HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 056 09/10/1985 1984-1988 _
• REPORT OF THE
P
COMMITTEE ON PLANNING
DATE: September 10 , 1985 Re: Comm. 289
PLACE: Councilroom
TIME: 1: 30 p.m.
Chairman and Members
Hawaii County Council
Hilo, Hawaii
Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Bill No . 81
regarding the rezoning request of James Lee and Irene Croft ,
North Kona, Hawaii , TMK: 7-9-07 : 64 & 70 , reports as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to rezone approximately 32,926 square
feet of land from Single Family Residential - 7,500 square feet
(RS-7 .5 ) to Village Commercial - 7 ,500 square feet (CV-7 .5 ) .
The property is located along the makai side of Mamalahoa Highway,
approximately 180 feet from the former Aloha Theater in
Kainaliu Village .
The General Plan Map designates the area for Medium Density Urban
Development. Such a designation may allow Village and Neighborhood
Commercial uses .
The Kona Regional Plan designates the property for Village Commercial
use .
In early 1981 , a similar zone change request was filed by
Edward Vierra for this particular property. Mr . Vierra had intended
to subdivide the property into two lots , consisting of 7 ,695 square
feet and 25,156 square feet. Commercial buildings for retail and
office uses were proposed on both lots . While the
Planning Department and Planning Commission recommended approval of
the zone change, the County Council did not take action on the
request since the property was up for sale during the course of the
Council 's review of the application.
On May 21 , 1981 , the property was subdivided into two lots .
Geraldine Nishiyama, who now owns the property, has authorized the
petitioner to submit the change of zone application. The property is
presently leased to Wilma Ritter and Melville Barry, who intend to
turn the lease over to the petitioners . They too have authorized the
petitioners to seek rezoning.
The petitioners intend to renovate the existing single family
dwelling on parcel 64 and convert it into a retail nursery .
PC REPORT No . 56
ADOPTED : SEP 18 '1985
• •
PC- 56 Page 2 September 10 , 1985
At the June 19 , 1985 Planning Commission meeting, James Lee stated
that " I 've spoken with several of the neighbors , and I believe
they're here today. And for the nursery usage and what we want to
do , there 's a very strong response for us . They like that idea .
Their concerns , which I think they'll express this morning, they
don ' t want to see high density commercial usage , office buildings ,
apartment buildings , hotels , that type of thing. " He also added that
"We want to have a nursery , nursery related activities , and a
botanical garden; and that 's why we 're asking you if you can limit
us . It will satisfy me and Irene because it is what we want to do ;
and I hope it will satisfy our neighbors as well . "
Irene Croft stated that " I don ' t know if it 's legal , I don ' t know if
it 's a precedent but Jamie and I only want a nursery. " She also
added, "So if it is possible , in order to allay any potential
objections from our neighbors and also because it will help us tax
wise , could we ask for a limited usage zoning? In other words , we
would like to be limited to a nursery and related nursery activities . "
Several residents of the area later testified before the
Planning Commission that they would have no objections to the
rezoning request , if the use of the property were limited to nursery
related businesses .
Mr . William Paris , a resident of Kainaliu and a former member of the
Planning Commission, testified that he would have no objection to the
rezoning request if the property were used only for nursery related
businesses ; however , he questioned the legality of a condition that
would limit the use of a property.
The Planning Director and a representative of the Corporation Counsel
stated that such a condition would be legal .
Condition G of Bill No . 81 states , "at the request of the petitioner ,
the use of the property shall be restricted to uses related to
nursery propation and botanical garden; retail sales for nursery and
related items , and ancillary office and maintenance uses . "
In a memo to the Planning Director dated July 16 , 1985 ,
Thomas L. H. Yeh, Deputy Corporation Counsel , stated that "We are
returning the above-referenced bill unapproved. While the form of
the bill is apparently in order , we are concerned with the legality
of condition G as the same may constitute an improper form of
conditional or contract zoning. " Mr . Yeh also stated that "While the
bill should be sent to the Council since it reflects the
recommendation of the Planning Commission , some words of caution or
an alternative bill , which is less restricted as to the uses which
can be made of the property, might be in order . "
411 •
PC-56 Page 3 September 10 , 1985
Another point brought up by Mr . Yeh is reflected in his statement to
the Planning Director . "Also , since the fee owner of the property
was not present at the Planning Commission meeting or then aware of
the stipulation of the lessee , it would be advisable to obtain the
owner 's written consent to condition G or similar condition . "
Mr . William Paris informed the Committee that he would have no
objection to the rezoning if the Committee believes that conditional
zoning is legal and if the ordinance could be reworded to state that
the zoning will revert to residential and nothing else .
Councilman Herkes recommended that the last sentence of Section 2 of .
Bill 81 be amended by deleting the words "or more appropriate" and
the word "may" be replaced by "will" .
Your Committee on Planning recommends that Bill No . 81, as amended,
pass first reading.
\&4444L/ Q*1444Ar--"
TAKASHI DOMINGO, HAIRMAN
/ rJ
-`/ < t)
S! NCER K. SCHUTTE, VICE CHR. FRANK DE LUZ, III, MEMBER
..O.BERT N. HERKES, MEMBER •RRA NE R. 410FAKU, M B
410
•
763-it
,.USGELL S. KOKUBUN, MEMBER MERLE ' . LAI, MEMBER
LA/TN