1 r y�1 11y •/ 4+ ♦.r d; w w ti d •, d G C 0 (13 ••0 C 0 •N <, ‘ \h„ Y `s 0) \\\Ii, \ _ r,�P��y0a�y� IA \.\\\ ,,, ...._ \.... \ --..,&K , i \ co t 2 ,,,-\\ „•,. _____--.....____ ..„------ __,------ ko •. ict,„ . ,,,,,,.,„ r R / a p ,rte / d J a 113 (10 ` am L C it. w L < , , i . 4. , t, ... . t . cr, ; 1, ilikick , \ ,..„ :„. c \ , .7' III 11111•11 ri .a C ,,,Iii D O ,: L . •. V) *,,....- ligiAlhk_- - -..„, :".",. •,,,1.{.4,-1:„-- (.- <:,--,', ". '- lippro, , "Cl 16, \ , * , C M.. ''''\ ...,,,,,1%,.., . . . ti •� e, ' ' t ,,,,i16,_:, >1111 N t ,,,-,„::;',• '--, i ♦y�Yyy��F �.. / L a Ilk,\\‘. :1:,, „, 0 ,O '0'', r i • k S C`. , •'•• V .. loolo, ,, . ,, . moon % e - .. 4, 1J o N (1) CrLie) N ° 4.., u (I el (21 -rte ° • o -� �fti of ° 1/4194 (I) Z tn (I) R* L., W (1) I 4....1tn C' of (I) 4) a,., vl vi tU i.. • Cft. o 0 4.) of [L cs i ° +.,, `it—, 0a ,z ..LA (f) co ry) c. cr ci. N 2) t ( N ftS'i "41 IS RS 2 o ai .a V ° Rs c5 . -... a a, � U � e �--- o ca. z,, r% ..s J42.,4 Q I o --� �. 4, N o �n Z �0 ,o L ,h a 4, E Q) Z ° Z 4?? "41C Z 'CI '''2, ...- .. ,,, • . V CI +.J ,, sZ,, -.r •CS -Z 4) 4) c...)o� 4) -- '' ry 1 .� ,1ii/1 1 '4 Z 04 g . k „, _ k-.,....: _ 1- z W a oft, • 2 a n f F v0-44 �,((�� 46- 1 _ ' K f S 8 a �z11110 -ELNj V 0� Q Z QN Q.§ r; i Q a - �a Q i El- i• tr wt# 7 it -.I Di �v � Q -ft n' v p :. V ,- . o a mom h I tu 11. -Fr < 3 g t Qr�C¢¢ _ R t ! i OV a in,. GC _ 'l _ . • '.1S 3-73HVNnd s_6 P 4 / F fix$ , 4 iji, 4-0 ,\ GIP a11 �� /L V ) V/ I W , fp I L CL. E i .a N > C \ , ea ainli ._ , : ;,gt�;, >44 A t i f CL. 1 L ' O miaV CJ I „. -ft D V1 yitz. Is ` LI ' a) 01 _ -, 1,11 a A)f . i an • E . ,� o 1 ri N •OM 4) : ,,#;$,C4 ' tkq ' / . 51111111 . ME FM. ' ' ' ;,' ' 4 ,. , „.., ,. , . „ 4-0 rMOM a t ..1f4 `' 4J '1a. .. 0. 4; - e.Lis) ,. I i 3 :,,,, ,,..). O t 11 ., . 11V A w "Si .Tip ( p f 4 0*'' . 4-) V ail .Ct %.0 V1 O 1 (, .0 N . f � 4-41 C 1 0 .� , .,, C3) a, _ ,, -. N' O -O 0 4-+ a1 a) L tlaVI r a G /_c rl w r�r ,� a 1, C CM i Inn .NOM / D CO ri s . (0 o i, . , C N .0 = tit 6 N1 C CU IV o � o. ,, 1-- \ a >.. Ty' t _C a its 0. C o ,, - L O. 0- ' a a C CD a 111111111111. •CU II1: ::..„ ,..,, , : ,, Minn . I. co C 0 IA ,' •,.., 0 :-, . — ,, an nal . ,..... pi ...„ ,....... ..PAIP 41) . It. 9 MC • • S 5 0.. ...v .,,,,....„ i,, , (0 O >. 14": — >1's W ,‘ a) — . :.'"''."7"'..."..'..."'".""''''''''''''''''''.a‘'. 011. a. VIC:.•. O 0 SEM 01 ,I. • III ' MI MIN 4.. 0) ii 444D •limn D rn- I -- 4m. > 0 • 41 4 t • . il W ,. •min 4- •.-4. - . _ \ . .... . Z ' ''' iiii,.._,, i.: . ,, _ IR .,rt,-. -( _« , t SA P �P O ♦q J 4 ` i� J r r:'� ,i . O I 1q4i' • kill . .... .,:t _C I'— all g O .C • -, a t o f L. •, 4.01 r e 3 0 arm '0' .''11.."•';'1:41t1 Q. fi ,1f _ f ./. , t 0 . V/ }�1 114 • w.. .«Xi Crl x• , rw , yy'. t it, S+' aal I iii' .*il C) 4-.' O a) a) C = O 73 O C 0 T3 p O- C NJ s_ C _cp ba 4-; Cl as co ■� +J V) co N 4- --+ � - a� z2CO Arm . . - I. 1 /Y1 ,LA Mil= p 4-1 s_ CU') d 4- L 0 0 . >. Q Q1 CO O = 13A Z2. E -. . ci. 1,-,--_ E ›.. c w . . ate, O fQ O CL N .� L— 4-' E L.. a) C Q ti, a) +-1ali .�..► , , tU0 O E � - Cl ac O 0 .� .c •— 0) 4-1 Q C O O V L Q 0 Os2 � •cz3 p = +_+ � = >1 D tvo 4., O 43) > p c� Q cQ v) L c� y... U co a) O a) v .7) . — — CI c (I) +..1s_ CO lli c icin CU CU a taA �^ C C cn -CT 'i, 0.0 [o 4A N C = CL "' U _ .. fp 3 = to c Cp •"_"� 4'' = 4.3 = .—_0 U — 41 � O0 = jean 0O t EO- cu a .0 IV 4 ) J 0 2w w 4-. 0 �� 4--i o c CD p r-.i N (Lin) 0 �E 64(1; 0 ._ � t�Q ""C Ln Q) � W O m CU = p •� SINO— t�0C C E 2 VIVO ca > furl a) � .�.., Cta � O a 'ti)O- Lco wa) —a 0 a V E C -Dim- .L H O V E N +� W E0 a -cam � U : p CaN4- CU U C3 LE 0 ( E ro T2 /� 02s- 0 . d-+ 0 • L2 c a-• U 0 ac � � �' 4.j 4- 0.-0 W 0= 4A >.L2 E"0 C cin +Jul O c L >0 cc5a ar5E-.-+ a aiv) m . � c� � Erof3. EOUV3 �,-n � 0 4-3 To a) W t ca tv 03 • cw 4- bO0c �cu wsZ C � (13 fl .Up4▪ a�+ � 0 �'i� coii CZ V = 0 •E -O.=▪ a � 4m ;�, 0 0 0ra-0 p Q •wo0 0 }, L 0. 0 fp p O ZcaMa c oC Veda cL L U 0 0 WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JULY 7, 2016 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of HILO MEDICAL CENTER (REZ 14-175) was called to order at 9:32 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai`i with Chairman Gregory Henkel presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Gregory Henkel, Joseph Clarkson, Donn Dela Cruz, Myles Miyasato, and Raylene Moses. ABSENT &EXCUSED: Donald Ikeda. ALSO PRESENT: Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), Danny Patel (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager) (to 10:25 a.m.), Susan Gagorik(Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Maija Jackson (Staff Planner), Christian Kay(Staff Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley(Commission Secretary). And 11 members from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: HILO MEDICAL CENTER(REZ 14-175) Application for a Change of Zone from Single-Family Residential-7,500 square feet(RS-7.5)to Neighborhood Commercial-7,500 square feet(CN-7.5) for 9,230 square feet of land. The subject property is located along that portion of Punahele Street approximately 200 feet east (makai)of its intersection with Komohana Street and directly across from the Hawai`i Community Correctional Facility, Punahoa 2nd, South Hilo, Hawai`i, TMK: 2-3-035:018. HENKEL: So, we'll go to Item No. 4. The Applicant is the Hilo Medical Center, REZ 14-175, and presenting will be Maija Jackson. JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, everyone. DELA CRUZ/MIYASATO/MOSES: Good morning. JACKSON: The next application on your agenda is a request for a Change of Zone, and the Applicant is Hilo Medical Center. The subject property is located in the South Hilo District near Halal Hill. You can see Halal Hill in the middle of the slide here. And, you have Waianuenue Avenue running towards the top of the slide in an east-west direction, and then coming off of that is Komohana Street heading south. 1 The subject property is outlined in red in the middle of the slide here. It's off of Punahele Street, and it's between the Hawaii Correctional Facility in this location here, and the Punahele Pu`uhonua [sic] Medical offices in this area here. The zoning of the property is single-family residential which is shown in the yellow color. You can see that the lots adjacent to the subject property are also single-family residential. They're part of a 7-lot subdivision that was created back in the 1960's, and the subject property is the only vacant lot in that subdivision. The others are developed with houses. And, then to the south of that on the pink—the pink color is Neighborhood Commercial zoning, and that is where existing medical facilities are located. The General Plan designation for the property is Medium Density Urban which allows a combination of single-family, multiple-family, residential, as well as commercial uses. And the entire—this entire area of Hilo is in that designation. And, this is an aerial photo of the property and surrounding area. Again, you have the subject property just south of Punahele Street outlined in red, and there are four houses on this block between Komohana Street and Halal Hill. You have the correctional facility to the north across Punahele Street and then the medical offices just south of there. The Applicant is requesting a Change of Zone from Single-Family Residential–7,500 square feet to Neighborhood Commercial–7,500 square feet for about a 9,000-square foot piece of property. And,the Applicant's proposing this Change of Zone in order to establish a 24- to 26- stall paved parking lot for use by Hilo Medical Center employees which will be working at the adjacent medical buildings to the south. This is a site plan that the Applicant provided. You have Punahele Street on the left side. Access to the parking lot would be off of Punahele Street. There would be a gate located at the access, and then you see the 25 parking stalls here. There wouldn't be a vehicular access between the parking lot and the medical facility to the south. Instead, the Applicant proposes to provide a pedestrian access. So,there is an existing walkway along the property line here, and then stairs down into the subject property. This is a photo that was taken last week. It shows the property—a view of the property looking south from Punahele Street. You can see the property here kind of on the left side. Here's the gate. And,then, this is the neighbor just to the west, and then you can see just beyond that in the yellow color is one of the medical offices where Hilo Medical Center will be operating. And then, this is a view, again looking at the subject property, you have the gate on the right side of the slide and that one residence between Hala`i Hill and the subject property. This is a view of Punahele Street looking west so the property is on the left side of the slide. You can see the street is two-lane with some very narrow shoulders, and then over on the right side is the Hawaii Correctional Facility parking area. 2 And, this is a photo of the walkway and the gate from the medical office property down to the subject property. And,then this is a view—these photos were actually taken in 2011 when the Applicant previously applied for zoning of the property, and you can see, this is standing from the medical center properties looking down towards Punahele Street. So, Punahele Street's in the background here. You have the correctional facility beyond that. And, then this is the subject property, and then this is the house between the subject property and Halal Hill. That's the roof This is the other direction. The subject property in the foreground. Correctional facility in the background, and then the adjacent house to the west. The Director is recommending that the Commission forward an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council for several reasons. This current application is the third attempt by the Landowner and Applicant to rezone the property for use as a parking lot. During these previous attempts, the Landowner/Applicant and neighboring property owners could not reach agreement about what measures could be taken to reduce the nuisances associated with a parking lot that would affect the neighbors. Due to the lack of agreement,the County Council did not approve the rezoning request in 2007, and the Planning Department and the Planning Commission did not recommend the approval of the rezone request in 2011. And,the main reason for recommending an unfavorable recommendation at this point in time is that there's been no substantial changes in the application or with agreement between the neighbors and the Applicant/Landowner since the previous rezone in 2011. The Halal Kumiai and its members and the immediately adjacent neighbors continue to oppose the rezone to—of the property for commercial zoning. And, you have a letter from the Kumiai and an agreement—it's a Memorandum of Agreement that the Applicant had submitted by letter dated May 31st, 2016. And, they transmitted a Memorandum of Agreement,but the Agreement was not signed by the neighbors. And, introducing commercial uses into this established residential neighborhood would break up the cohesiveness of the overall land use pattern and create nuisances such as noise, light, exhaust, odors, and traffic that cannot be completely eliminated through mitigation measures. Granting the commercial zoning would not result in an appropriate land use pattern at this time and would not conform to the General Plan policies and goals. So, those are the main reasons for the Director's unfavorable recommendation. Since we sent out your Background and Recommendation, we just received a—three pages of maps submitted by Sidney Fuke who is representing the Applicant, and you should have received that this morning. 3 That concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. HENKEL: Any questions, Commissioners? FUJII (from audience): Question here. You said you would have a— HENKEL: —Wait, you'll get an opportunity to testify. Thank you, though. Thank you, Maija. Will the Applicant or their representative please come forward? We'll swear you all in at the same time. If you'd please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission? FUKE: Yes, I do. SHIROMA: Yes. HENKEL: Thank you. Please speak directly into the microphone, and first, did you get the Director's recommendations and conditions? FUKE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. My name is Sidney Fuke. I'm a Planning Consultant. Yes, I did receive the, on behalf of the Applicant, the staff's Background Report and Recommendation. And, that I believe also I shared with the, with the Applicant, and I believe that they will introduce themselves as well. HENKEL: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. And, would you introduce yourselves also, please? SHIROMA: I'm Lisa Shiroma. I'm one of the assistant hospital administrators for the clinics, who oversees the clinics. MARKHAM: My name is Joe Markham. I'm director of outpatient clinics at Hilo Medical Center. HENKEL: And, you both live in Hilo? MARKHAM: Yes, we do. HENKEL: Thank you. Do you agree with the Director's recommendations? FUKE: Obviously not. You know, we have some different points that we'd like to share with the Commission on this particular matter, and what the staff pointed out, passed out earlier, was something more like for reference, and I wanted to just give the Commissioners some generalized background on the history behind, you know, how we arrived to where we are today. I passed out a three, you know, three-sheet item. The first one is like—reflects like the map which is the rezoning ordinance back in 19—I believe it was 1995. And, it shows the area where the Hilo Surgical Center is and the Rehab at Hilo facility as, you know, in relation to the balance of the property, and, when that, subsequent to the rezoning of that area, the project was 4 developed; the surgical center was developed, as well as the Rehab of the Pacific, was developed. We all know, I think, like as the request shows, the request is essentially to allow for additional parking. When the project was initially approved, the Zoning Code at that time required five stalls for every physician,and they had met that requirement. Plan Approval was issued. Subsequent to that, the Zoning Code was changed to say that they eliminated the number of stall requirement per physician, but instead just went generically, and, the generic requirement is one stall for every 300 square feet. So, ironically, with the change in the Zoning Code relative to parking, now you actually have less stalls required, you know, for a physician. It averages out like on an average a thousand square foot office,physician's office building, you now require like about three, maybe at the most four, parking stalls. Notwithstanding that, I think the surgical center and the rest of that complex, they probably fell victim, you know, to their success and, you know,just the overall demand for medical service. The problem is that, with the parking is that you have overlapping requirements. You know, it's just like you're gonna go to the golf course if you're a golfer, and, you know, your tee time is at 8 o'clock and another set of tee time is like around 11 or 11:30. You know, you just have that crossover, so during that crossover period, you know, you have really have a lack of parking stalls. Likewise, you know, at the surgical center what happens is that, you know, you have people who used to come in for outpatient appointments and, you know, in the past, they used to be scheduled maybe hour,hour and a half,but still then,you have some measure of overlap because, you know, you have people coming in to pick them up; others coming in for the next surgery. The victim of their success is that now they are a little more efficient so rather than doing maybe hour and a half or two hours per patient, they'll be able to do like half an hour to one hour and so, you know, gradually, it increases the level of service but, nevertheless, it compounds the parking problem. So, this is like, over the last I guess like eight years, what the Applicant and the landowner have been trying to do is best address this parking situation, and the problem has become over time again, because of the victim of success of the surgical center, it has become more of a problem. They had applied back in 2007 for the rezoning of the subject area,but unfortunately, that was denied—that was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and also the Planning Director, then Planning Director,went up to the County Council. The County Council had, for its own reason, did not act on that application. Essentially, denied—denied that application. In 2011, they reapplied. At that time when they reapplied, then I was contacted to see, you know, to assist them with the process, and so during that process in 2011, I tried to kind of like understand what the issues were, then reached out to, you know, particularly the neighboring residents in trying to see what can be done to ameliorate or address, you know, their particular concerns. A lot of the concerns dealt with the representations or lack of representation on the part of the landowner, the developer, the caretaker of the property, but notwithstanding that, you know, there are other kinds of concerns that were raised, so we try to package a series of proposed mitigations. We came up, you know, and at that time, the Planning, the then Planning 5 Director initially recommended approval but then subsequent to receipt of public hearing, came up with a recommendation for denial. It went before the Planning Commission, and I'm not exactly sure whether the Commission actually took action or not because right around that time, on behalf of the Applicant, the Applicant decided to withdraw that application and said basically, we need a little bit more time to see whether we can work it out. And rather than just kind of dragging it on and on, the application was withdrawn. Now, you know, here we are, you know,back in 2014, two years ago. You know, I guess the Applicant wanted to renew their request and then they asked me to kind of reach out again to the neighbors and see what can be done, and I've tried over the last, you know, two years to see what can be done. I think one of the issues is like when you deal with an area in transition whether it's like this particular area which is an area in transition. It's Medium Density designation. Or, if you look at like a very comparable areas like in the Waiakea House Lot area, you know, you do have areas that are coming in for Commercial or Mixed Commercial Industrial, and you do have areas—you do have some neighbors or residents coming in to support; others who object. But, nevertheless, at the end of the day, you know, the Commission just looks at the fact, look at the fact, and then, arrive it's, you know, arrive at its decision. Whenever you're dealing with areas in transition as in this area, you know, it's very sensitive, so hopefully, you try to see whether conditions can be developed to address and mitigate the concerns. But, before going into that, I think I'd like to just kind of punt for the moment and let Ms. Shiroma, you know, on behalf of the Applicant really speak to as far as why this additional parking is needed and what its implications—if they don't have it, what its possible negative implications may be. SHIROMA: Thank you. So,the additional parking lot is really for the employees so that patients can park closer to either the surgery—to the surgery center. And, as a patient of, my PCP is in the surgery center and also being a patient of the surgery center, it's very difficult at times to find parking, and when you're looking to go for surgery, you're having to walk quite a ways to just find a parking stall and walk in. Or, if you're gonna go and see your PCP, it is—if you have an illness or if you're the older population, it is, it can be very difficult for them to actually get in to see their doctor and to get to their appointment on time. So, it's definitely hindered our ability to get into, see our doctors quickly and efficiently, especially with that older population. We've had some complaints within one of our other buildings down our orthopedic center where patients who just have had either knee surgery or hip surgery have had difficulty finding a stall and then they're trying to hobble in to go see their doctor for their follow-up appointment, and they're not able to find close parking. So, it definitely has been hard. Why are we looking at that area? It's really because for us, that is one of our only other areas to provide outpatient surgical procedures to patients of this community. The hospital has the ability to provide surgeries at the—at the hospital,but we really focus on the inpatients, you know, because we never know what's going to come in the doors. We don't know how many other 6 appointments we can schedule for this outpatients, those outpatients might be bumped because somebody is coming through the ER who needs something. So, that's sort of the reason why we're focusing on that area, and we have the ability right now to even—if we had additional parking,we have the ability to potentially expand in the area as well. So,really,if the request is denied,it's just going to be a continued inconvenience for the patients and staff, and it will—it will limit our ability to expand, you know, and help out. FUKE: So, during the course of the couple years and actually from 2011 and, you know,just periodically, in my meeting with, you know, the, some of the neighbors, the kinds of concerns that were raised, and I wanted to share that with you and probably, you know, people that I've been, you know, meeting with, they're here so they will probably come up and state their own concerns, too, and hopefully they kind of overlap it with I'm just sharing with you. But, notwithstanding the issue about like the credibility of the developer, the landowner, and so on and so forth,just looking at the specific case itself,you know, the substance of the objections, you know, they seem to relate to like noise, smoking, loitering, and those kinds of things, and a lot of that—you know, it's my understanding that a lot of those activities had occurred like, you know, during the so-called, the illegal use of this area for parking `cause the landowner then initially made it available for the hospital,the medical, Hilo Medical Center. And, so the employees were using it during the day, but during the night,because it was not gated, then so- called visitors at the correctional facility, you know, they didn't have any place to park, you know, in that area. And, you saw the photos—it's kind of, the road is relatively narrow. And, so a lot of them used to park in there, and they were the ones making a lot of noise, you know, loitering and swearing and so on. So, understandably,if you're, if you're a neighbor and I get 8 or 10 o'clock you hear those kinds of things, you'd be very intimidated, and so we're trying to figure out like, okay, how can we best address that. So, we then came up with some proposed mitigation. The mitigation would be like, you know, after it's fully improved, it would be gated. It would be used, limited only to employees of the Hilo Medical Center or the Punahele Medical Center Complex. There would be time limit, you know, 6 a.m. –6 p.m. kind of closure so that, you know, nobody else can use it. There are other concerns about like well, the road is kinda narrow and, you know, they don't want to have like traffic coming through and increasing, you know, or taxing, you know, Punahele Street, so very wisely,back in 2007, when the initial zoning was approved, there was a requirement to say there shall be no access, you know,between the primary medical complex and, and Punahele Street. So, this is the program that they'll still kind of like maintain. So, there's no access—so essentially what you'll see is like, you know, along Punahele Street, you'll have like traffic that will come during the a.m. and the p.m. Some were during the day. You know,but no more than 24 or 25 movements during the time. In addition to that, when the staff had originally recommended approval, they had recommended that because Punahele Street currently has a right-of-way of only 40 feet, the staff had 7 recommended, wisely so, that they'd be a 10-foot wide additional future road widening setback taken from this property and within that area curbs, gutters, and sidewalks be constructed. So, you know,it's similar to a lot of the kind of conditions that the Commission has imposed on, you know, projects like in the Waiakea area where, you know, the roadways are narrow and so then there's an obligation on part of the developer to put curb,gutters,and sidewalks fronting the street. There was this added concern about like, you know, which I think the Halal Hill Community Association raised like, and rightfully so, in saying that well, you know, zoning cannot restrict only for parking. You know, you have to look at zoning categories and its commercial neighborhood, so what if they don't use it for a parking lot and instead like tomorrow a bar comes in or they use it for a gas station, but it's very unlikely. But, you know, there's always that kind of possibility, so what we're suggesting is that no, it would not be used as that, and then we would—we would require that if there is a use any other than what is limited only for parking, if there's a use other than parking, then they would have to go back to the Planning Commission, and the Commission at that time would have the opportunity to, you know, with the public hearing to, you know, weigh in and recommend to the Planning Director, appropriate mitigations to address the use because the mitigation that is being proposed right now, you know, relate to a parking lot. So, if you have a different kind of use,then obviously the mitigation would probably be varied. So, the other thing, too, is like that, you know, we tried our best, you know, to reach an agreement with the neighbor. We developed this memorandum of understanding and it was kind of like just about a year and, you know, I'm sorry that, you know, we couldn't kind of get over the—you know, at the one yard line and we couldn't kind of push it over,but, we tried our best to address the concerns. One of the additional concerns that was raised by some of the neighbors were that well, they don't want to be put in a position where, you know, there are all these conditions of approval and, you know, they don't enforce it. The landowner doesn't comply with these conditions of approval, then what do you do? And, so,they are saying, okay, if they don't do it, and so the memorandum of understanding is saying like we would set up,the association would set up like a revolving fund that the neighbors can use to then contact that person, you know,mutually— whether it's going to be an attorney or whomever, and let that person take the responsibility of seeing that the conditions are, you know, appropriately enforced. And, so you remove the burden from, you know, like the affected property owners or the complaining property owner. So, that's all kind of reflected in the agreement. Anyway, like as I was just saying, then to—Maija, can you pass the proposed recommendation? So, I guess like all we're asking right now is that, you know, we tried our best and so we're prevailing upon the Planning Commission if you were to look at this area like an area in transition like House Lot because we say like it's an area in transition because it's not all residential. This is not the first commercial related activity here. You have the correctional facility right across the street. You have the Hilo Medical—you have the surgery center. You have like just across the street, too, is the undeveloped Project District for the Wailani Project. 8 So, I guess like what we're asking is whether, you know, for the Commission, you know to consider this application favorably and to look and ask yourself like, you know, the questions that you normally ask yourself whenever you go through any zone change. You know, like first of all, you ask yourself whether it's consistent with the General Plan, and in this case, it is consistent with the General Plan LUPAG Map. It's a Medium Density designation. You ask yourself the question about the infrastructure; whether water is needed or a sewer line is needed, and the roadway needs to be improved and so on and so forth. And to all of that like, you know, what we're trying to demonstrate is that, yes, you know like water's available, and the sewer line is fronting the property. If there is a need for a sewer, there is. And, they're gonna make their proportionate share of roadway improvements to Punahele. Other questions you always ask yourself is like whether there are environmental considerations, cultural considerations, archaeological considerations. And, on this 10,000-square foot property, there are none. You ask yourself whether there are any drainage issues. There is no drainage issue on this property. And, you ask yourself well, whether there is a need. And, I think as Ms. Shiroma kind of pointed out, there is definitely a need, you know, for a project of this nature—a supportive project of this nature. So, I guess like, you know,because it's an area of transition, then, you know, you have to ask yourself always like in the Waiakea House Lot area, you have to ask yourself about impacts and whether they are reasonable mitigation, and we say that, you know, there are some reasonable mitigation that can be taken, and I've passed out a proposed recommendation because obviously one way or another, if the Commission recommends favorably, we go favorably, there has to be some justification behind a favorable reason, so what I used was that—you know, this is a report that was prepared and handed out to the Commission way back when. A recommendation for approval. So,I used this as the template and prepared what was just handed out to you and made some slight modifications to that both in the reasoning, you know,behind the recommendation for approval. And, if you go back towards the conditions, having all of the different kind of conditions that, that address those things that we've represented on, you know,right now, and as well as like on paper earlier, you know, dealing with the signage, no back up enforcement provisions, and so on and so forth. The proposed recommendation on behalf of the Applicant and the conditions of approval,just to make it easier, I had—if you look at the underscored and italicized version, that's, those are the new terms. All of the changes are reflected in the bold, and for those that are going to be deleted, they're reflected in brackets. And those, which are new ones would be reflected in the italicized and the underscored. So, it's pretty much, you know follows along the line of what was recommended back in, initially back in 2007 by the Planning Director and Planning Commission and followed by the Planning Director's initial July 11th, July 2011 Recommendation. With that, Mr. Chairman, and it's kind of long and you have a lot of things to go through, but if there's any questions, you know, we'd be more than happy to respond to them. 9 HENKEL: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Commissioners, any questions for the Applicant? MIYASATO: Chair, I have a question. HENKEL: Yes. MIYASATO: Mr. Fuke, you know, I guess security is one of the major concerns. You mentioned a gate, gated facility. So, would the gate just be opened in the morning and then closed in the evening and unattended? FUKE: No, they're thinking about a card system. MIYASATO: Oh, for the gates? FUKE: Correct. MIYASATO: Okay. And, your—I guess it might have been a condition that you're speaking of, as far as it. this nronertv beim specific to a narkine lot— FUKE: —Correct— MIYASATO: —for its use, would that be a condition that you would accept? FUKE: Yes, we would,but,you know,if there's some you know like legal implication behind it restricting only because it might amount to like a contract zoning, so I was just trying to avoid the contract zoning restriction. So,but, if the Commission and the decision makers, you know, wish to restrict this only to a parking lot and attendant to the Punahele facility,the Applicant would have no objection. MIYASATO: Chair, could 1 ask the Director about that? To comment on that? KANUHA: About the contract zoning condition? MIYASATO: Yeah, would that be consistent with an application? KANUHA: Contract zoning—you know, if there's a challenge, you know, perhaps Corp. Counsel might answer that. We would always look to whether or not—what our role is to ensure that whatever approvals and conditions of approvals that we recommend to the Commission, that it's defensible to the maximum extent possible so where the condition that has overtones of being a contract zoning condition, you know, we feel that it could leave the Commission's and also the Council's decision on it somewhat open to legal challenge. Maybe Danny might want to weigh in a little on that, too. PATEL: Yeah, that would subject any kind of contracted condition or contractual zoning effect open to challenge. You generally cannot contract zone. 10 MIYASATO: Okay. FUKE: So, Commissioner Miyasato, so therefore—I'm sorry to interrupt—but and because of what the Director and your counsel has advised,and that's why I was trying to structure a language that addresses that kind of like limitation, and so if you look at on page 2 of the what we call the conditions of approval,kind of like way in the back. On condition f, you know,it reads, I guess, you know, also for the benefit of the public, it would read as follows: "Prior to the submittal of plans for Plan Approval for a development of the property for any use permitted within the CN-zoning district other than the proposed parking area, the Windward Planning Commission shall be given the opportunity to review and recommend, if needed, appropriate mitigative conditions to the Planning Director." What this would mean, is that, you know, the Planning Director has discretion when it reviews and approves Plan Approvals, you know, whether it comes in the form of additional landscaping, access requirements, further setbacks, and so on and so forth. You know, there is that discretionary authority that the Director has when during the plan review process, so what we're saying is that, okay, so if you have a use that is other than the parking, because all of the conditions have been tailored around the parking right now. But, if you have a use other than the parking, well, fine. Let us have the Planning Commission review it, you know, via a public forum, and then you make your recommendation to the Planning Director. At least there will be an additional step of I guess so called opportunity for the public to comment on any change of use. MIYASATO: Okay, thank you. CLARKSON: What I— HENKEL: —Go ahead, Mr. Clarkson. CLARKSON: —I'm new and unclear about—I'm still unclear about this and maybe our Corporation Counsel can answer. If this property is rezoned, and a different use that is consistent with the zoning is proposed, other than standard mitigative measures, is there any way to prevent that other use from being permitted? In other words, if it's zoned commercial and some other use that is appropriate for that zoning, is submitted for a permit, can that permit be denied by the Planning Department or anybody? PATEL: So, generally speaking, and it goes back to the concerns that Mr. Fuke raised as far as what the neighboring property owners were also raising is that zoning runs with the land. Whatever is permitted in that zoning, you're generally gonna be able to put that property to those uses. So, to, I guess in answering your question, your primary avenue for controlling what happens would be through mitigative measures, and I think that's what Mr. Fuke is getting at with his proposed conditions. FUKE: If I can just kind of add just one more paragraph to that, Mr. Counsel, and that is like what we're also proposing is that the property be consolidated with the parent parcel. So, if it gets consolidated, it's going to be very, very difficult to, you know, and I think it's going to be like, you know, maybe a century maybe from now,before like the medical center complex will probably find a different use, and only when you have a different use in that complex than 11 conceivably you could have a different use to this particular area `cause there is a mandate that this, as proposed over here, that this lot be consolidated with the parent parcel. So,it would be hard to have,I would think, you know as a practical matter,hard to have like the surgery center, you know, find a different use other than like medically related for that particular area `cause it's going to be part and parcel of the same family parcel, HENKEL: Mr. Fuke, you mentioned earlier an MOA that the adjoining property owners didn't sign. Did that reflect these recommendations that you've just submitted to us? FUKE: Yes, with the exception of the provision about having like this revolving escrow fund of $5,000 to assist with the enforcement `cause that would amount to more like a private contract and like a convenant that would be, kind of like, should be separate and apart from the conditions. The Applicant had made it known to me that he, they would still be in a position to execute this memorandum of understanding, and if that memorandum of understanding is executed, than the$5,000 revolving escrow fund kicks in, in terms of the enforcement, but all other mitigative measures are generally reflected in the proposed conditions. HENKEL: Thank you. KANUHA: Mr. Chairman, I had a question or two. Mr. Fuke, given what you just mentioned about a proposal to have this property consolidated with the rest of the project, can you explain to the Commission why if that's the case, it's not possible to have access to this property come from the actual medical center itself? FUKE: First of all, like when a medical center, you know which is the first page I passed out— you know when this zoning was done—there was a requirement, there was a condition that stipulated that,that project shall not have any access, direct access,to Punahele Street, so the only way that can happen is that there has to be an amendment to that basic ordinance which means, you know, the public hearing process, Commission, and Council, Council approval. The other thing is like the staff accurately pointed out, too, is that if the parcel is not consolidated with the parent parcel, then a freestanding parking lot is not a permitted use in the CN zone. But, if it is part of the parent parcel, then it becomes all part and parcel, you know,really of the primary use. And, that's the reason why there is a need or a mandate for having the parcel consolidated with the parent parcel. KANUHA: So, in other words, it's physically impossible to develop that parcel as a parking lot with access only from the medical center and not from Punahele. FUKE: No, I think—I think the language would allow that. I think it says that like the Punahele, you know, Surgical Center property cannot have a direct access to Punahele Street. So, if you seal off Punahele Street, then everything goes back again, you know, up to the parent parcel. KANUHA: Okay, then, you know,just another question. This, again, is related to the contract zoning issue, yeah? So, if some point in time because the whole complex is zoned for 12 commercial, okay, so if some point in time, if someone were to come in and make an offer to purchase the entire facility for multi-family shopping center, etc., does the zoning or the conditions of the zoning restrict those kinds of uses? FUKE: You mean, if someone buys the Punahele Surgical Center property and also which would mean like this property as well,and they want to change that into a KTA, for example? Yes, it would be possible. Under the terms of the condition, however, like what we're proposing is that if that happens, then prior to the Planning Director issuing Plan Approval, there has to be a public review process vis-à-vis the Planning Commission to decide on what kind of conditions that could be imposed, you know, vis-à-vis the Plan Approval process, whether it's going to be added setback, landscaping, and all that stuff. KANUHA: Yeah, I think the difficulty with that particular condition is that the Planning Commission is only advisory to the Council. The Council is the one that actually initiates the zoning, okay? And, once the zoning is through, then the oversight for the approval, conditions of approval for permitted uses falls back to the Department rather than the Commission. So, I have some difficulty in the Council actually creating legislation that gives additional review oversight to the Commission when, you know, they're not in the, that process to begin with, yeah? FUKE: The whole idea was to enable some public forum, you know, for the neighbors or somebody, you know, like if there's going to be any change in use, but, again, my feeling is that any change of use, especially because of this consolidation requirement, is going to be very difficult, you know, to achieve unless for example, as you pointed out, that if somebody else buys the Punahele property and this property and says like, no I'm not going to do this but I'm going to a KTA or whatever like, you know,but I think that scenario is very unlikely but, you know, in the scale of probability whether very low,but it still, you know, it is possible. So,the idea behind coming with that condition was, you know, for my own brainchild was just trying to see, well, whether there was any way for the public to kind of weigh in on it because everybody's weighing in only a parking lot and some guys are concerned about well, you know, what if it's a gas station or McDonald's or whatever. You know, and so I can understand that, but it's unfortunate that there's not a processing vehicle that's like a Use Permit that would say yes, you know, this would be exclusively only for a certain use,but, you know, we don't have that ability. But, we're open to any suggestions that the Commissioners or the Director may have or the Department may have in terms of how you can tie down or enable the public to review on uses other than a parking lot for, associated with the facility. HENKEL: Any other questions for the Applicant? Thank you very much. You may be seated. MIYASATO: Chair, excuse me, could we take a five-minute recess, please? HENKEL: Yeah, let's recess for five minutes, please. MIYASATO: Thank you. Chairman Henkel called a recess at 10:17 a.m., and the meeting was reconvened at 10:25 a.m. 13 HENKEL: Let's go back into session. It's time for the public testimony portion of this—I'm sorry, Commissioner Clarkson? CLARKSON: Yes, I still have a question. I don't know whether Corp. Counsel or maybe the Planning Director can answer, but it goes back to the original zoning of the property on which the medical center is now located. And, I just wanted to find out if at the time the rezone from Residential-7.5 to the Commercial was made, whether as part of that rezone, there were mitigative measures as part of the application for rezone that were promised between the rezoned property and the residential properties fronting Punahele Street. I'm just curious about whether any of that was involved between the rezoned property and the existing residential. JACKSON: I can try to answer that question for you, Commissioner. If you look at your package, Exhibit 4 is actually the ordinance from when the medical office property was rezoned back in 1995, and that ordinance has some mitigation measures above and beyond what the Department and Commission would normally require. There's one—there's one. let's see. That's it. You fust found it. So. if you turn to Pane 4. Condition B, there was a 50-foot structural setback requirement along the northwest property boundary and that's above and beyond— CLARKSON: —Which condition was that? JACKSON: Condition B, yeah,the second sentence. There's also the third sentence, required a minimum 6-foot high privacy wall or landscape buffer between the property and the adjoining single-family residential properties along Punahele. And—let's see what else—and then Condition D has that access restriction. Access to the subject property from Punahele Street shall not be permitted. So, that,that meant no connection through the medical office property through the subject property under the current rezoning now to Punahele Street. And,those are the main conditions related to mitigation measures for the adjoining properties, and you asked also whether those have been implemented? I believe the, there's a large fence that has been placed between the medical office properties and the residential properties that is shown here, and this fence actually extends all the way towards Komohana Street, so it divides the two properties. And, the only other issues have been there have been complaints because since this 1995 ordinance was approved, the landowner of the property, of the subject property, has been off and on using the property as a commercial parking lot. Did that answer your question? CLARKSON: Yes, that does. Thank you for pointing this out, and I'd just like to find out whether then any potential rezone of the subject property then, which would require breaking the heavy planting screen or fence, which was required to be unbroken, whether this rezone basically cancels all the mitigating requirements of the original zoning of the parcel where the medical center now stands. 14 JACKSON: I can try to answer that as well. So, the Applicant is currently proposing a parking lot with pedestrian connection only, and the way they currently have it set up is keeping that fence along the property line, and they've provided a gate to connect the medical center property which is where I was standing taking this picture. You open the gate and go down to where they are proposing the parking lot. So, I would say that as long as conditions are included in the ordinance that only allow a pedestrian access, then that would not conflict with the 1995 rezone ordinance. But—I would think that you're correct that if, if they are proposing to consolidate the property and open that area up for vehicular access, they would have to go back and amend the 1995 ordinance to do that because of the landscape requirements, the fencing requirements that were in that 1995 ordinance. HENKEL: Does that answer your question? CLARKSON: Well, I—I'd just say I would have to disagree, that's all. I mean, it looks to me like this condition was to protect the residences that were already there from noise and visual impacts and that if you have any kind of traffic, pedestrian or otherwise, going through this area, it does not make that mitigation continuous and unbroken. So, I don't know. HENKEL: Okay, I'd like to get on with the public testimony and then we'll have a chance to discuss it more if there's any motion for action or, you know, even questions of the public. So, I've got six people signed up to testify. If there's anybody else,please sign up now. The way it is now, I'd like to have three at a time come up so it doesn't get too crowded, so I'll call Stephen Woo, Jr., Cheryl Reis, Kapuaokalani Andrade as the first three. It looks like two more signing up so let's go ahead and get Vivian [sic] Reis up here,please. We'll go four and four. REIS, C.: Mr. Chair, I'm going to read the letter from Mrs. Andrade. HATA-FINLEY: Microphone,please. REIS, C.: Oh, I'm sorry. HENKEL: Okay, well first let's get you signed in, so what is your name? REIS, C.: My name is Cheryl Reis. HENKEL: Oh, and so you're here for you and Ms. Andrade. REIS, C.: And also for Mrs. Gushiken. HENKEL: Okay. We'll allow you a little more time because you're representing three. Everybody else, three minutes,please, and you'll be timed. Maija over here will keep track of the time. So, will you raise your right hands? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Planning Commission? 15 REIS C. &V.: Yes. WOO: Ido. HENKEL: Okay, then as you testify, please state your name and where you reside, and keep it to three minutes and speak into the microphone,please. We'll start with you, sir. WOO: Thank you. My name is A. Stephen Woo, Jr., and I've lived on Halal Hill for 40 years. I offer three points for your consideration and thank you for letting me speak my viewpoints in opposition to the zoning change. Number 1. Residential remains the best use of this parcel. Punahele Street is a narrow street with marginal borders and no sidewalks and is suitable only for residential traffic. Moreover, it's used by many students who walk down the road toward the neighboring Hilo Intermediate School. Number 2. Residential loss, loss of Residential zoning will profoundly affect the neighborhood. Single-Family Residential Toningnrovides homeowners a certain decree of safety and security for their families. Stripping this protection from the area would [inaudible] activities and enterprises of uncertain nature and present new and complex problems for those living there. Even so, Residential zoning is not always protective. For example, one of our neighbors lives next to the lot in question. She and her husband, now deceased,built their home 45 years ago when the area was semi-rural and tranquil. But, a few years ago, the lot was put into use as a parking lot for the benefit of personnel working nearby. This was in clear violation of the residential Zoning Code. For years, the poor woman suffered from exhaust fumes and noise of vehicles as drivers reversed parked their vehicles just a few feet from her bedroom window. Only after a complaint was filed in 2011 did the activity stop. Sadly to say, the noise and violation recalls a similar violation in 2006,meaning that this was the second violation, so you can see where people have one about good-faith promises. Number 3. Why is there a parking problem? My background is in pathology, and we all know that diagnosis is very important. And,part of the answer is given from Mr. Fuke when he said there is an on-site parking that satisfies the minimum requirements of the Zoning Code. Hilo Medical Center believes that additional parking proximate to these buildings is still needed. Bluntly, to me, when someone says minimum requirements, that means they're gonna do the least as necessary, and that's what happens when you do the least that's necessary. You run short of space. I look at the Ka Waena Lapa`au Medical Center just to the south of this project, and they have plenty of parking. They far exceed their requirements of one space for every 300 square feet or whatever it is because they planned ahead. So, they're shackled by this area. They [inaudible] for the minimum. Secondly, their location of parking stalls leaves a lot to be desired. It was mentioned that some of the orthopedic patients have to walk a long way to get to a parking area. One of the buildings in that area is at the 73 Pu'uhonu building, and there's an orthopedic surgeon that works in that building. If you look at the building, there are exactly 11 spaces in front of the building for parking. Three of those spaces are for disabled, and the other parking is up the hill, across a 16 driveway, which is very busy, which is not marked for pedestrians, and they have to park there. So, it's about a 100-foot walk for people who have a difficulty walking. So, I think there's some poor planning as well as adherence to a minimum code. So,basically, we have a fundamental difficulty, and a shotgun and short-term solutions will not suffice. That's why I oppose the zoning change. HENKEL: Thank you, Mr. Woo. Cheryl Reis? REIS, C: Can she go first? HENKEL: She can go first. REIS, C.: Thank you. HENKEL: That's Vivian[sic]. REIS, C.: Yes, Vianne. HENKEL: Vivianne [sic]. REIS, V.: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Vianne Reis, and I live at 65 Punahele Street adjacent to the subject property. Most of us are familiar with disaster preparedness and home fire escape plans. These are measures taken by most of our families and communities to prepare for,prevent, and reduce the negative effects of disasters whenever possible. I'd like you to please look at Exhibit 2 in the binders. This is the fourth time a runaway car, truck, semi-trailer has had the potential to inflict harm on our family. At our home, we've had to devise a runaway vehicle crash plan. This is an attempt to mitigate its effect on my 72-year old mother or other family members only when I'm home, upstairs, and able to see a vehicle crashing through the fence. I will then yell, "run"if my mother is home. My mother understands. If she hears me yelling"run," she only has a few seconds to get to the front of the house or better yet, the front of our property. Possible areas of impact are the clothesline my mother uses regularly; my mother's bedroom; my entrance/exit to upstairs; and, lastly, either of our living areas. My mother might have a chance of escaping potential harm or death if the vehicle crash doesn't cause our house to collapse. I will have to gather my two cats, if possible, put them in their carriers, which I have handy. If not, they go by the grace of God. Then, I will have to climb out of 2-story window, onto a roof, then another, and eventually jump to the ground. By the way, I am physically handicapped. If I'm not home or upstairs, all we can hope for is to be able to effectively cope with the consequences and results of a bad situation not of our making. Further, it disturbs me to see our neighborhood suffer from the constant threat of our way of life slowly destroyed. I know this 17 weighs heavily on the minds of our kupuna who have worked so hard to establish the good relationships and what used to be a great place to live and grow. As Commissioners,you have the power to prevent and/or lessen this potentially reoccurring impact by voting no to this proposed parking lot/commercial venture/road and who knows what next, Thank you for your attention, HENKEL: Thank you, Vianne. Cheryl? REIS, C.: Thank you. HENKEL: State your name, please. REIS, C.: My name is Cheryl Reis, and I live at 65 Punahele Street. HENKEL: And use the microphone, please. REIS, C.: Sorry, my name is Cheryl Reis, and I live at 65 Punahele Street which is directly adjacent to the subject property. The letter I'm going to read is from Mrs. Kapuaokalani Andrade who lives at 44 Punahele Street. I am telling the Planning Commission my concerns that I do not, do not want, and am against the request for the Change of Zone from Single-Family Residential to Neighborhood Commercial. I am very much against the development of a 25-space,paved parking lot on the 9,230-square foot parcel of land located on Punahele Street. I live next to the Hilo Correctional Facility across the lot. Hawaii County Code 95-33 [Ordinance No. 95-33] is a law stating that landscaping across the northwestern boundary and no access to the site from Punahele Street. The Association has not followed this. Right now, there is no landscaping across the northwestern boundary,but a covered fence with a gate to the lot, and this rezone application does not follow no access to the site from Punahele Street. The Association has already submitted plans for the existing medical facilities and buildings with paved parking. Why do they need additional parking? I do not want to deal with less safety and peace of mind, less privacy and security. I do not want to deal with more traffic congestions, vehicles,pedestrians, more air pollution, exhaust fumes, loud noises from vehicles and people. We, the neighbors, and myself do not seek the benefit—do not see the positive benefit and growth of our neighborhood with this zone application. Do not allow this to happen. Please vote no on this zone application, and mahalo to the Commission for allowing me to voice my concerns. And, thank you for your attention. HENKEL: Now, you have a letter from Marjorie Gushiken? REIS, C.: Yes. 18 HENKEL: Okay. REIS, C.: Members of the Commission, my name is Marjorie Gushiken, and I am 87 years old. I live at 51 Punahele Street, TMK 2-3-25-N17. Adjacent to the subject property,2-3-35:18. My family has lived here for over 45 years. I am writing this letter to testify against the rezoning of the parcel from Residential to Commercial. I strongly object to having a parking lot next to my home. At one point in time, said lot was cleared of brush and used as a base yard for the development of the Ainako Sewer Alignment Project. During the two-year period,my family was subjected to toxic exhaust fumes, disturbing noise from constant vehicular traffic. My health was seriously compromised by causing me to suffer daily headaches and requiring me to be under doctor's care. Subsequently, employees and staff of the Pu`uhonu Professional Building as well as staff and inmates from the Hawaii Community Correctional Center started using said property as an illegal parking lot. Again, my family was subjected to exhaust fumes from people reverse parking and disturbances from vehicular traffic. In addition, we were fearful for our safety as inmates,their visitors, and anyone parking there could look directly into my home. We had no privacy from anyone else who used the illegal parking lot because it was convenient. There was drinking and other disturbances going on with no one to monitor these illegal activities. I understand that there is a proposal from the owners, GELOCAG, but I know that they propose—what they propose will not be feasibility enforceable. I believe that I am entitled to live in a safe and healthy neighborhood. I also believe that I, along with my family and guests, am entitled to the enjoyment of my home which is highly unlikely with the rezoning of the parcel to Commercial. I sincerely hope that all of you here today will take my concerns into consideration. As a long- time resident of this community, I would like to have the peace of mind that I and my family will continue to live and a healthy and safe neighborhood. HENKEL: Thank you, Cheryl. And, then, did you have any comments on your own? REIS, C.: Yes. You have a copy in that folder of my testimony, and I would ask you—well, I'll read it. I'll read what I wanted to say,but I just want to qualify it for you. What I'm saying here is a history of what has happened to us because I don't believe that any zoning application will tell you what we've actually experienced. So, good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to request the denial of this application on behalf of my family, and three other families in our neighborhood surrounding the subject property who don't wish to be named. And, also, for Mr. and Mrs. Danny Johnson, and Danny is here, and I believe he might testify. I would like to request that the Commission might want to do a site visit before or during a normal work day to see firsthand what we are discussing, and, also that perhaps you might have questions for us after the testimony. 19 I am a retired Hawaii County Police Major and certainly did not expect to spend my golden retirement years policing violations made by people who were trusted and should be responsible enough to obey the rules. Trust and responsibility are the important operative words here, and I ask that you keep these in mind as you hear testimony and ultimately when you make your decision on this unwanted parking lot. We have been at this issue since 1979 when the project was first discussed. The property which sits between Mrs. Gushiken's and ours was first proposed as a road and then a parking lot and now possibly another commercial venture. During the Ainako Sewer Alignment Project, Haitsuka Brothers Construction, with the permission of the owners, used the surgery center property as their base yard. The subject property was used as a road to access Punahele Street which was prohibited by the County in the rezoning process of 1994, excuse me, 1985. From 1994 to 1996, 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., seven days a week, our lives and traffic on Punahele Street were adversely affected by the disruption of heavy equipment and street traffic, incredible amounts of diesel, hydraulic fluid spills, and fumes from mounds of asphalt, diesel exhaust, dust and soot, noise from compressors,bulldozers, a vibrating compactor,backhoes, and vehicle repair. Approximately 77,000 cubic yards of material was excavated from the base of Halal Hill also known as Termite Hill, where the former Straub Clinic parking lot and Rehab of the Pacific now sit by several construction companies using, again, the prohibited access to Punahele Street. This occurred from 1994 to 1996 and was allowed to continue by the County in spite of our numerous complaints to Public Works and the Department of Health. Jiro Sumada, then head of DPW talked to Gerald Takase,part owner of the subject property, who was then first deputy Corp. Counsel. Each respite was short lived until we made the next complaint. November 17, 1994,before the Planning Commission, I repeatedly stated a Wiki Wiki Mart type business wasn't acceptable and would oppose the development on that basis. Commissioner Sally Rice cautioned me at one point saying that once commercial is approved, they could not do—they could do anything they wanted to. I said that I took Dr. Takase at his word and now I know better. Commercial is cart blanche for anything and whatever the developer wants to do, and it's forever. It took another complaint by the neighbors to the Board of Appeals to force compliance with the required landscaping plan, another rezoning condition violation, along the common border of the surgery center's parking lot and our adjoining homes. Without it, we were stripped of privacy, dust and noise mitigation, and safety. The vinyl fencing we ultimately agreed to because termites were attacking the Podocarpus. Again, this did nothing to mitigate the impact of the parking lot. It actually exacerbated the safety issue with errant drivers crashing through the fence as illustrated in the photo folder before you, and that was Exhibit 2. There was a Toyota—this was a Toyota as was the previous one which hit a Podocarpus without making it to the chain link fence. Every day, Pepsi, Hawaiian Waters, Suisan, Fire Department ladder trucks, rescue units, Office Depot and sundry other delivery vehicles use the same traffic pattern as the Toyota that came 20 through the fence. That's not the kind of surprise I would like to find in my bedroom at any time. The subject property was used as an illegal parking lot by the center's employees, patients,H Triple C guards with permission from Dr. Takase, which they told us and the police. HCC visitors' lunch,cell phone conversations, talking stories,picnics in diesel trucks running engines for 30 to 60 minutes as they sat in the lot in air-conditioned comfort while we got their exhaust. H-Triple C weekenders, wielded in vehicles engaging in activities better suited to a hotel room, drank beer, smoked the last marijuana joint, urinated and littered along the fences bordering both the Gushiken and Reis' homes. Most reversed park with their exhaust facing the homes. This was 24/7, 365 until we complained yet again. The Gushikens and us were now bordered on three sides of our homes where we live by parking lots. The original application states that the lot is to be used by the HMC staff only, yet the Yamauchi's of 73 Punahele support the rezoning in their letter by saying it will keep the visitors from parking alongside the road in people's yards and driveways. Whose visitors? Only H-Triple C has visitors. Are there plans to allow H-Triple C parking there? For decades now, the Takase's have been adamant about the parking shortage, and testimony before the previous Planning Commission,we had been labelled by the surgery center physicians as selfish for not giving up our homes for parking lots, and, of course, that is why loosely, Hilo has no doctors. In a building that was to have contained medical offices as asserted by the application, there has always been a lunch shop there from the very beginning with a lot of people coming from off the property to buy lunch and eat in their vehicles in this center's parking lot, in their cars. Could the non-medical business account for the parking shortage, and suddenly,now,they don't want to be restricted to a rezoning condition of being only a parking lot, and might do another commercial venture? And, I understand definitely about the contract conditions, but what are we to expect? A marijuana dispensary next? That's a medical facility perhaps. We didn't initiate the Memorandum of Agreement idea written by Gerald Takase,part owner of the subject property, and probably would never sign such a contract because we know first-hand from the experiences that we've endured, a parking lot cannot be mitigated. We know, again, from experience that no matter how many times we complain about the violations, there will be little relief until the next complaint unless there is a change. The Applicant wants no restrictions on his future development. Our County resources are stretched thin enough so blaming them isn't the cause or the answer. Developers need to be trusted and responsible to do the right thing or not do it at all. With all due respect to Mr. Fuke, who is just doing his job, we are due some respect, and could we please have some respect where we live. Thank you. Please deny the request. HENKEL: Thank you. Let's get the next four people. You may be seated. Danny Johnson, Annette Fujii, Katherine Rycraft, and Sally Kegler, please come up. And, Danny, if you can just 21 pull up on the end there, I think the microphone will reach. Do you want to sit there and help Danny when he testifies? REIS, C.: Thank you. HENKEL: First, would you please raise your right hands? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes/I do. HENKEL: Okay, we'll start with Danny. Speak into the microphone, and you've got three minutes. JOHNSON: Okay, thanks. Yes, my legal name is Daniel Grant Johnson just for the record. HENKEL: Thank you. JOHNSON: Okav, I live at 18 Punahele Street. This is the first street, first house on Punahele Street, and I just returned to my childhood neighborhood in 2012 so it's a whole new world from where I came from. My prior residence, it was on a cul-de-sac, yeah, so,but I love it. I love being back home, but the thing is Punahele is such a popular—I'm gonna just talk about traffic because I'm way at the beginning of Punahele so I don't deal with lot of the upper things but I deal with the traffic, yeah? And, it's been said, the narrow street, the narrow size of the street, walkway. So, I go up and down Punahele. I go to the medical facilities and stuff, so I deal with the traffic, and—daily, I deal with the traffic, and it's a real popular street. Lot of trucks,buses, people walking,bicycles,motorcycles, cars, all the, all different vehicles, pedestrians use Punahele Street. I don't know why,but it's a wonderful street, and people love it. And, the thing is, right now, I believe in my heart that it's about maxed out as far as much, as far as the capacity for traffic. And, of course, it varies through the day. If I can ask you but I believe, in Hilo, Punahele Street with a length of whatever it is, 750 feet whatever between Halal and Komohana is probably the busiest residential street in Hilo at that length. I would beg to differ with anybody that disagrees with that. So, I think the traffic is maxed out and that doesn't say it's, the capacity is not, it's good, it's good now, but it's like—it's like what Mr. Fuke said about the parking lot is the parking people up there need more parking and stuff because it's, it's sort of maxed out as far as parking up there for the workers like that. And, I would say tell the workers to, all of them, to carpool. Ridiculous statement, yeah? But, it's also ridiculous if I say add more traffic to Punahele. They know, and they can say, oh, 25, 24, 26 stalls, whatever, but that's adding those cars morning, afternoon at pau hana, lunchtime, whatever it is, but that's ridiculous to add more traffic to Punahele. And a safety factor is also the obvious to everybody. So, thank you very much. HENKEL: Thank you, Mr. Johnson, and thank you, Ms. Reis, for your assistance. The next testifier please state your name and where you're from. 22 FUJII: Hello,hi,Annette Fujii. I'm representing the Hala`i Kumiai as a member, and I reside at 419 Haili Street. I remember being on the board, the Hala`i Kumiai for the longest, and we'd been discussing this issue for a long time. I think there's a matter of trust with the site owner as he opened up his parking lot to all this kind of activity which created and exacerbated the tranquil—the peace that was there prior to with all the activities that were going on. But, getting into this area of transition, it seems to me that when this facility was built, there was inadequate planning with regard to facilities; namely, parking. And, obviously, the facility is growing and with the growing of our island and the rest of the nation and world, more medical services are going to be needed. So, we're not only talking about only 24 to 26 spaces, and I think because the original sin was not planning appropriately, then perhaps there should be other considerations like instead of acquiring this lot, which the kumiai highly opposes, why not go up? I mean, we have serious problems, and we've been fighting this for a while, to convert Residential to Commercial, and because of the trust issue, we—we surely do not expect things to go as planned. So, our concern is—we table this. Do not accept this proposal. We deny it for the sake of the community and the greater good of that HMC. They need to plan for the future because more people are gonna get sick. In addition, across the street we have the Wailana, and what is that facility? It's a senior center. Am I wrong? Is it a senior center, Steve? So, we're gonna have traffic. Lots of traffic. So, one thing to take a look at is the kind of zoning there is; the kind of anticipated growth at HMC is going to be subjected to as an area of transition. And,just this small parking lot will not be the total of the improvements that will be needed to accommodate patients. So, I think there needs to be forward looking at this project and provide for more parking and not just go after and disrupt a residential zoned area for a small parcel to accommodate today's needs. Thank you. HENKEL: Please state your name and where you're from. RYCRAFT: My name is Katherine Rycraft. I live at 26 Ulili Street which is in the Hala`i Tract. I live just right around the corner from the property that we're talking about, and I just want to say what others have said here, and thank you for the time and attention that you're giving this matter. It's greatly appreciated. I think my—my primary concern is, it is residential. It's in the middle of a residential block. It's right in the middle of the block. But, the point that Mr. Clarkson raised is actually kind of the deal breaker for me. Once this is rezoned, and it's now commercial, it kind of opens a floodgate for all kinds of other things. It can go from a parking lot very, very benignly into something else, and very benignly into something else, and then you've got a gas station because it is zoned commercial. And, I think that it won't—it will be just a process that happens over time. And, I really, really think that it's in the best interests of the neighborhood, the area of town, old Hilo, to keep it residential. In my mind, if we were talking about the lot at the end of Punahele that is, that abuts onto Komohana, it wouldn't be as big an issue for me. But, this is between two homes, and it just 23 doesn't, it just doesn't ring right. Just doesn't—my heart and soul tells me this just doesn't feel right. Thank you. HENKEL: Thank you. Yes— KEGLER: —Give me my minute. My name is Sally Kegler. My husband and I, Don, and Sally Kegler live at 40 Hina Street up on Halal Hill. I just—I have no comment to make other than I want to go on record that I agree with all of my neighbors, and as a member of the Halal Kumiai, that I am in opposition, that we are in opposition to the building of this parking lot. HENKEL: Thank you. Commissioners, are there any questions for any of the testifiers? If not, I'll look for a motion to close public testimony. You may be seated. Thank you very much. MOSES: I make a motion to close public testimony. MIYASATO: Second. HENKEL: It's been moved by Commissioner Moses and seconded by Commissioner Miyasato to close the public testimony. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. HENKEL: Opposed? Okay, public testimony is closed. At this point, I would be looking for a motion for action, and this motion would pertain to the Change of Zone 14-000175 as written. If—we've been given a lot of material today,too. If any of you don't feel ready,then maybe a motion to continue it would be appropriate,but if you're ready to act—I'll look for a motion one way or another. MOSES: Chair? HENKEL: Yes. MOSES: I'd like to make a motion. I move that an unfavorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for Change of Zone, Docket No. REZ 14-175 based on the Planning Director's recommendation and findings, which shall be adopted. I also want to add something here. It's always difficult to make this type of decision when there's such a need for medical services as I know all of you agree with that. I am a patient there. I just had surgery there the other week, and I do understand the situation with parking. It's horrendous. But, I also heard something, and that is, we can't put a band-aid on this. And that's what this would be—is allowing for this residential property to be consol—which I think that's a great idea, but it's still a band-aid because there is such a great need and will continue to be. And, so, we may have to look for other options. And, so that's my two cents. HENKEL: So, there is a motion on the table. Is there a second? 24 DELA CRUZ: Second. HENKEL: And motion by Commissioner Moses; second by Commissioner Dela Cruz. Any discussion? I would, I'm inclined to agree with Commissioner Moses. For myself,I think it's a high price to pay for a band-aid and that we, you know,in this issue should be looking more to the future. Anybody else have comments or discussion? Then, we'll take a roll call. JACKSON: Okay, thank you, Chair. Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Clarkson? CLARKSON: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. JACKSON: And Chair Henkel. HENKEL: Aye. JACKSON: Okay, the motion carries five, zero to forward an unfavorable recommendation. HENKEL: You'll be notified in writing of the findings of the Commission. The discussion ended at 11:07 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 25