Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/16/21 REVISED BACKGROUND AND RECOMMENDATION (AMEND REZ 1059)CYoungREZAmendrevisedcond.doc 3.1621 ERNEST AND ELIZABETH YOUNG AMENDMENT TO CHANGE OF ZONE ORDINANCE NO. 04 149 (REZ 1059) REVISED BACKGROUND, RECOMMENDATION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL When the property was originally rezoned in 2004, the Police Department (P.D. Exhibit la-June 8, 2004 memo) recommended restricting access onto Mamalahoa Highway and having access for the proposed subdivision from Mahilani Drive. Based on this the Planning Department and Planning Commission recommended a condition to this effect (P.D. Exhibit 2a- September 3,2004 Planning Commission meeting transcript). The County Council changed Condition D in 2004 because there was an existing access point(driveway) that was permitted in 1979 by the Department of Transportation(DOT). However, at the time the access point was permitted the property was zoned Agricultural. It is likely that the County Council did not receive a copy of the DOT letter dated August 18, 2004 (RD. Exhibit 3a-August 18, 2004 memo) when they changed the condition to allow access onto the highway.The Council also likely did not realize the existing access point was permitted by DOT to support Agricultural zoning rather than Residential zone. (P.D. Exhibit 4a—October 19, 2004 Hawaii County Council Planning Committee Meeting Transcript). The DOT recently confirmed in an email (P.D. Exhibit 5a— March 15, 2021 email) that they are requiring the existing access point onto the highway be removed. This existing access point currently provides access to an unpermitted structure. The State DOT has sole authority to issue driveway permits or limit access onto its roadways. The DOT's stated reasons for requiring removal of the existing access point is to ensure that there are limited ingress and egress access points to Mamalahoa Highway, which would allow the Highway to accommodate the travel demands of a minor arterial roadway that serves much of the North Kona District. Based on the preceding, the Director finds it prudent to revise Condition D of its favorable recommendation to restrict the access to the subject property from Mamalahoa Highway and require access to the three proposed lots to be served from Mahilani Drive. See amended condition language below. D. [• - - • . . .. Access to theproposed lots shall be from Mahilani Drive. Access shall meet the requirements of the Department of Public Works. The existing driveway onto Mamalahoa Highway shall be removed prior to issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. z- ra Harry Kim nrePr. '' Lawrence K.Mahone Mayo.7/• `r •'. Police Chief J.w.., • Harry S. KeCh fDeputyPoliceClnef County of Hawaii POLICE DEPARTMENT 349 Kapialeni Street • Hilo,Hawaii 96720-3998 808)935.3311 • Fax(BOIS 961-2389 June 8, 2004 TO CHRI HER . Y EEIPLSTNING DIRECTOR FROM THOMAS J. HICK OX,ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF, AREA II OPERATIONS SUBJECT : State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 04-007) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (RE 04-012) Request: A-5a to RS-20 Applicant: Lillian Mahi TMK: 7-3-11:68 Staff has reviewed the above-referenced applications and have the following concerns: 1. The applicant is proposing to divide this property into three separate lots. Two of the lots are shown in the rezoning exhibit as having access via Mahilani Drive. The third lot is showing its access via Hawaii Belt Road. Staff recommends that all three lots have access via Mahilani Drive only. 2. Staff is also concerned that increased density along this corridor will further congest traffic on the Hawaii Belt Road and Palen' Road; 3. Assess sufficient impact fees to address public safety. Should you have any questions, please contact Captain John Dawrs, our Kona District Commander, at Phone No. 326-4211. JD:dmv Manning Dept.Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer" Exhibit 1A REZ 04-011 The Commission took this up at 9:18 a.m. with PHIL KNIERIM approximately 18 people from the public in attendance. KALOKO, NORTH KONA APPLICANT: PHIL KNIERIM(REZ 04-011) Change of Zone from an Agricultural 20-acre(A-20a)to a Family Agricultural 3-acre (A-3a) district for approximately 20.477 acres of land. The property is located along the north side of Kaloko Drive at the northern corner of Kaloko Drive and Mahi Street, Kaloko Mauka Subdivision, Kaloko,North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-3-25: 7. SEE EXHIBIT B) SLU 04-007/REZ 04-012 The Commission took this item up at 9:32 a.m. with LILLIAN MAHI approximately 20 people from the public in attendance. KALAOA 1sT AND 2N0 NORTH KONA APPLICANT: LILLIAN MAHI (SLU 04-007/REZ 04-012) a.State Land Use Boundary Amendment from the Agricultural to the Urban District for approximately 1.8628 acres of land. b.Change of Zone from an Agricultural 5-acre (A-5a) to a Single Family Residential 20,000 square foot (RS-20) district for approximately 1.8628 acres of land. The property is located on the southwest corner of the Mahilani Drive—Mamalahoa Highway(Highway 190) intersection, Kalaoa 1"and 2nd,North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-3-11:68. Mr. Darrow oriented the Commission and public of the subject and surrounding properties on the location map and site plan, summarized the requests, and noted the Planning Director recommended approval of the application,with conditions to the change of zone application. He then corrected the record to state that the parcel involved in both applications is 1.8628 acres and not 1.9628 acres. Commissioner Springer noted the Police Department commented on the increase in density from the proposed project. Mr. Yuen said that there is insufficient land area for a fourth lot to be created being the area is zoned RS-20; and although the applicant could potentially have ohana homes constructed, a proposed condition distributed this morning would restrict another home on each ofthe lots. The applicant, Lillian Mahi, and her representatives, Michelle Castalon and Greg Mooers, were in attendance. Regarding the DOT's comments and for Commissioner Graham's information, Mr. Mooers said the lots on the makai side of the property is nonconforming as they were fanning Dept. 2 exhibit ' created prior to the 1967 Subdivision Code. He added that the proposed use is consistent with the urban nature of the surrounding area. Mrs. Mahi explained that when they constructed their home in the latter 1970s, they had to pay approximately$300 for a$300,000 bond for their driveway to connect to the State Highway,noting only the top portion was paved because of insufficient funds. She clarified that this driveway would be the access for the third lot and the other two lots would have access off Mahilani Drive. Mr. Mooers added they did not believe that Mrs. Mahi should have to relinquish the access point to the State Highway which is intended to serve only one of the three lots to be used by her son, as the State did approve this access. In response to Mr. Yuen's inquiries, Ms. Mahi clarified that Lot B-3, which has a storage shed on it, would have access off Mamalahoa Highway; and Lot B-2, which has the existing residence, and Lot B-3 will have access off Mahilani Drive. She admitted that the topography of the land does not make it difficult to make the driveway on Lot B-3 access onto Mahilani Drive. Mr. Yuen recommended that the Commission go along with his amended condition circulated this morning to have the access to the proposed lots be from Mahilani Drive. He said although the applicants have an access onto Mamalahoa Highway and the rezoning would not increase that access, the applicants are getting a substantial benefit by the rezoning to go from one to three lots, and it appears feasible to have the three lots come in at Mahilani Street. He added that, as a general rule, the Planning Department tries to restrict accesses whenever possible in rezonings inasmuch as traffic problems will be created when more and more people move into an area. Commissioner Springer questioned if it was a planning decision to limit the points of ingress and egress off State highways. Mr. Yuen said limiting access onto a State Highway is a recognized principle, as having a lot of multiple points of entry reduces both the capacity of the highway to carry a lot of traffic and also it is not safe. Commissioner Graham concurred with the Planning Director's amended condition to limit access to Mahilani Drive,referring to the Police Department's comments. Regarding an increase in density, Mr. Mooers noted that as Mrs. Mahi's daughter and her family live with her right now the density will not be increased with the proposed action. There was no one from the public wishing to testify on this matter. On SLU 04-007, it was moved by Commissioner Fujikawa and seconded by Commissioner Springer to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council as recommended by the Planning Director. A roll call vote was taken and motion carried with seven ayes (Fujikawa, Springer, Alameda, Graham, McCall, Smith, and Galdones) and two absent and excused (Siracusa and Thibadeau). 3 On REZ 04-012, it was moved by Commissioner Fujikawa and seconded by Commissioner Springer to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council as recommended by the Planning Director, with amendments. A roll call vote was taken and motion carried with seven ayes (Fujikawa, Springer, Alameda, Graham, McCall, Smith, and Galdones) and two absent and excused (Siracusa and Thibadeau). In response to Mr. Mooers' inquiry whether the applicant would have to obtain a permit to remove the existing driveway,Mr. Yuen said the applicant would have to take that matter up with the State Department of Transportation; but as far as the rezoning conditions, the Planning Department would just require the applicant not use the Mamalahoa Highway as an access and to have the access blocked in some way, as opposed to physically removing the driveway. RECESSED The Chair called a short recess at 9:47 a.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 10:00 a.m. REZ 04-013 The Commission took this item up at 10:00 a.m. with MITSUGI KOMO approximately 18 people from the public in attendance. HONUAULA, NORTH KONA APPLICANT: MITSUGI KOMO (REZ 04-013) Change ofZone from an Agricultural 5-acre(A-5a)to a Family Agricultural 3-acre (FA-3a) district for approximately 6.069 acres of land. The property is located on the makai side of the Mamalahoa Highway, approximately two miles south of the junction of Mamalahoa Highway and Palani Road, Honuaula,North Kona,Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-24:25. Mr. Hayashi oriented the Commission and public ofthe subject and surrounding properties on the location map and site plan, summarized the request, and noted Mr. Fuke in his August 79' letter corrected the staffs background report to that state there were two dwellings on the subject property. He then stated the Planning Director is recommending approval of the application,with the conditions previously circulated, and as amended as follows: Condition B amended to read,"The applicant shall submit the required water commitment payment to the Department of Water Supply in accordance with its Water Commitment Guidelines Policy within 980 days from the effective date of this change of zone." Condition H be amended to read, "All development generated runoff shall be disposed of on site and shall not be directed toward any adjacent properties." 4 LINDA LINGLE RCDNEV K.HARAGA GOVERNOR l%- \ a ,\ DIRECTOR 41/ IL=a P,"'[:^ 1 Deputy arec!ars BRUCE V.MATSUI LINDEN H.J OESTING BRIM H.SENIGULHI STATE OF HAWAII 71.r1EPI,r REr.r,TO. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET STP 8.1251 HONOLULU,HAWAII 96813-5097 August 18, 2004 Mr. Christopher J. Yuen Director Planning Department County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo,Hawaii 96720-3043 Dear Mr. Yuen: Subject: Lillian Mahi State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application(SW 04-007)and Change in Zone Application (REZ 04-012) TMK: 7-3-11:68 Thank you for your transmittal requesting our comments on the subject application. Our comments are as follows: 1. We will restrict direct access to Mamalahoa Highway. The existing driveway located in the southern portion of this lot should be removed. With this change,the subdivision map should reflect"No access allowed" along the highway frontage. 2. To allow access to the property, the applicant should be required to establish a new driveway from Mahilani Drive to serve all three proposed subdivision lots. 3. The applicant should also establish a 10-foot planting screen easement abutting Mamalahoa Highway along the mauka side of all proposed subdivision lots. 4. The applicant should submit easement and subdivision plans for review and approval by our Highways Division,Hawaii District Office. S. Plans for construction work within/or adjoining the right-of-way of Mamalahoa Highway, including removal of the existing driveway,must be submitted for our review and approval. This shall include obtaining all appropriate permits from our Highways Division. Planning Dept. Ossi7., Exhibit 3A Mr. Christopher J. Yuen STP 8.1251 Page 2 August 18, 2004 6. The applicant should also comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)pemtit requirements for construction activity disturbing one(1) or more acres of total land area. This shall include obtaining an NPDES permit from the Department of Health or a negative letter of determination. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments. Very truly yours, ROD K. • 40 GA Director of Transportation PC-35 October 19. 2004 for $350,000. 1 think all of us know that, and saying that this is actually going to be for forestry, I just believe this is a big dodge. This is not real. This is not forestry. Three-acre lots with a house on them in this area. I just don't see any public benefit. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHR. ELARIONOFF: There are no other lights. On the floor we have a motion to file Comm. 787 and approve Bill 341, as amended. All those in favor, say Aye " The motion to close file on Communication 787 and recommend passage of Bill 341, as amended (to Draft 2), on first reading was carried by the following vote: In Favor: Committee Members Arakaki, Holschuh, Reynolds, Tulang, Tyler, and Chairman Elarionoff. Opposed: Committee Member Jacobson. Absent& Excused: Committee Members Chung and Safarik. Comm. 788: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STATE LAND USE BOUNDARIES Bill 342) MAP, 1-1-7 FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAI`l, BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM THE AGRICULTURAL TO THE URBAN DISTRICT AT KALAOA 1ST AND 2ND, NORTH KONA, HAWAII. COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY 7-3-011:068 (Applicant: Lillian Mahi) (Area: Approximately 1.8628 acres); and Bill 343) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 25-8-3 (NORTH KONA ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAI I COUNTY CODE, BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL - 5 ACRES (A-5a)TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - 20,000 SQUARE FEET(RS-20) AT KALAOA 1ST AND 2ND,NORTH KONA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY 7-3-011:068. Applicant: Lillian Mahi)(Area: Approximately 1.8628 acres) From Mayor Harry Kim, dated September 22, 2004, transmitting a letter and the above bills from Planning Commission Chair Fred Galdones. CHR. ELARIONOFF: Can I have a motion to file Comm. 788 and approve Bill 342? Mr. Tyler moved to close file on Comm. 788 and recommend passage of Bill 342 on first reading. Seconded by Dr. Holschuh. CHR. ELARIONOFF: Moved and seconded. Discussion? Mr. Tyler. MR. TYLER: '[hank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mooers, you are also the representative for Ms. Mahi? Planning Dept. Exhibit 4o Page 26 PC-35 October 19, 2004 MR. MOORE: That's correct. MR. TYLER: There are three different numbers here as to the size of this property. There's the 1.9628 acres of land, which is mentioned in the cover letter from the Planning Commission. There's 1.8629 shown on the metes and bounds description, and there's 1.8628 shown on -- where's that? MR. MOORE: That's on the map. MR. TYLER: Well, which is it? I mean, these are pretty accurate numbers. MR. MOORE: My assumption is that the surveyor is correct probably in the metes and bounds description, 1.8629. MR. TYLER: Okay. I'm just trying to think where the transposition might have occurred. Anyway, I just wanted to note, Mr. Chairman, that we need to he sure that that's the right number. Since it's the four digits, I'm assuming the surveyor would be correct, unless there was no transposition in putting that in. I'd like to speak in favor of this, and I think it's very clear if one looks at Exhibit A, to see that this area makai of Mamalahoa Highway, that's Highway 190. is clearly urban expansion. It's expanding rapidly. This is part of an infill, and also I'll wait until we get to the rezoning before I speak to that. CHR. ELARIONOFF: Thank you. Dr. Holschuh. DR. HOLSCHUH: Yes. I was going to say what Mr. Tyler did about the sizes, but he's way ahead of me, so thank you. CHR. ELARIONOFF: Okay. There are no other lights. On the floor we have a motion to file Comm. 788 and approve Bill 342. All those in favor, say "Aye." In Favor: Committee Members Arakaki, Holschuh, Reynolds, Tulang. Tyler, and Chairman Elarionoff. Opposed: Committee Member Jacobson. Absent& Excused: Committee Members Chung and Safari k. CHR. ELARIONOFF: Okay. Now let's go to Bill 343. Mr. Tyler moved to recommend passage of Bill 343 on first reading. Seconded by Dr. Holschuh. CHR. ELARIONOFF: Moved and seconded. Discussion? Mr. Tyler. Page 27 PC-35 October 19. 2004 MR. TYLER: Thank you. Mr. Mooers, I'd like to call your attention to Conditions D and E, which is on Page 3, and also Mr. Galdones' letter, Page 3, fourth paragraph down, where he says that "Access to the proposed lots B-I and B-2 will be from Mahilani Drive, which is a County owned and maintained street. Access to the proposed lot B-3 will be from an existing access onto Mamalahoa Highway, which is a State owned and maintained highway. The applicant has proposed a 10-foot wide planing screen easement...". Now-, if I look at Conditions D and E, it actually doesn't say that access to the proposed Lot B-3 will be from an existing access onto Mamalahoa Highway. That thing has been there as long as I can remember, so it would seem to me we need to put that in Condition E and add that sentence, would we not? MR. MOORE: Well, the applicant certainly would support that. This was an issue that was raised at the Planning Commission. Mrs. Mahi petitioned the State back in 1979 to gain access to her lot off of the highway, and at that time was required to design that driveway and to post a bond and to do that, and she did. With this proposed rezoning and subsequent subdivision, we proposed that we would use that access to provide access to Lot 3 but that the two other lots would access off Mahilani. The Department of Transportation (DOT) in their comments recommended that that driveway be abolished and that all lots gain access from Mahilani, and so in the Commission meeting, the Director made the proposal that all lots should he connected through Mahilani. The applicant, obviously, would like you to reconsider that, because the nature of that driveway is not changed in the sense of not providing access to any more than a single lot. That being said, if the Council does elect to prohibit access from that lot, I would request that the Council make it clear that Mrs. Mahi not he required to comply with all the conditions the DOT had submitted in their letter. Their comment letter and my concern is that they would require that Mrs. Mahi would have to submit plans for construction work with adjoining the right-of-way to the highway, including the removal of the existing driveway. submit plans for review and approval, and include and obtain all permits from the Highway Division. So it's not just a matter of abandoning the road. She is now going to have to go out and have engineers design plans for the removal of that. This is a woman who is trying to provide a lot for each of her children, and this is not a development that's going to be able to gain proceeds from this and he able to write this off somewhere else. They're already looking at$9,400 for each of the two additional units. Water units now installed are over$8,000. This is trying to provide affordable housing for your children, and the number climbs. I mentioned this to the Director before, and he said it was not his intention to require the applicant to do that, and if you elect to have Mrs. Mahi remove her driveway, then I'd like some indication that there's not an expectation that she go out and have to go through an engineering process to basically close off that access. Page 28 PC-35 October 19, 2004 MR. TYLER: Thank you. Mr. Yuen, do you have any comment? MR. YUEN: I don't have any objection to their not having to engineer a removal of the driveway. We did go through this at the Planning Commission hearing. Our recommendation and what the Planning Commission passed is that all access he now taken from Mahilani Drive. Let me explain the reason for this. Physically there isn't any physical reason why the three parties can't access off of Mahilani Drive. There's not any topographic issue with having one lot having to go out to Mamalahoa Highway. As roads like Mamalahoa get busier, were going to see the individual driveways that come onto them become a bigger and bigger problem. This is true on the Mamalahoa Highway through Kalaoa. It's true on the Volcano Highway coming into Hilo. Unfortunately,the accesses were not very well controlled at one time, when the population density was much less. Sure, it's a small thing with this one driveway, but they are getting a rezoning. They are getting the opportunity to make three lots out ofthe one lot. If we see an opportunity to close off some of these driveways at least without an inordinate burden on the individual landowner,then we would like to push for that. MR. TYLER: Okay. Thank you. I would note for the record. Mr. Chairman, that Page 3 of Chairman Galdones' letter says the following in the middle ofthe fourth paragraph: "Access to the proposed lots B-1 and B-2 will he from Mahilani Drive...," and then it says further, "Access to the proposed lot B-3 will be from an existing access onto Mamalahoa Highway...," so it's clear to me that the Planning Commission had a different -- I don't have the transcript. but that's what it says. MR. YUEN: I'm sorry. That paragraph in the cover letter is an error. The Planning Commission did approve the draft ordinance in the form that is transmitted to you with the restriction that access shall be from Mahilani Drive. That's Condition D in the ordinance. MR. TYLER: So Mr. Mooers, it's quite contradictory, which is the reason why I raised the issue in the first place, but in looking at the proposed subdivision plan done by Wes Thomas& Associates, if there's no amendment to Condition D, then essentially what are we going to have, another flag? MR. MOORE: Yes, the subdivision map would have to reflect a different configuration in the rezoning exhibit, because right now the access is shown as the paved driveway off of Mamalahoa Highway. MR. TYLER: Which driveway is permitted and was done after posting a bond and all that by Mrs. Mahi, right? Page 29 PC-35 October 19, 2004 MR. MOORE: That's correct, yes. MR. TYLER: Okay, I understand what Mr. Yuen is saying, that right adjacent to this is a very large church that was just put in. They came right off of the highway. It's major. They've got I don't know how many parking places there, so it seems to me that Mrs. Mahi --well, I'll make a motion to amend Condition D. Mr. Tyler moved to amend Bill 343, Condition D, as follows: Access to the proposed lots shall be from Mahilani Drive. Access to proposed Lot B-3 shall be from an existing access on Mamalahoa Highway. Access shall meet with the requirements of the Department of Public Works." Seconded by Dr. Holschuh. CHR. ELARIONOFF: Moved and seconded. Mr. Jacobson. MR. JACOBSON: Thank you. I am afraid that I can't back this. I know this woman. I had some investment there, but I don't think -- if she gets killed getting on and off this increasingly busy highway, she's not going to he able to realize much benefit from this, nor will those drivers that are in accidents that are caused by this increasing problem. They're not going to benefit from this at all either. Just because there were some shortsighted approvals by the State Highway Department next door to allow people in and out of this church on a vast scale according to Mr. Tyler, that doesn't mean that we have to endanger the rest of the population. We have a chance to fix a little problem here, and I think one by one we need to look at each one of these things and try to fix the problems. Just trying to be nice to this woman I can understand. I like to be nice to people. I like to be popular, but I don't like to avoid fixing problems that are on the ground right now, and I can't support this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHR. ELARIONOFF: Thank you. Anybody else? MR. MOORE: Could I respond to that? CHR. ELARIONOFF: Yes, you may. MR. MOORE: Just to clarify that this is not an unsafe driveway. This driveway was engineered and approved by the Department of Transportation. Now, Mr. Yuen's position was not that it was unsafe, and she was going to be killed. It was that it creates a problem having additional access points, so if you're going to deny it, I can accept that, but I don't want it to be implied that this is somehow a dangerous driveway that is a risk to the public, because it's not. It was engineered and approved by the Department of Transportation. The question becomes, are we going to increase the number of driveways? Are we going to decrease the number of driveways? I think that's the issue. I don't believe it's one of safety. Page 30 PC-35 October 19, 2004 MR. JACOBSON: Mr. Chairman, I really do need to respond to that. I think that every single driveway we have on a State highway does make it more dangerous. Maybe this driveway is perfectly safe, but the fact is when you put more and more driveways,when you're increasing the density like this, it's unwise. Speaking as a nurse, I've just taken care of too many people that have been hurt getting on and off State highways. I know this area. When I was working at Kona Hospital, I lived just around the corner from there. There was a driveway that was closed on the property that abutted the State highway there. I'm so glad. It was an inconvenience to the landowner that was there, but I remember having to try to help getting some of the equipment and materials in and out of his backyard. More than once there was nearly deadly collisions, simply because there's just too much traffic. People don't expect to have people going onto a highway from a single house. I think it's just not a wise idea, so again, whatever the motivation, this is not a particularly dangerous driveway. It's just one more dangerous driveway to add onto the many other dangerous driveways that are going to kill people. I'm not opposed to this lady, but I am definitely in favor of safety. CHR. ELARIONOFF: Thank you. Mr. Tyler. MR. TYLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 1, too, am definitely in favor of safety, and if this driveway were not an existing, approved driveway, if Mrs. Mahi and her family had not gone through having to post a bond and run through all of the gamut of making this a legal driveway, I would agree,but the fact is that they have complied with the law. This driveway has been there for over 30 years. I've never heard of any problems expressed by anyone nearby or across the street, and it seems to me that we do have an opportunity for the other two lots to come off of Mahilani which, by the way, is extremely congested. There's no left hand pocket turn in or out of there. It's really an accident waiting to happen, and I think that's the reason I made this motion. I thought about it because of what Mr. Yuen said, but I think the fact that it is an existing, permitted driveway that meets the State DOT requirements, that's the reason I made the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak again. MR. JACOBSON: One more comment, very briefly. 1 think Mr. Tyler sums it up pretty well, that this was done 30 years ago. Things have changed a lot in 30 years. I think about when 1 moved here back in 1981. There was very, very little traffic there, and it was still not a good place to get on and off the road, 23 years ago. Now 30 years have passed, and I think times change, we have to make adjustments. and we're giving this lady a mighty gift. This rezoning is definitely going to resolve a major improvement in the financial situation for that family, and I'm really glad, but I'm not happy about increasing dangerous traffic. So thank you. CHR. ELARIONOFF: Okay. No more comments? Okay, then on the floor we have Mr. Tyler's motion,Condition D. All those in favor, say "Aye." Page 31 PC-35 October 19, 2004 The motion to amend Bill 343, Condition D, to state, "Access to the proposed lots shall be from Mahilani Drive. Access to proposed Lot B-3 shall be from an existing access on Mamalahoa Highway. Access shall meet with the requirements of the Department of Public Works" was carried by the following vote: In Favor: Committee Members Arakaki, Holschuh, Reynolds, Tulang, Tyler, and Chairman Elarionoff. Opposed: Committee Member Jacobson. Absent& Excused: Committee Members Chung and Safarik. CHR. ELARIONOFF: Motion passes. Mr. Tyler. MR. TYLER: Thank you. Condition Number H, which is the prohibition against second dwellings,does not have the language which includes CPR's. This is the old language, so I would like to have Condition H. as I've stated before. if it is included by the Commission and the Department, is to include the language which has a prohibition against condominium property regimes. Mr. Tyler moved to further amend Bill 343, to include the standard language that includes a prohibition against condominium property regimes in Condition H. Seconded by Dr. Holschuh and carried by the following vote: In Favor: Committee Members Arakaki, Holschuh, Jacobson, Reynolds. Tulang, Tyler, and Chairman Elarionoff. Opposed: None. Absent&Excused: Committee Members Chung and Safarik. MR. TYLER: Thank you. Condition I -- now here's an interesting condition. We've looked at rezonings this morning. We'll consider another pretty major one today, and you know I don't recall seeing this condition before, Mr. Yuen. Why does this appear all of a sudden for a family rezoning here? Do you know? Obviously you didn't have a direct hand in this. MR. YUEN: There's no special reason for having this condition on this one rather than on others. MR. TYLER: It's clearly a very important condition, and it's one I thought was understood or presumed to be part of every rezoning. If it is the policy of the department to put this in from now on,then I hope we'll put it in from now on, in all the rezonings. If it is not, then I think this should come off. What would he your recommendation, Mr. Yuen? Page 32 PC-35 October 19, 2004 MR. YUEN: I think we should take it off, because I think it implies that we're requiring something more than the Department of Health standard dust control condition, and the NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permitting type condition, which would apply to projects of over an acre. So rather than create that expectation perhaps in people, we should just cover it under the "comply with all governmental rules and regulations," because this was not really meant to impose a standard different from those other controls. MR. TYLER: I didn't think so. I mean it's a good condition. I thought it was presumed,as you have pointed out. Mr. Tyler moved to further amend Bill 343 to delete Condition 1 in its entirety and to renumber the subsequent paragraphs accordingly. Seconded by Dr. Holschuh. CHR. ELARIONOFF: Mr. Yuen, what is fugitive dust? MR. YUEN: Well, it makes you think of that television program, "The Fugitive." Escaped from the site. So you can have dust, but you can't let it escape to other people's property. CHR. ELARIONOFF: My concept of fugitive is criminal. So yours is escape? Dr. Holschuh. MR. YUEN: I understand. DR. HOLSCHUH: I want to comment on something else, but if you look at that huge wall across the street, that's a fugitive dust protector. CHR. ELARIONOFF: Okay. On the floor is a motion to remove Condition I and renumber the rest of the paragraphs. All those in favor, say "Aye." The motion was carried by the following vote: In Favor: Committee Members Holschuh,Jacobson, Reynolds, Tulang,Tyler, and Chairman Elarionoff. Opposed: None. Absent& Excused: Committee Members Arakaki, Chung, and Safarik. CHR. ELARIONOFF: Mr. Tyler. MR. TYLER: Condition L is the correct language. 1 wanted to note that Page 33 PC-35 October 19, 2004 and thank the Department and the Commission for that. Then I'd like to amend Condition Number N to use the language that we have been using of late. Mr. Tyler moved to further amend Bill 343, by changing the language in Condition N to read, "The applicant shall comply with all applicable County, State, and Federal laws, rules, regulations and requirements." Seconded by Dr. Holschuh and carried by the following vote: In Favor: Committee Members Holschuh, Jacobson, Reynolds, Tulang, Tyler, and Chairman Elarionoff. Opposed: None. Absent& Excused: Committee Members Arakaki. Chung, and Safarik. CHR. ELARIONOFF: Mr. Tyler. MR. TYLER: Now, we come to Condition 0,the next Condition right there. It's actually going to be Condition N, I guess. Here's the annual progress report. Now, we had a discussion about this before, and it was represented by the Director that we don't do annual progress reports for minor projects like this, yet we find it here, and I have no objection to it, as I stated earlier. I just want to be sure that we're being consistent with the applicant. I know the Mahi family. I know Mrs. Mahi, and they're anything but developers. To the contrary, and so I'm wondering, Mr. Yuen, and I'm not trying to put you on the spot here. MR. YUEN: Well, I am on the spot. I'm sorry that it's not consistent, and this is not the scale of thing that should require an annual progress report. MR. TYLER: So would you recommend that we remove this? MR. YUEN: Yes. Mr. Tyler moved to further amend Bill 343 by deleting Condition 0 in its entirety and realphabetizing the subsequent paragraphs. Seconded by Dr. Holschuh and carried by the following vote: In Favor: Committee Members Holschuh, Jacobson, Reynolds, Tulang, Tyler, and Chairman Elarionoff. Opposed: None. Absent & Excused: Committee Members Arakaki, Chung, and Safarik. Page 34 PC-35 October 19, 2004 MR. TYLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe I'm finished here. Well, let me say I'm done. I may be finished,too, but thank you for your indulgence. CHR. ELARIONOFF: Dr. Holschuh. DR. HOLSCHUH: I should have waited. I didn't know if Mr. Jacobson was going to again object to this,and I mean this very respectfully. I understand his concern about increased traffic and smaller lot size. Obviously were all concerned about growth, but some of these subdivisions are family oriented, and there's been some where I've argued on the record with Mr. Jacobson and off the record, where I happen to know the families. People that are living in downtown Kailua that may move up somewhere else. So my counter argument would be.. you've got the same people. I agree with our concern about a huge subdivision that brings in tons of people from elsewhere, but when you have a family subdivision, presumably the people arc living here, driving anyway, and you're just kind of relocating where they're going to live and drive. So that's my only point about it. sort of a philosophical point. CHR. ELARIONOFF: Thank you. Mr. Tyler. MR. TYLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to say I appreciate Mr. Jacobson's perspective. He's very consistent on this, and that's good. It's good to be consistent. I want to just comment on what he said earlier about this being a gift to the owner, and there will be major financial gain here. "fhe only way there would be financial gain, it seems to me, is if these lots were sold, and my understanding, and it's clearly stated here, is that this is for the three children. Is that right, Mr. Mooers? MR. MOOERS: That's correct. MR. TYLER: There's no intention to sell it. I know the Mahi family has had holdings in this area since before the Great Mahele. Mr. Arthur Mahi, who's a personal friend of mine and lives across the street, and this is his sister, is pure Hawaiian. He's 100 percent Hawaiian and descended through the Mahi line, which is the precursor to the Kamehameha line. These people are -- if there ever was keiki oku aina, this family is. So I just can't imagine that we would see this being done for a financial gain. I'm not aware ofany plans to sell this property. To the contrary, it is to continue the Mahi legacy in this ahupua'a, which has been here for probably close to 1,000 years. I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your indulgence, Mr. Yuen, Mr. Mooers,and members of the Committee regarding some of these conditions,but 1 feel comfortable that we are making the right decision here at the right time, and that's the reason I support it. Thank you. CHR. ELARIONOFF: Thank you. On the floor we have a motion to approve Bill 343, as amended. All those in favor, say "Aye." Page 35 PC-35 October 19,2004 The motion to recommend passage of Bill 343, as amended (to Draft 2)on first reading was carried by the following vote: In Favor: Committee Members Holschuh, Reynolds, Tulang, Tyler, and Chairman Elarionoff. Opposed: Committee Member Jacobson. Absent & Excused: Committee Members Arakaki, Chung, and Safarik. MR. TYLER: Thank you. Comm. 793: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 25-8-33 (CITY OF HILO ZONE Bill 344) MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE, BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL(CN-l0)TO INDUSTRIAL- COMMERCIAL MIXED (MCX-20)AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO. HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY 2-2-32:93. (Applicant: WKSP Limited Partnership)(Area: Approximately 59,356 square feet) From Mayor Harry Kim,dated September 29. 2004, transmitting a letter and the above bill from Planning Commission Chair Fred Galdones. CHR. ELARIONOFF: Can I have a motion to file Comm. 793 and approve Bill 344? Mr. Tulang moved to close file on Comm. 793 and recommend passage ofBill 344 on first reading. Seconded by Dr. Holschuh. CHR. ELARIONOFF: Moved and seconded. Discussion? Mr. Yuen. please. MR. YUEN: Yes,this is an ordinance to rezone the existing Waiakea Shopping Plaza,which is located at the corner of Kuawa Street and Kanoelehua Avenue. It's the location of the Fun Factory. It used to have a couple of theatres in it that have closed down. It used to have a McDonald's in it that's closed down. It's in CN zone, and the request is to rezone to MCX. There's not that much difference between the allowable uses in the two zones, but there are a few uses that are permitted in MCX that are not in CN, and presumably that's the reason for the rezoning request. Specifically, indoor amusement and recreation facilities and bars and nightclubs are allowed in MCX. MCX also allows a range of light industrial uses, such as warehousing. A CN zone allows residential uses, which are not allowed in MCX. So this is a proposal to rezone an existing building and change some of the allowed uses. CHR. ELARIONOFF: Okay. Mr.Jacobson. Page 36 Camero, Tracie-Lee From: Yamada, Clinton <clinton.yamada@hawaii.gov> Sent Monday, March 15, 2021 12:51 PM To: Camero, Trade-Lee; Sonomura, Julann M Cc: Takiue, Harry H;Jackson, Maija Subject: RE: Request for Access Information Hi Trade, The driveway was permitted under the conditions at the time in 1979 to John M. Ma hi. The subsequent 2004 SLUBA, REZ,and SUB changed the use of the property which generated the comments. The letter states that the driveway should be removed not just denied usage. Thanks, Clinton From: Camero, Tracie-Lee<Tracie-Lee.Camero@hawaiicounty.gov> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 12:03 PM To:Yamada, Clinton <clinton.yamada@hawaii.gov>;Sonomura,Julann M <julann.m.sonomura@hawaii.gov> Cc:Takiue, Harry H charry.h.takiue@hawaii.gov>;Jackson, Maija<Maija.lackson@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Request for Access Information Thank you for your work Clinton! Just to clarify it sounds like the driveway to Mrs. Mahi's property was properly permitted through DOT in 1979 however DOT would like to not allow for the use of the driveway. Am I correct? Sincerely, Tracie-Lee Camero Planning Department Planning Commission Division Phone:1808)961-8166 Fax:(808)961-8742 From:Yamada, Clinton<clinton.yamada@hawaii.gov> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 11:55 AM To:Sonomura,Julann M <julann.m.sonomura@hawaii.gov>; Camero,Tracie-Lee<Tracle- Lee.Camero@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc:Takiue, Harry H <harry.h.takiue@hawaii.gov>;Jackson, Maija<Maiia.Jackson@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: RE: Request for Access Information Hi Tracie, The access is not controlled for the frontage of the property on Route 190 Mamalahoa Highway. There is an existing driveway for the property from our highway which was relocated to Sta. 184+00 Lt.via Permit No. 1970 to John M. Ma hi approved on March 15, 1979 and completed on June 29, 1979. Planning Dept. 1 Exhibit 6q The letter number DIR 1051 STP 8.1251 dated August 18,2004 addressed to your department will have to stand unless a subsequent letter revising or deleting any conditions can be provided as I have not been able to locate any. I hope this reply satisfies your inquiry. If not, please let me know. Thanks, Clinton From: Sonomura,Julann M <julann.m.sonomura@hawaii.gov> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 10:04 AM To: Camero,Tracie-Lee<Tracie-Lee.Camero@hawaiicounty.gov>; Yamada,Clinton<clinton.yamada@hawaii.gov> Cc:Takiue, Harry H<harry.h.takiue@hawaii.gov>;Jackson, Maija<Maila.Jackson@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: Re: Request for Access Information Hi Tracie, I'm sorry, I was not clear. Clinton is the one who researched the documents. I just spoke to him and he will be providing a response to your access question this morning. Thank you, Julann From:Camero, Tracie-Lee<Tracie-Lee.Camero@hawaiicounty.gov> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 9:39 AM To:Yamada, Clinton<clinton.yamada@hawaii.gov> Cc:Takiue, Harry H<harry.h.takiue@hawaii.gov>;Jackson, Maija<Maiia.Jackson@hawaiicounty.gov>; Sonomura,Julann M <julann.m.sonomuraphawaii.gov> Subject: EXTERNAL] RE: Request for Access Information Good Morning Clinton, First off, please thank Mrs.Sonomura for her hardwork in locating the much needed information. I really appreciate the quick response and the documents. I look forward to hearing from you on the whether or not the current access is controlled. My supervisor will be meeting with my director later today and if the driveway is in fact not a permitted DOT driveway then we will present that to the Director and hope to correct the existing Ordinance. If you could reply to this email with the permit/non-permitted information that would be really great! Thank you all again and I hope you have a great day! Sincerely, Tracie-Lee Camero Planning Department Planning Commission Division Phone:(808)961-8166 Fax:1808)961-8742 2 From:Sonomura,Julann M<julann.m.sonomura@hawaii.gov> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 4:24 PM To: Camero,Tracie-Lee <Tracie-Lee.Camero@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc:Takiue, Harry H<harry.h.takiue@hawaii.gov>; Yamada,Clinton cclinton.yamada@hawaii.gov> Subject: Re: Request for Access Information Hi Tracie, We just wanted to provide an update since I understood you were eager to hear from us. Clinton was out of the office for another project for most of the day, but was able to locate the attached subdivision review comments that prohibited access from Mamalahoa and required a 10-ft planting screen. Please refer to the attached files. Clinton also recalls that there may be a letter that rescinded the requirement to remove the existing driveway. If you have a copy of that letter, please forward. We will be researching the Right-of-Way maps to see if access for the subject parcel is currently controlled not permitted) and should have more information for you on Monday. Please feel free to contact Clinton directly at the above email address. Thank you, Julann From:Sonomura,Julann M <julann.m.sonomura@hawaii.gov> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 7:21 AM To: Camera,Tracie-Lee<Tracie-Lee.Camero@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc:Takiue, Harry H<harry.h.takiue@hawaii.gov>;Yamada, Clinton<clinton.yamada@hawaii.gov> Subject: Re: Request for Access Information Hi Tracie, Just wanted to confirm receipt of your email. We will research and get back to you. Thank you, Julann 938-9210 From:Camero,Tracie-Lee<Tracie-Lee.Camero@hawaiicounty.gov> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 7:02 AM To:Sonomura,Julann M <julann.m.sonomura@hawaii.gov> Cc:Jackson, Maija<Ma ija.Jackson@hawaiicounty.gov>; Kay,Christian<Christian.Kay@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Request for Access Information Good Morning Julann, Thank you so much for taking my call yesterday in regards to verification on access to a subject property(TMK:7-3- 011:068)from Mamalahoa Highway in North Kona.Attached is a copy of the application and a copy of the subdivision 3 map submitted to the Planning Department in 2005.The landowners are currently requesting five(5)year time extension to comply with the conditions of their Change of Zone Ordinance No. 04 149.The condition that I find is very important for you to review is Condition D which states: Access to proposed lots(B-1 and 8-2)shall be from Mahiloni Drive.Access to proposed lot 8-3 shall be from an existing access on Mamalahoa Highway. Access shall meet with the requirements of the Deportment of Public Works and State Department of Transportation." This application is scheduled to be presented next week Thursday, March 18, 2021. I understand that this does not give you much time to review the project but if you could verify if the landowners do infact have access to their propoerty from Mamalahoa Highway then that would be greatly appreciated. Please feel free to email me if you have any questions. Thank you and have a great day! Sincerely, Tracie-Lee Camero Planning Department Planning Commission Division Phone:1808)961-8166 Sas:18081961-8742 4