Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-10-27 tcr PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 27, 2006 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of C&R DEVELOPMENT, LLC (REZ 06-000046) was called to order at 9:06 a.m. at the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT:C. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Jeffrey McCall Fred Galdones Rodney Watanabe Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And two people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: C & R DEVELOPMENT, LLC (REZ 06-000046) Change of zone from a Limited Industrial ƒ 1 acre (ML-1a) to an Industrial Commercial Mixed 1-acre (MCX-1a) district for approximately 1.277 acres of land. The property is located along the south (mauka) corner of Kamanu Street and Maiau Street in the Kaloko Industrial Subdivision, Kaloko, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-3-51:96. ALAMEDA:Let€s start by looking at Agenda Item No. 2, C & R Development, LLC.Staff? DARROW:Thankyou,Mr.Chairman.IfIcandirectyourattentiontothe location map, the area of this application is within the North Kona District of Hawai i. Morespecifically,we€relookingintheindustrialarea,theKalokoIndustrialarea.We have, just for reference, we have the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, running in a north- southdirection,identifiedinwhite.TheSMAwillactuallybemakaiofthehighway,so this area does not fall into the Special Management Area. You may be familiar with Costco,thatwouldbelocatedinthisparticulararea.Theareaoftheapplicationis identified by a red dot, it€s on the corner of Kamanu Street and Maiau Street Looking at the zoning for this particular area, the dark gray areas, shaded areas, are identified as Limited Industrial ƒ 1 acre zoning. We have some light-colored areas, 1EXHIBIT A identifying MCX-1 acre, as well as some purple zoning which also identifies MCX-20 acres. The Applicant in this case, C & R Development, LLC, is requesting a Change of Zone from a Limited Industrial - 1 acre to MCX - 1 acre. The property is identified here by the submitted site plan from the Applicants. Again, we have that corner property which identifies the location of the property on the location map. The Applicant is proposing to put two 2-story buildings identified here, with parking. Again, Costco would be down in this particular area on the location map. The Applicant is requesting a Change of Zone because of the fact that they would like to have office and medical-type uses within the buildings and the ML zoning does not allow for these uses. The MCX zoning would allow for these particular uses. And, again, looking at the area, there is MCX zoning just behind the particular property. The General PlanforthisareaisIndustrial.Theplans,KonaRegionalPlan,aswellastheK-to-K Plan, both identify this area for Industrial-type uses. The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the Hawai i County Council. Are there any questions? ALAMEDA:Any questions, Fellow Commissioners? DARROW:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Seeing none, will the Applicant€s representatives come forward? Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawai i County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. ALAMEDA:Thank you. You may be seated. Mr. Fuke, could you state your name and address for the record? FUKE:Sure. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Sidney Fuke, I€m a planning consultant. I€m here assisting the Applicant. My business address is 100 Pauahi Street in Hilo, Hawai i. Before going on, however, I€d like to just also acknowledge the appreciation, my appreciation for switching me over since I have to catch a plane in a few minutes. RICKENBACH:My name is Kevin Rickenbach and I€m a general contractor here in the Kona area and we€re looking forward to -. Oh yeah, 72-3982 Mamalahoa Highway, Kailua-Kona, is my address. Is that it? ALAMEDA:That€s it. Mr. Fuke, you€ve got the Recommendation from the Department? 2EXHIBIT A FUKE:Yes, Mr. Chairman, and the proposed Recommendation and the Conditions. And I think we were also provided an amended condition by the Director early part of this week, and the amended conditions were reviewed by the Applicant and were deemed acceptable. The only clarification I would like to provide, supplementary information for the Commission€s information is that the buildings are already under construction. You know, if you have a chance this afternoon on your way back to stop off at Costco, you€ll get a chance to see that the structures already are 50 percent done, 60 percent completed. So the primary intent, as the staff had indicated, is that there are very limited type of office- and medical-related type of uses that would be allowed in the ML zone. And what the Applicant wants to do, hopefully, is to bring in the kidney dialysis facility at this particular location, you know, inasmuch as it would be much more centrally located to service the West Hawai i region, you know, particularly inWaimea, the Waikoloa area, rather than having to go all the way down to South Kona. ALAMEDA:Okay. RICKENBACH:If I could just make a correction. We€re not going to have a kidney dialysisclinicatthistimebutwehaveinsteadworkedoutadealwithafitnesscenter which is in a sense preventive medicine which will be taking that space. ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner Siracusa, question? SIRACUSA:Yes. First of all, I do want to urge both of you to speak more into the mike because I was having trouble hearing what you were saying. So you€re saying now that the kidney dialysis center is out? RICKENBACH:Yeah. That didn€t work out because of the wastewater concerns for the area. SIRACUSA:Okay. Cause one of my questions that I was going to ask you was how far was it to the nearest other kidney dialysis center and how many patients you treat per day; but those are now moot questions. So I would like to ask you if you had a chance to review the letter that we just received this morning from John Parazette; and he has raised some concerns. And I would ask Sidney that you address them; and then I would like to hear Director Yuen give us his take on those. Thank you. FUKE:Sure. We had a chance to review Mr. Parazette€s letter, and I think that it€s generally accurate with one exception. And that is, like as I mentioned earlier, that the Applicant is constructing a shell right now, and under the terms of the Zoning Code, as you apply for a specific use within that area, you have to go through the Plan Approval process; and as you go through the Plan Approval process, the Department is obligated to review the proposed use relative to what the parking requirements are going to be; and, so, in so doing then that€s how the required parking is kind of like further re-examined. And if it€s insufficient then that particular use would not be allowed until such time that the required parking is provided. 3EXHIBIT A The Plan Approval provision, that kind of falls under Section 25-271 where, and I€ll just kind of read it just for the record. It says that Plan Approval shall be required in all districts prior to change of the following uses in existing buildings,‚ and this would be considered as existing buildings, when you have like a warehouse and manufacturing that is converted to retail or office use. SIRACUSA:If the kidney dialysis center is no longer an issue here, then why do you want to continue to pursue the Change of Zone? RICKENBACH:Because we have leases with two medical doctors in town. Monica Scheel, MD, a dermatologist, is going to be taking the upstairs in the south building, along with Michael Traub, a naturopathic physician, who has a practice here in town. ALAMEDA:CommissionerMs.Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes,partofmyfirstquestionwastoasktheDirectorifhewould comment on those, basically on the uses, the difference in uses between the, one, zoning category and the other. ALAMEDA:Okay. Director? YUEN:As far as the uses in MCX, it€s considerably broader. Commercial-type and retail-type uses are allowed, also office uses. And the specifics are, I don€t know if we have a copy of the, we need to go through the Zoning Ordinance. And as far as this question, I don€t know if staff is able to answer the other questions regarding this letter from Mr. Parazette. DARROW:Could you repeat the question, Ms. Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Well, actually, there were two questions, one -. DARROW:We€re passing out a copy of the -. SIRACUSA:Yeah, one was to address, addressing the concerns raised by John Parazette. And the second question had to do with the differences in permitted uses between the zoning that is in existence now and the requested zoning, to clarify what the differences are between the two types of zoning in terms of uses. DARROW:I can go ahead and answer the first question. Do you want me to, you want to go ahead, Chris? YUEN:No, why don€t you -. I€ll follow-up on the uses. But if you€ll discuss if we had a response to Parazette€s -. 4EXHIBIT A DARROW:Sure. The issues that are brought by Mr. Parazette are mainly dealt with at the time of Plan Approval; and, you know, he brings up a lot of issues regarding parking, and those will all be dealt with at the time of Plan Approval when they come in. There€s a, you know, as far as the different, the size of the building, they€re going to need to be able to address the -. Once, if there is a change in the type of uses that occur, like Mr. Parazette is talking about a change between Industrial versus Commercial that will be looking at a different square footage in regards to parking, that will be something that would need to be re-addressed. I would think that at this time if the building is under construction, it has already come before Plan Approval. So that€s something that will need to be addressed in regards to the change in uses. FUKE:That is correct. Plan Approval was issued by the Planning Department, and that is the only way that you can get your building permit. And when the Plan Approval was issued, it was predicated upon one stall for every 400 square feet. NotallIndustrialuseswithintheMLzonecallsforlikeonestallforevery400square feet. For example, if you have like warehouse space, the stall requirement is one stall for every 1,000 square feet. On the other hand, if you have like a medical office or a retail establishment, then the stall requirement changes one stall for every 300 square feet. So this is what Mr. Parazette is raising about. And so what I mentioned earlier is that when you, this is just a shell. So any use that occupies a portion of it, you need to have like interior permits coming in; and prior to issuance of that, you need to have Plan Approval according to the Code. And when you do that then the specific uses become articulated and the Planning Department then would say, well, you know, you€ve got x‚ number of stalls on the property and so this is how much, you know, you€ll be allocated for this particular use; and then you€ll find out like what the balance is. And if in the end, you know, the last user comes in and there€s not enough parking, then the Applicant would be limited in terms of what kind of use can then enter into the project, or find the alternative parking within a 1,000-foot radius. SIRACUSA:Thank you for clarifying that. Director, you€re ready? YUEN:Well, what I said is basically correct. I also want, you also lose some uses when you go from ML to MCX. Generally, some of the things that would be more Light Industrial in nature you lose the possibility of airfields, airports and private landing strips, animal quarantine stations, automobile-truck storage facilities. Bakeries are in there now I think in MCX. So generally MCX is, you know, without going through the list completely, MCX is more favorable for commercial, retail and office types of uses; and ML is more favorable for a broader range of Light Industrial types of uses. SIRACUSA:Okay. I just wanted to state that the reason I was asking these questions is because already we haven€t even started and we€ve lost one of the proposed uses, and that being the dialysis center. And, of course, once the Change of Zone goes through, then it€s a done deed. So I wanted to know what other things could be expected if there are more changes, such as if those doctors decide, you know, over a period of time not to renew leases or whatever, something else happens. Thank you. 5EXHIBIT A ALAMEDA:That€s a good question, Commissioner Siracusa. Thank you. Other questions? Commissioner Iwashita, you had a question? IWASHITA:Under the current Plan Approval, how many stalls are going to be built? WATANABE:I believe it€s 69. IWASHITA:Sixty-nine? WATANABE:I believe that€s what€s on the write-up, 69 including 3 handicapped stalls. DARROW:ThisispartofExhibitA.WithintheApplicant€ssubmittalunder Plan Approval, you€ll see the listed amounts of parking there. They have a total of 69 stalls and 3 stalls would need to be handicap accessible. IWASHITA:Can I ask the Applicant or whoever, and how many more stalls can be put on this property with this proposed plan? FUKE:I can answer that question. Basically, the number of stalls, unless the Code changes, would be limited to what you see on the plan right now and, so -. IWASHITA:No, I€m sorry, I€m not asking what the Code allows. I€m asking physically on the property -. FUKE:Sixty-nine. IWASHITA:I€m asking physically on the property, how many more stalls is it possible to be marked? FUKE:Without compromising landscaping requirement, none. IWASHITA:None. So it€s maxed out? FUKE:Correct. IWASHITA:So I guess, in my mind, if that€s the case and 69 is basically the number for industrial use, right, or, you know -. If it€s not warehouse but it€s industrial use, I don€t see how it€s possible to put commercial use on this property without getting the additional parking off-site because you don€t have enough stalls. And with that concern, of these two uses that, you know, the planned uses with these doctors, are there uses for first floor space? RICKENBACH:It€s for second floor space. 6EXHIBIT A IWASHITA:Second floor space. And this fitness center is for, what -? RICKENBACH:The fitness center is the entire upstairs of the north building, which would be the one on the left. And I think I can explain your concerns regarding the number of stalls. Part of our space is our warehouse space downstairs where the furniture store that€s going to be moving into our building downstairs will have a very, one per thousand square feet requirement for parking. Other versions of the space that we have leased are of an industrial nature, like warehouse and show-room space; and I think that€s one per 400. And some of the space that we€re leasing will be office space and that will be one per 300. So if you put the real mix together, the parking spaces work out for the people that we have coming in, as I would interpret it. ALAMEDA:Follow-up? IWASHITA:Well, if basically the entire second floor for both buildings are usedforcommercialspace,thentheparkingrequirements,itwouldseemlikemostofthe bottom will have to be used for warehouse. Right? As a practical, I€ve been to some of these other, you know, places up in Kaloko, up in the industrial areas where, you know, parking is really a problem; and I don€t know if it€s because of, you know, any illegal uses that have come up after the fact, but -. I know that this is supposed to be dealt with administratively. But it seems like where there is clearly going to be mixed uses on the property and if it actually doesn€t include warehouse space in the future and it€s, you know, industrial and yet the 400, 300 mix, that this 69 stalls is, you know, is not going to be adequate; and you€re going to basically force an off-site parking kind of requirement. You know, it seems that there really ought to be more parking stalls if we€re going to have a mixed use, in anticipation of that mixed use. You know, you€re doing it straight on the industrial use for the parking requirement on the old zoning, right? This was approved under the old zoning, under ML zoning, the building plan. And, so, you know, I can see that. But coming in with this change, it seems to me that you expect, you know, the owner is going to do commercial uses in there, just doing the minimum parking requirement under the old zoning which is also applicable to Industrial use and the MCX 1-A zoning, that doesn€t seem to be real prudent. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Well, I was just going to ask the Planning Director for a little bit of follow-up on the very same issue. It was being requested here if the whole thing were used commercially then they wouldn€t quite have the parking they need. But they€re planning to use, you know, some commercial uses and some other uses within the property that wouldn€t require the same density of parking so that they can fit in what they had planned. I guess I€m wondering two things. One is, is this breaking new ground or is this something that has been done many times before and it€s sort of acceptable to the Department? And the other thing is I think our main issue is we don€t want to get in a situation where the Planning Department, where we come in at some point in the future, well, the County comes in and there€s some complaint about parking for the uses that are 7EXHIBIT A there. So I€m just wondering does the County get the ahead of time notice such that it can forestall running into a situation where uses were not in conformance with the parking that€s allocated? YUEN:First, the commentary, questions and the letter from the architect are correct in that there€s not enough parking if the building were to be put entirely to Commercial uses. It was permitted with a, it€s not a huge difference in the number of parking spaces required but it was permitted as an industrial building with one parking space for 400 square feet. Some of the commercial uses will require one for 300 square feet; and it requires, so there€s just isn€t enough. To make it work, you have to have some, you have to have a portion of the property put in warehouse space. And I have a, I heard the Applicant€s comment about that. I have a follow-up question for the applicant on that. So that will work mathematically because warehouse, you only need one per thousand. On the broader question of how does this work in practice, there really isn€t a perfect solutioninasenseofwegetbusinesses,thePlanningDepartmenthas,partoftheZoning Code which we rarely get into -. I mean, we don€t really talk about this as much as the Commission but sometimes we€ve talked about it with multi-family buildings. Part of the Zoning Code lays out all these parking requirements. And, but in real life, if you have a very popular business where people, say, come and stay a long time, you may not enough parking. A very common kind of problem is that you have not enough parking at certain times of the day. And eventually we get complaints, you know, in the Planning Department, follow-up kinds of complaints. Example would be people in Hilo are familiar, there€s a Subway, there€s some restaurants that have been built on the corner of Lanikaula and Kilauea Streets where you have a Subway and a couple of other restaurants, and there€s a laundromat behind that; and at lunch time, you know, there€s not enough parking but it complies with the Parking Code, you know. And there€s no real way, you€re not going to solve this absolutely in advance. You€re going to approve a building and you don€t know, these things are not plucked out ideas. They€re based on national parking kinds of standards. But you don€t know in advance whether the business is going to be unusually popular. So we do get these kinds of problems. And in the end actually there isn€t that much you can do about it because you€ve approved the building and it turns out to be very popular. And that€s the more normal kind of problem. Now, you can also have issues if uses get changed and it€s not caught, that they need to have more parking. The change of use is supposed to get a Plan Approval. Change of use in a commercial or industrial building is supposed to have a Plan Approval. However, if it doesn€t trigger a building permit, for example, then you might do it and the Planning Department is not running around, you know, looking at individual bays and industrial buildings or commercial buildings to see what kinds of uses there are. So if we get a complaint and there€s not been a Plan Approval for the change and it€s apparent that the parking requirements are no longer met, then we will go out and do something about that. So it is, it€s something that can happen. 8EXHIBIT A Generally, though, you know, if you have a change, say you had in an MCX zone, say you had a warehouse, all right, and so this lower level was permitted as a warehouse, eventually, and then somebody came in and wanted to convert it to a restaurant. Well, you did a building permit and if the staff is on the ball -. Because Planning looks at the building permit when it comes through, they€ll say, Oh, this needs a Plan Approval.‚ And at the Plan Approval somebody there on the ball will say, Oh, you can€t do this because you€re not going to have enough parking to change the warehouse to a restaurant,‚ even though the restaurant is allowed by the MCX zoning. So that€s the way it€s supposed to work. And if that, I don€t know if I€ve triggered some more questions, but I did want to ask a question of the Applicant about the warehouse. But the Commissioners have any questions? ALAMEDA:CommissionerWatanabe? WATANABE:Idon€tknowifthisissomethingIshouldhavebroughtupmorein deliberations, but I guess from my standpoint I would echo to some degree what the Director had said that, you know, the regulations are really arbitrary. That said, any business person would definitely look at available parking and if indeed there was not enough parking, I certainly, as a business owner, would not contract with that particular site for a restaurant which I know requires a lot of parking cause I€m doomed to fail. And so in many ways I think you can look at the market to control a lot of these factors. Certainly, the business owners are aware of whether there€s sufficient parking or not; and that in the end may be the ultimate control of what uses are based within that building. That€s why I don€t know that it€s going to be that big of an issue over the long haul, meaning the marketplace will take care of that, I think. ALAMEDA:Question for our Applicant? Mr. Director? YUEN:I had a question about your plans to use, under current situation where if you€re going to have offices or other kinds of commercial spaces, you€re going to need to devote a major portion of the building to warehouse; and you say so you€re going to have a furniture warehouse. The architect€s letter says that you have no industrial-type service doors on your ground floor that you€ll have all commercial or pedestrian type entrances. Is that correct? RICKENBACH:No. We have a roll-up door at the south end of the building where the furniture store has its warehouse. YUEN:Okay. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Other questions for the Applicants before we consider testimony and go into deliberation? How about Commissioner Graham, and then we€ll come back to Commissioner Iwashita. 9EXHIBIT A GRAHAM:I just have a question for Mr. Fuke. I think we understand the situation, and I think your representations, whatyou€regoing to do, is kind of in conformance with the parking you have. Yet, we€re concerned to rezone that whole place MCX. Is there any particular kind of condition of the zoning that would sort of, we could add that would be in line with what you plan to do that would sort of minimize our concern about the parking issue? FUKE:Sure. While it may be redundant because, that was what I was looking at. You know, the staff€s proposed recommendation calls for Condition No. J, The Applicant shall comply with all applicable County and State and Federal laws,‚ which means the Zoning Code; and, as I noted earlier, the Zoning Code already requires, and which was corroborated by your Planning Director, that whenever you have any change in use, the applicant is required to come in for Plan Approval. And, at that time, you do the Plan Approval, go in for the Plan Approval, then you would have to, the PlanningDepartmentwillhavetomakeanassessmentontherequiredparking.And,so, if you want then probably the recommendation would be to say that All uses within the structure shall submit plans to the Planning Department for Plan Approval.‚ And that way you can, the Department would be in a better position to honestly assess the parking requirements for each and every use. The other comment I€d like to make is that I think that some of the concerns were raised about the, you know, the parking situation -. I think Commissioner Iwashita raised the concern about the parking situation, the existing parking situation in the Kaloko industrial area. I think a lot of that was predicated, because people came in, built up a shell, and their parking was predicated on one stall for every 1,000 square feet; and then the shells then became parceled out for office or retail use. And, so, you know, you will have not enough parking, you know, on the property site itself, with the few exceptions like the major ones like which are heavily retail-oriented to begin with, such as like Costco or like the one off of Hinalani Street where you have the credit union building where you already have the required parking. But it was in anticipation of a possible need for more parking that they didn€t go in to say like I€m going to have one stall for every 1,000 square feet. They went in to say like one stall for every 400 square feet, you know, which was considerably more than what would normally have been if they came in straight out for a warehouse space. Mr. Rickenbach also noted to me while there was discussion on this matter that if there is an absence of parking, you know, he has one of two alternatives. One is, well, don€t lease that area; while secondly, try to find properties within a 1,000-foot radius that would satisfy the required parking. And in anticipation of possibly that happening, he has had, you know, there is already on-going discussions with the adjoining property owner to seek an area that would be servicing possibly, if he needs to, his own parking requirements as well as other property owners within that radius to fulfill their own respective parking requirements. So that is an option that they€re seriously looking at but not necessarily exercising at this point in time. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita? 10EXHIBIT A IWASHITA:I just had a fine concern about the point on off-street loading spaces and whether or not the approved plan complies with the requirements or the rules. I guess it€s a real technical point, seems like, because he€s saying that the way their spaces, the three spaces, are designed that somehow it doesn€t meet the requirement. YUEN:I have to tell you I cannot help with that. That€s something that I€ve never been personally involved with, looking at loading spaces and the handicapped expressed load spaces. I€ve told you what I know about the rules on parking. So I can€t, I don€t know if staff members are able to discuss that. There a couple of people on the staff that do Plan Approvals by and large and are responsible for looking at these. I mean, there€s two people, two to three people in Hilo and two to three people in Kona who do this kind of stuff repeatedly in the Department. And I can€t help on that. RICKENBACH:And,Andy,I€dliketopointoutthatIdidgooverthatparticular question in detail with the Planning Department representative, Bennett Mark, in the Kona office. And we spent many hours actually designing the parking and the loading requirements for the property at the south end; and they do comply with the loading requirements for that property. And right where the container loading zone is is where the industrial roll-up door is for loading and unloading furniture. IWASHITA:So when you say the south end, on the map they were looking at, that€s the end that has Proposed two-story structures?‚ RICKENBACH:Correct. That€s the shaded area on the south border there. IWASHITA:Okay. And the north structure, does that have a loading space? RICKENBACH:No, not at this juncture. It does not have a roll-up door. It has store-front doors on the mauka and makai sides of the building. IWASHITA:So the north structure basically, you know, all of the loading spaces, the three loading spaces, they€re all servicing the south building? RICKENBACH:That is the requirement for the building. That€s sufficient for the requirement for the building. IWASHITA:I understand. RICKENBACH:Okay. IWASHITA:All I want to know is, cause I can€t really tell cause I don€t, you know, in reading this map, all I want to know is are the three loading spaces all located to service the south building? RICKENBACH:That€s where the loading zones are located. 11EXHIBIT A IWASHITA:So the north building does not have any loading space? RICKENBACH:That€s correct. IWASHITA:Okay. So the, really, then the only industrial use can be on the first floor of the south building, is that correct? RICKENBACH:I think you can actually have industrial use in the other building, too, because the doors that we have are double doors and they open up large. FUKE:To answer your, to amplify the response, Commissioner Iwashita, is that, yes, the loading zones are all at the south end of the property. There can be industrial uses at both sides of the building. However, those that require loading activity wouldprobablybemoreatthesouthbuilding. IWASHITA:TofollowCommissionerWatanabe€sthinking,ifyou€rean industrial user and you don€t have,seems like you€re going to have to require setting up loading space. I mean, that€s, isn€t that, you know, just as a restaurant will require more parking stalls an industrial user couldn€t really realistically look at a space if it didn€t have a loading space. So -. FUKE:Except that if you were to look at the Zoning Code which, you know, articulates all of the permitted uses within the ML zone within the Limited, you know, the current zoning, there are certain type of uses that do not necessarily require a loading zone. For example, like in the ML zone like a broadcasting station. IWASHITA:That€s acommercial use. FUKE:Correct, but that€s also -. IWASHITA:That will require 300, stalls per 300. FUKE:No, no, that would still be one stall for every 400 because that€s a permitted use in the ML zone. IWASHITA:Okay, butit wouldn€t be one per thousand. I guess my concern is that it seems as a practical matter that the only part of this proposed development that can be used for the one per thousand requirement would be the first floor of the south building. All the rest of it pretty much is one per 3 or one per 4. FUKE:Pretty much, correct. Your assessment is correct. ALAMEDA:Any other questions before we entertain testimony? Commissioner Iwashita, follow-up? 12EXHIBIT A IWASHITA:I guess, procedurally, I have a concern; and that is that, you know, the parking requirement seems to me, and correct me if I€m wrong, that if the zoning was, in fact, as it€s being requested to be changed to the MCX 1-A, that whenthis plan came for approval to the Department, the parking requirement as it stands wouldn€t be approved at 69. Would it or wouldn€t it? I mean, that€s, if the applicant comes in, if he has MCX 1-A and says I want to use half of this for commercial and one-fourth for the warehouse and the other fourth for 1 per 400, whatever those uses are, seems like you need more than the 69 stalls. FUKE:Mr. Chairman, can I answer that question? ALAMEDA:Sure. FUKE:I€mlookingattheZoningCoderightnowrelatingtoparkingandit says under Item 25-4-51(a)(3), Commercial uses, including retail and office uses in number of zones, including the MCX zone, one stall for every 300 square feet. It also says Item, the same section, 25-4-51(a)(11), Industrial uses in ML, MG, MCX, etc., one stall for every 400 square feet. So what it refers to is specifically the type of use you have within that structure that€ll dictate what your parking requirements will be. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:It doesn€t answer my question. YUEN:No, I believe that if this building came in with an MCX zone, it€ll probably trigger a statement in the Plan Approval about the parking requirements. You€ll see the Plan Approval has a number of statements about parking, the parking requirement. It€s not per se impossible for this building to comply with the parking requirements in MCX zone, depends what the ultimate uses are. So, administratively, for this building, as for a number of, as with many, many other situations, administratively you have to look at the building and look at each, we€re going to have to look at the tenants as they come in to see that the parking is met. If they ended up doing or tenants that needed the 1 for 400, that would be fine. If they had some tenants that are at 300 square feet, then they need some tenant that€s at 1,000 square feet for parking per parking space. There is a way to do it. And, in fact, currently this building is permitted as a shell at this point. Right? So to use, for any tenant to come in and use the space, the tenant is going to come in, you€re going to sell it to a, you€re going to sell the rented spaces to tenants that then are responsible for improving their own spaces. Right? FUKE:Correct. YUEN:Okay. The tenant is going to come in and get a building permit for something. And it€s something that has to, it€s not the easiest thing in the world to do because this is the kind of thing that€s done administratively by people like Bennett Mark and others in the Kona office and a couple of people in the Hilo office. They look at the 13EXHIBIT A tenant, the building permits as they come in, they€re supposed to have a Plan Approval, and they make sure the building is going to work on the parking. ALAMEDA:Any further questions? CommissionerSiracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes. Allthis talk led me to re-examine the map that you included as Figure 4. And looking at the number of parking spaces here, I see 72 parking spaces marked out, including an ADA van parking; and yet, you testified that there is no room to add on more to the 69. So I€m wondering, is this plan mainly conceptual? I assume that since you€ve already gone for Final Plan Approval on the previous thing that it€s more than conceptual. Could you explain this possible discrepancy, please? RICKENBACH:I think it€s 69 regular stalls and 3 handicapped stalls; and that€s, so the total is, correct, 72. SIRACUSA:All right. So you€re saying that. Because in the written, the part that€swrittenup,itsaidthat69includedthe3handicapped.Nowyou€resayingthat69 plus the 3. Is that -? RICKENBACH:Well, I thought it said 69 plus the 3. But if it doesn€t say that, that€s what it is, a total of 72 spaces and, in addition, the loading zones. SIRACUSA:Yeah, it says here on Page 1, 69 parking stalls including 3 handicapped accessible parking stalls.‚ So that€s what was throwing me off, was that including‚ but you€re adding on. So it€s really 72? FUKE:No. It€s really 69, according to the Plan Approval that was issued by the Planning Department; and the plans that were approved for Plan Approval and the plans that came in for a building permit did not change substantially. So I€m looking at the Final Plan Approval that was issued by the Planning Department and it shows 69, what was reflected on the plans were 69 parking stalls, 3 of which were handicapped, and that also included, in addition to that, then there were like 3 loading zones. SIRACUSA:What I€m saying is your Figure 4 shows 72 parking stalls, plus an ADA van accessible, Figure 4. That€s why I was asking if it€s strictly conceptual or if it -. FUKE:Yeah. SIRACUSA:All right. You see what I, my problem? FUKE:Yeah. If you€re looking at and you€re counting the stalls, then what it is like, you know, you may be counting the, you know, the ADA van accessible area which looks like a stall. SIRACUSA:It doesn€t have a number on it. 14EXHIBIT A FUKE:Correct, yeah. SIRACUSA:So I didn€t count it. Besides it goes right from 54, then the ADA van parking, and then 55 is the next one on the other side. So it didn€t seem to be, there didn€t seem to be missing a number, which would have counted that ADA van parking; and, yet, at the very end, if you look, it keeps on going to -. FUKE:You are correct, Commissioner Siracusa, because I had to take off my glasses to see that small number. But it goes all the way up to -. SIRACUSA:Well, see, I put my glasses on. FUKE:It goes all the way up to 72 stalls; but the Plan Approval indicated 69stalls.And,quitehonestly,Idon€tknow,honestly,Ican€tsaywhetherit€s69or72. This plan shows 72, the Plan Approval sheet that was approved by the Planning Department reflected 69 stalls. SIRACUSA:So, I€d like, before we make a motion or anything on this, I€d like to clarify what we€re going to have here, whether we€re going to go by the map Figure 4 or whether we€re going to go by what€s written down in Plan Approval. And the difference seems to be the 3 stalls that we€re talking about accessibility as to whether they€re included or in addition to. I would like that clarified in any motion that we make on this so that there€s no mixed messages. ALAMEDA:Right, but 69 would be more of a conservative estimate, correct? SIRACUSA:Pardon me? ALAMEDA:Sixty-nine would be a conservative estimate then, more of a conservative estimate. Since the Applicant€s already testified to 69, maybe we should just consider it as 69. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I€m wondering if we€re not micro-managing this at this point because I believe, typically, this is handled administratively. And if in the event in the future someone else says I want to combine these two spaces, then create a second use, then that may require more or even less stalls, then we should leave it up to the administration to handle that and hope that they would follow through with their own rules. I€m thinking we€re kind of splitting hairs here. ALAMEDA:Okay. Let€s ask our counsel. Mr. Torigoe, are we in line with our role or are we micro-managing? TORIGOE:Well, you have your recommendation where the 69 parking stalls are set out, right? The recommendation is just that; and it€s kind of a general basis for the, for what you€re going to send it up to the Council. What the Council is going to 15EXHIBIT A adopt, if it grants the rezoning, is the ordinance -. I don€t know that there€s anything in the ordinance that gets that specific. So, you know, it may not be really necessary for you to nail down a hard-and-fast permanent number as to the exact number of parking stalls. On the other hand, if you don€t have a comfort level without having any idea of what the parking stalls are going to be then, you know, it€s within your purview to try and get that clarified one way or the other. ALAMEDA:Okay. SIRACUSA:It wasn€t that that was bothering me. It was the fact that there seem to be two sets of figures in the paperwork facing us and I just wanted to make sure that we€re all approving the same thing and we€re all on the same page. If somebody is looking at the map, they€re approving 72 stalls plus an ADA van parking, and if someone else is looking at what€s written down, they€re approving at 69. So I think for the record weshouldbeveryclearwhatwe€retalkingabout. ALAMEDA:Okay.That€sfair.Formyownpurposes,astheChair,I€dliketo see if we have any questions, direct questions, for the Applicants so that we can move to the next step of these proceedings. Any questions? Commissioner Watanabe, any questions? WATANABE:None. ALAMEDA:Seeing none, we don€t have any testimony, so you can stay there. But do you have any final comments before we entertain a motion? FUKE:No. The only suggestion is pursuant to what Commissioner Graham is saying that if he wants to, you know, if the Commission wants to entertain an additional condition, you know, relative to the parking area it€s just to mandate that all tenants come in for Plan Approval pursuant to that section of the Code that I referred to earlier. ALAMEDA:Okay. Fellow Commissioners, you have any more questions or any more information you need from the Applicants before we can start deliberating? Seeing none, can I entertain a motion either way? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Yeah, I€d like to move that we forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council for C & R Development, LLC, Change of Zone application REZ 06-000046, based on the Director€s recommendations, and for Commissioner Siracusa€s benefit, with a minimum 69 stalls. SIRACUSA:Thank you. I€ll second that. ALAMEDA:Motion made by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Siracusa. Discussion? Mr. Darrow? 16EXHIBIT A DARROW:If we could add in the -. WATANABE:Oh, excuse me, yeah, it would be inclusive, I did mean inclusive of theD and E conditions which stipulate no direct access to Kamanu Street and a 10-foot wide road widening setback. SIRACUSA:And I€ll second those as well. ALAMEDA:And so noted. DARROW:For clarification -. ALAMEDA:Sure. DARROW:Isthere,theminimum69parkingstalls,wouldthatbeadded,ora new condition, or added to an existing condition? ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? YUEN:I€m just, I don€t understand why that condition is in there. There€s a Zoning Code which states how many parking spaces you€re supposed to have, and we€ve discussed -. You know, I can see the Commissioner€s concern if we were rezoning a project that has a, you know, a building under construction, no way they have parking spaces, and there was no way to have enough parking spaces with the rezoning. I would say, you know, I think we€ve gone through that. I think that€s certainly a question that comes up from the letter that we had from the architect. Now, but I think we have gone through that; and we see that there is a way to have enough parking spaces. And this is a zoning ordinance that if this building is destroyed in a hurricane and they want to rebuild it, they have, you have the same zoning ordinance. Now, under the Zoning Code as it€s written out, you could rebuild, they could decide, well, we€re going to build warehouses in Kona and they decided to put the whole thing in a warehouse, then they don€t need 69 parking spaces anymore cause the whole thing is a warehouse. But the Zoning Ordinance is going to say you have to have a minimum of 69 parking spaces. So, but the Planning Commission will do the conditions on the zoning ordinance. I also don€t see the function, so I don€t see the function of having a condition that says you have to have a minimum of 69 spaces. As far as this discrepancy between a map that you see as a figure attached to this and a Plan Approval that says there are 69 spaces, I can€t explain that discrepancy. But I have to trust that, I have a guy who€s the head of the Kona office who looked at the plan that came in for Plan Approval, he counted the spaces, according to the contractor, they spent several hours considering this issue, and he put down that there€s 69 spaces in there. If they had an earlier plan or different plan with 72 spaces, so much the better. But as we discussed, you know, he went through this, says I got a signed Plan Approval that says you got 69 spaces, you need 69 spaces, you got 69 spaces as this building is being built. 17EXHIBIT A So why -? You know, there is a possible problem with saying you have to have a minimum of 69 spaces, you know, in the zoning ordinance as it goes on in the future. So I just don€t see a point in doing that. ALAMEDA:Maker another motion? WATANABE:I€d be happy to remove that. I actually, like I indicated earlier, only put that in for Ms. Siracusa€s benefit. If she€s willing to second without the 69, the comment on 69, minimum 69 spaces, that would be perfectly fine with me. ALAMEDA:Ms. Sircuasa? SIRACUSA:Yes. I appreciate Commissioner Watanabe€s attempts to assuage my comfort level. I would have accepted, actually I would have moved without putting inthatstipulationanyway.Soifyouwanttotakeitoutagain-. WATANABE:Yeah,Iwouldretractthatportion. SIRACUSA:Ifyouretract,I€llretractmysecondonthatandwegobacktothe original -. WATANABE:Exactly. SIRACUSA:I think for clarification maybe we should restate the motion. ALAMEDA:Restate the motion. WATANABE:Okay. I move that we forward a favorable recommendation for the Change of Zone to the County Council for C & R Development, LLC, Change of Zone application REZ 06-000046, based on the Director€s recommendations and inclusive of new Conditions D and E regarding access and a 10-foot wide road widening setback. SIRACUSA:Second. ALAMEDA:Okay. Mr. Darrow? DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Watanabe? ALAMEDA:Hold on. We€ve still got to deliberate. So real quick -. So we have a motion made by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Siracusa. Now, any other comments or questions? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:No. ALAMEDA:Seeing no further questions or comments, staff? Oh, Commissioner Rho? 18EXHIBIT A RHO:I have a comment. ALAMEDA:Sure. RHO:Actually, it€s a question that I don€t really want answered but I wanted to put it on the record just to be on the record. Oneis I think some place in all these documents it talks about Maiau Street and banning parking there, banning parking. So, and then on Kamanu Street, I€m not sure what the County, or our plans are, or the Department€s plans are for parking. So off-street parking on Kamanu Street and Maiau, I think really needs to be looked at, off-street parking. Thanks. ALAMEDA:So noted for the record. Any other comments? Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to understand the motion. The motionisacceptingrecommendationoftheChair,oftheDirector,whichstatesthat69 parking stalls, including 3 handicapped accessible stalls, are also proposed as required on the Final Plan Approval. And that being said then the Figure 4, the 72 will be amended to reflect what is in the recommendation. Do I understand the motion to say that? WATANABE:Actually, we€re not stating any number of parking stalls. Because, really, as the Director indicated, it€s more of an administrative matter. All we€re saying is we€re forwarding a favorable recommendation to the County Council with regard to the Change of Zoning, based on all the other conditions that are listed here. I guess what we€re trying to say is we trust that, but we€re trying to back off from this discrepancy between the 69 and 72 parking stalls. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:It€s just an observation of this. It seems to me like the Final Plan Approval states the minimum amount. The plan, as Figure 4 that we€re looking at shows like a maximum amount that the lot would allow if all the stalls were built out. And, I guess, seems like the owner would be remissed if he didn€t build out as many parking stalls as he could above the minimum. So, I know, that€s how I resolved this discrepancy between the amount stated in Final Plan Approval and the actual amount shown on the drawing. ALAMEDA:Good observation. Okay. Seeing no further comments or questions, staff? 19EXHIBIT A DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chair. And just for clarification, this motion is to approve a favorable recommendation with amended conditions, Conditions D and E. ALAMEDA:Right. DARROW:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Yes. DARROW:Commissioner Rho? RHO:Aye. DARROW:And Mr. Chairman? ALAMEDA:Aye. DARROW:The motion passes seven to zero. ALAMEDA:Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Fuke, thank you. The discussion ended at 10:06 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 20EXHIBIT A