Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-11-04 Windward Exh C PD Initiated Chaqueaux 159 Kalanikoa REZ 97-004 PL-PDI-21-001 WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 4, 2021 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR (CHAQUEAUX, LLC & 159 KALANIKOA SP, LLC) (REZ-97-000004/PL-PDI-2021- 000001) was called to order at 9:46 a.m. via live-stream online meeting, with Chairman John Replogle presiding. COMMISSIONERS IN ATTENDANCE: Gilbert Aguinaldo, Joseph Clarkson, Michelle Galimba, Dennis Lin, Thomas Raffipiy and John Replogle COMMISSIONER EXCUSED: Dean Au ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Malia Kekai, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Zendo Kern, (Planning Director), Jean Campbell, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Department), Christian Kay (Planner), Maija Jackson (Program Manager), and Melissa Dacayanan-Salvador (Windward Planning Commission Secretary) INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR (CHAQUEAUX, LLC & 159 KALANIKOA SP, LLC) (REZ-97-000004/PL-PDI-2021-000001) The Planning Director has initiated the repeal of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 97 106 and amending Section 25-8-33 (City of Hilo Zone Map), Chapter 25, Article 8, of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2016 edition, as amended), by reverting the current zoning of the subject properties from Industrial Commercial Mixed-20,000 square feet(MCX-20) to their original, Limited Industrial-20,000 square feet(ML-20) zoning district for 147,736 square feet of land. The rezone area, consisting of five parcels is located at the southeast corner of Kalanikoa and Kuawa Streets, approximately 130 feet west of Kanoelehua Avenue at Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMKs: (3) 2-2-032:023 & 2-2-032:101 through 104. Secretary's Note: "—" indicates that there were technical and/or internet difficulties, which made the conversation inaudible. REPLOGLE: So, we're going on to new business now and item number one Initiator Planning Director, Chaqueaux, LLC and 159 Kalanikoa SP, LLC, REZ 97-000004/PL-PDI-2021-000001. The Planning Director has initiated a repeal of Change of Zone Ordinance Number 97 106 and amending Section 25-8-33 City of Hilo Zone Map, Chapter 25 Article 8, of the Hawaii County Code 1983, 2016 edition, as amended, by reverting the current zoning of the subject properties from Industrial Commercial Mixed-20,000 square feet(MCX-20) to their original Limited Industrial-20,000 square feet(ML-20) zoning district for 147,736 square feet of land. The rezone area, consisting of five parcels is located at the southeast corner of Kalanikoa and Kuawa Streets, approximately 130 feet west of Kanoelehua Avenue at Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK's (3) 2-2-032:023 and 2-2 excuse me 2-2-032:101 through 104. Staff presentation will be made by Christian Kay, our planner. Take it away Christian. 1 EXHIBIT C KAY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning to you again and good morning to the other members of the Commission, we asked our resident French expert here how to pronounce that and its chuck whoa. So. REPLOGLE: Chuck Whoa! KAY: That's right. If you give me a moment, I'll go ahead and share my screen here just one moment please. Can everybody see that? All right, perfect. Thank you. As the Chair stated, this is a Planning Director Initiated Repeal of Change of Zone Ordinance Number 97 106. The subject parcels five (5) in total are located in the South Hilo District of Hawaii Island, more specifically in the Waiakea area. For reference we've got Kanoelehua Avenue running generally north south through the slide and the parcels again are at the corner of Kuawa and Kalanikoa Streets. The Planning Director's action is such the Planning Director is initiating a request to repeal Ordinance 97 106 in response to a written request submitted by representatives of Chaqueaux, LLC who purchase four (4) of the 5 parcels in January 2021. The repeal would revert the zoning of the 5 parcels totaling 147,736 square feet of land to their original Limited Industrial-20,000 square foot zoning designation from their current Industrial Commercial Mixed Use-20,000 square feet zoning designation. Following the purchase of the 4 parcels in 2021, Chaqueaux who are the landowners inquired with the Department about obtaining Plan Approval for uses on the one of the properties. At that time, they were informed that due to the zoning ordinance being stale, (for example, out of compliance with timed conditions), securing plan approval would not be permissible. As Chaqueaux had no intention of developing uses permitted in the MCX zoning district they asked the Planning Director to initiate rezoning to its original zoning pursuant to Condition N of the ordinance which gives the Director authority to revert the zoning should conditions of compliance not being met. Owners of Parcel 104 (159 Kalanikoa SP, LLC) have been contacted by both Chaqueaux and the Planning Department to determine if they wanted to join the reversion action. To date, we've not received a response. As Parcel 104 is improved with a self- storage facility and business center structure permitted and built prior to this subject rezone, and all the current uses in the building that are currently a furniture repair facility and store, an ambulance base yard, and accessory office are permitted in either zoning district. The requested reversion would not impact their existing use, so the Director has agreed to initiate the repeal of the subject ordinance in its entirety, which will revert the zoning of all 5 parcels. So, the zoning again of the subject parcels right now is currently MCX-20. There's other zoning in the area Limited Industrial 20, which is what the Director's proposing to revert it back to in close proximity and some associated commercial uses or zoning and open uses, which are consistent with County parks facilities across Kanoelehua Avenue is the Hilo International Airport. The subject parcel and all of the surrounding area is designated as Urban by the State Land Use Commission. The General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map (LUPAG) designation for all of the parcels is Industrial which supports both the current and old zoning which is being proposed to revert back to. Here's an aerial photo of the subject parcels again we've got Kuawa Street running toward the top of this slide, Kalanikoa Street running north south and here are the 5 parcels here. This is 2 EXHIBIT C Parcel 104 that has the self-storage facility with the other uses, Parcel 103 is here, and it is the former location of most recently E Komo Mai Lounge. The other parcels are vacant of any improvements. Here's some views of the subject properties again this is Parcel 104 from Kalanikoa Street showing the existing self-storage facility, the furniture repair shop is here, and then the base yard for ambulances and upper right are views from the other parcels from Kalanikoa Street. Lower left are views of the parcels from the intersection of Kuawa and Kalanikoa and then the lower right is a view of the parcels from Kuawa Street. Oops, wrong slide forgot to take that one out. With all that said, the Director is recommending that the Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council to repeal Ordinance 97 106. With that I'd like to turn the time back over to the Chair, thank you for your time. REPLOGLE: Thank you, Christian. We will now hear from Ronald Kim Esq., Agent for the Applicant. Please raise your right hand. So, I can swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Windward Planning Commission? KIM: Yes, I do. REPLOGLE: Please state your name and the town you live in, and have you received the background and recommendation from the Planning Department? KIM: Good morning, Chairperson. Ronald Kim, I live in Hilo and yes, I have received the background report and recommendations from the Planning Department, thank you. REPLOGLE: Okay, do you agree with the Planning Director's recommendations including proposed conditions? KIM: Yes, we do yes. REPLOGLE: Please go ahead with your presentation. KIM: Okay, we have very little to add actually to what the Planning Department already did. The Planning Department did a really good job of explaining the background and situation. And what the plan is for the property, what the difference is between the two zoning designations. Where it's really sort of a distinction without a difference as far as Chaqueaux and their neighbor goes, because both of their uses would be allowed under either Limited Industrial or the Mixed Commercial Industrial Use. So, it really does seem like a logical step, and it does put us in compliance with the law to allow Chaqueaux to go forward with getting plan approval, if we revert those zoning back to the initial Limited Industrial. We're happy to respond to any questions you might have about the property or Chaqueaux. REPLOGLE: Thank you, Mr. Kim. Commissioners do you have any questions for the staff or the applicant? Mr. Clarkson? CLARKSON: Yes, I have a question for the staff. The difference in zoning between the two, as far as, I mean there were literally dozens of uses approved for each zoning designation and I didn't go through them one by one. But I wanted to ask the Planning Department staff whether 3 EXHIBIT C there was, in their view a preferred designation for this location including the existing designation? I mean, is there anything wrong with the way it's designated now? And then my follow up to that would be, if the MCX-20 is okay, why not just drop the conditions that are preventing the landowner from making use of the property? I would think either course would be okay, and it might be easier just to modify the zoning ordinance to drop the time limits on the conditions and just leave it the way it is. Please respond. KAY: Sure, so I can speak to the first question and then maybe defer the second question to the Director. When we did our research on the original rezone there was no specific project that was associated with the rezone. They mentioned that they wanted to put a mix of Light Industrial and Commercial Uses that may support the surrounding commercial and aviation related businesses associated with the airport. So, unlike today where generally there's a proposed project tied to a zoning request that wasn't the case back then. With their vision back then, the MCX would be the only way to get those types of uses that they were looking to utilize. So, I guess long story short there's no reason for it to be MCX at this point. The surroundings zoning that's ML and again the uses are largely similar, so we didn't see an issue with reverting it back. And so that's staff's opinion and the Director agreed with it, that either zoning would be appropriate in that area given the Industrial LUPAG designation and all the other factors. KERN: Well, guess I'll jump in there for part of the other side of it. This is the situation that we run into frequently with the way that you have time conditions on ordinances so, obviously it goes stale and in cases we've seen trying to get time extensions. In other cases, we've seen it repealed back to its original zoning and this request with it going back to its original zoning it was consistent with the entire area it seemed to make sense doing that. It was kind of the logical approach as it wasn't needed the additional uses in there. So, we fully support it and I think it makes sense. We have some other ones coming up on the other side that are a bit more challenging, but this is the case we get into when we have this kind of limbo status, and somebody can't really do anything with their property because they went through that process. So, I think request to repeal was fair, reasonable, so it seems to be the most logical route to go. CLARKSON: Well, I just like to either respond to my point that the only reason for the request was that they couldn't use their property for any of the uses that were permitted because of the expired time limits. KAY: I'm so sorry to interrupt. They couldn't do anything on the property until the ordinance was brought current. Because the zoning was MCX-20, and they were out of compliance unbeknownst to them based on representations from the applicant's representative at the time they purchased the property. So yes, the process at that point would have to be an amendment in order to bring the ordinance current which would be a time extension for those time conditions that have yet to be complied with or to come in and request the reversion. So those are essentially the two options at that point to allow for something to happen on the properties. CLARKSON: So, there were two options and I'm just still trying to figure out why the one option was preferred over the other from the Planning Department's point of view. When— KAY: Sorry, go ahead. 4 EXHIBIT C CLARKSON: Since they both seem to need an ordinance amendment and one is a reversion one is dropping of the time conditions. Why and I bring this up because this issue of the unworkability of time conditions has come up over and over again, while I've been on the Commission. My preference is that these rezone ordinances be enacted without any of these time conditions basically if it makes sense to rezone it makes sense to rezone forever or until there's a change in the neighborhood. So, I'm just curious why the Planning Department said yeah you can't do anything because of these expired time conditions. Why don't you asked to revert to a previous zoning rather than why don't you ask to have the time conditions dropped? KAY: I think the process that we were responding to was the applicant's requests. I personally hadn't thought of just dropping those conditions. So that's where we're at. It wasn't at the request of the Department to go ahead and do this initiation we're just responding to Chaqueaux's request. CLARKSON: Okay, that explains it, thank you. I thought that it was a suggestion from an initiation from the Department to take the course you took. I'm sorry. KAY: No worries. Mr. Kim has his hand up. REPLOGLE: Mr. Kim? KIM: Thank you,just as a further on the conditions, the ordinance was enacted in 1997, and so the conditions were imposed over 20 years ago. So, that was another thing we were thinking too, is that the situation on the ground today is probably not going to be the same as it was in 1997. So, we thought it'd be cleaner to go back and just revert the zoning. REPLOGLE: Thank you. Any other questions? So, I'll— GALIMBA: I'd like to make a motion. REPLOGLE: Okay. GALIMBA: I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the repeal of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 97 106, based on the Planning Director's recommendations, which shall be adopted. AGUINALDO: I second. REPLOGLE: It's been moved and seconded by Commissioner Galimba and Commissioner Aguinaldo. Would staff do the roll call vote,please. KAY: Sure, is there any discussion before that happens? REPLOGLE: Oh, any discussion? Thank you about doing it this way. No discussion. Mr. Kay? 5 EXHIBIT C KAY: Thanks, Mr. Chair. Let me start with Commissioner Galimba? GALIMBA: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Aguinaldo? AGUINALDO: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Clarkson? CLARKSON: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Lin? LIN: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Raffipiy? RAFFIPIY: Aye. KAY: And Chair Replogle? REPLOGLE: Aye. KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair motion carries six (6) nothing. REPLOGLE: Thank you, Mr. Kay. The item ended at 10:06 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Dacayanan-Salvador Secretary Windward Planning Commission 6 EXHIBIT C