Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-11-02 TGHC PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 2, 2007 GHC INVESTMENTS,LLLP, A regularly advertised hearing on the application of formerly DMS INVESTMENTS,LLLP (REZ 07-000072) was called to order at 10:54 a.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with First Vice-Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT: C. Kimo Alameda ABSENT & EXCUSED: William Graham Takashi Domingo Rene’ Siracusa Andrew Iwashita Alvin Rho Shelly Ogata Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 12 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: DMS INVESTMENTS,LLLP (REZ 07-000072) Change of Zone from Single Family Residential – 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to Neighborhood Commercial – 20,000 square feet (CN-20) district for 22,500 square feet of land. The property is located along the east side of Manono Street, approximately 290 feet north of the Manono Street – Kekuanaoa Street intersection, Waiakea House Lots, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-2-34:84. ALAMEDA: Second Item on the Agenda, DMS Investments, LLLP. This is a rezoning request 07-000072. Jeff? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could direct the Commission’s attention to the location map. Again, this application is within the South Hilo district. We are looking in a similar vicinity as our last application. Just for reference we’re looking at Manono Street running in an east-west, correction north-south direction, Hinano Street running in a north-south direction, Keakuanaoa running in an east-west direction. For reference we have Big Island Candies, our last application; and we have, the red dot indicates our current application. The applicant in this case, which is identified as DMS Investments, LLLP had sent in a letter after this application had been distributed stating that the applicant’s name has EXHIBIT B 1 changed to GHC Investments LLLP. So I’ll refer to the applicant by that name. The applicant in this case is requesting a change of zone from Single-Family Residential to Neighborhood Commercial 20,000 square feet for 22,500 square feet of land. It is identified on the submitted plot plan by a blue outline. Just for reference, at the bottom of the map we have Manono Street, on the top of the map we have Hinano Street. The applicants also own the properties surrounding this particular application. These properties were rezoned back in April of 2000 from Single Family Residential to Neighborhood Commercial 20,000 square feet. In that change of zone application they were required to consolidate these two properties, this property as well as this property here. The applicants are proposing this change of zone to be able to construct a two- phase development. The first phase will involve an approximate 20,000 square foot building, two stories. The first story will have small-scale retail uses. Second story will include office space. If all goes well, the second development would include a similar building with similar uses, but dependent on the demand at the time of construction of the second phase. For your information, we have had several correspondence submitted after this application was distributed. No. 1 we’ve had two comment letters, one from the th Department of Water Supply dated October 12, and one from the Department of Public th Works, and this is dated October 12 as well. Additionally, we’ve received several letters from the applicant. One of the letters or two of the letters had to do with the name change. The final and correct name change is GHC Family Limited Partnership, which is identified as GHC Investments LLLP. We also have a request from the applicants, and this is in the letter, I do not see a date, but it states that “After much consideration we would like to eliminate our proposal to consolidate all three properties under one TMK. In doing so this will allow us to better utilize spaces on all properties, thus allowing a separate entry on Manono Street versus only one if we were to consolidate all three.” As mentioned previously Ordinance 00 30 which was approved for this particular change of zone already requires the applicants to consolidate these two parcels. Additionally, referring to the Department of Water Supply’s comment letter, Condition No. 3 states that the applicant will be required to install a fire hydrant fronting the subject parcel. We are recommending that this requirement be added to Condition C; and this would be after the language that’s in place; and it would state that the applicant will be required to install a fire hydrant fronting the subject property. Again, at this time, the applicant will address their concerns regarding Condition B and Condition E regarding consolidation and access onto Manono Street. The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council for this application. Are there any questions? ALAMEDA: Questions? Commissioner Watanabe. EXHIBIT B 2 WATANABE: My question would be to the Planning Director. What’s your position on removing the consolidation requirement? ALAMEDA: Mr. Director? YUEN: We would require either, we’re opposed to having two separate accesses on Manono Street. We would require either consolidation or establishment of cross-easements so that they could potentially sell the property as a separate piece of property but there would have to be a cross-easement develop in conjunction with the other properties with a single access point. ALAMEDA: Follow-up? WATANABE: Okay, thank you. ALAMEDA: Any other questions for Mr. Darrow? Seeing none, Mr. Darrow, you may be seated. Can I ask the applicant or its representative to please come forward. Could you both please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? CHUN: Yes. HANSEN: Yes. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Starting with my far left, sir, could you state your name and address for the record. HANSEN: Bruce Hansen, 82A Kaiwiki Road, Hilo. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Ma’am? CHUN: Gina Hara Chun, 57A Hoaka Road, Hilo. ALAMEDA: All right. Thanks Bruce and Gina for coming. I know you’ve got the Department’s background report and also their recommendation. Do you have any comments at this time? CHUN: I just want to say that I am one of the three applicants and owners of the property; and I’m actually, I’m the daughter. And it was my parent’s vision to improve the area and provide, you know, to improve the area and enhance the general area. And if anyone, you know, if you’ve lived here and drove by there, you know, maybe 5, 10 years ago or just recently, the homes that were on that property was, you know, very dilapidated. We had problems with drugs and squatters and so forth. So it was a position where my parents decided that they wanted to take the initiative and redevelop that area. My parents at this time are unable to be here today but I do represent their interest as well. So the vision is to finish their vision. And the ordinance, the original ordinance for the properties on the side and behind was approved in 2000, but due to the bad economic EXHIBIT B 3 conditions at the time, they weren’t; and we had it deferred. So now it is my responsibility to go forth. And I have since hired Bruce Hansen, he’s well recommended and respected in the community, and I think he could do a very good job. The building that we plan to build on the adjacent property will be of a, you know, to blend into the environment and kind of be like a Pacific Northwest design with Hawaiian fauna. I am also an active real estate agent; and part of becoming one was to understand the process of, you know, everything. So this has something I have been working on since December. And I have gone to and worked with the Planning Department throughout the entire step and I have seen each of the Departments, Water, Sewer, Electrical. And I’ve talked to them about, and got their recommendations. So I’ve tried my best to follow their recommendations. And I just wanted to say that, you know, in the discovery of doing this report, the rezoning is part of, in the General Plan, you would find in section 14.3.5.2.2 which says, Hawaii County General Plan, Courses of Actions, Section (f), “Within the Waiakea Houselots ‘medium density’ area, commercial development shall be focused on major streets--Kekuanaoa, Piilani, Manono, and Lanikaula, while the interior blocks should be zoned primarily for single- and multi-family residential use.” And then I made a Figure F, actually Figure 3. In the report that I made it shows what is already zoned CN-20. Directly across our proposed site, the Hirayama Brothers also have a CN-20 which was converted in April of 2007. Next to that, Kathy Tripp also has got a favorable approval and has since opened her shop which is directly across. On the Puna side of our site which we’re proposing, Atebara Potato Chip Factory has their manufacturing plant and their retail store. And then the other three parties is, you know, owned by my family. And then directly behind would be Big Island Candies; and they have also recently expanded their area and have gotten a High Density designation with CG-20, and that encompasses, you know, a much bigger lot. And I did talk to the utilities. So I did go and see the Sewer and I asked him if we had a large enough lateral. And there’s a 36-inch sewer lateral fronting the property on the Manono side, an 8-inch sewer lateral on the Hinano side; and they said that they do not foresee any problems. In fact, there was more than enough. As far as the Water Department, I did talk to them as well; and they said that there’s an 8-inch water lateral on Manono and a 6-inch water lateral on Hinano. The electricity is already there. The property is Flood Zone X and there were no historic things on the property, so that should not be of any consequence. And I just wanted to say, you know, it is my intention to complete my parent’s vision. And, you know, I don’t want to sell the property, I want to develop it and improve the overall neighborhood. ALAMEDA: Thank you. You did a lot of homework on that one. CHUN: Yeah. ALAMEDA: Thank you so very much. I appreciate your comments there. Mr. Hansen, you have anything to add, especially around the recommendations made by the Department or even the conditions? Are you okay with the conditions as a consultant? EXHIBIT B 4 HANSEN: We would like to have two exits or two entrances on Manono Street. I have a plan here showing those two entrances and the subject property being separate from the other three. ALAMEDA: Okay, Mr. Darrow, could you please -. Mr. Hansen, do you think it might be easier if you go up there and talk to us about it, or would you like to do it from your seat? HANSEN: I think I can do it from here. As you can see, there’s just going to be, we’d like there to be an entrance on Manono Street toward Atebara’s, and then one that serves the main building. Then there will be one exit over up on Hinano Street. ALAMEDA: Okay. HANSEN: Can you see? ALAMEDA: I can see. HANSEN: Okay. ALAMEDA: I don’t know who, you have a question for one of us or just a comment on what you’re proposing or what you’re asking for? HANSEN: Basically we’d like to have the two entrances on Manono Street. The building itself is going to be like the Pacific town type building, hip roof, open lanai for the upper story, exterior walkways, board and batton type siding on the top. It will fit into the same style and age as the community. ALAMEDA: Okay. HANSEN: And our goal is to support, to look like it has been there a long time, yeah. ALAMEDA: All right. Mr. Watanabe. WATANABE: You know, in looking at your, I guess, you call it a site plan, it looks like the major developments are on the left-hand side of the property and you don’t really have plans for this particular parcel that you’re rezoning at this point. Yeah? Is that correct? CHUN: That’s correct. We at this time for financial reasons we cannot build the other side. However it was under recommendation that, you know, it’s a good idea to take care of all the rezoning issues before you start. So that is why everything right now is contingent upon getting this final rezoning. WATANABE: Okay. Follow-up? ALAMEDA: Thank you. EXHIBIT B 5 WATANABE: The reason we’re asking and the Public Works is suggesting that there be only one access to Manono Street is because Manono is considered a secondary arterial street. And as you know there’s already quite a bit of traffic there. Now as the Planning Director had indicated earlier, you know, even if we were to remove the consolidation requirement, which is one of the conditions here, yeah, we would still ask for like a cross-easement so that there would be only one access point, again. And I think this would be consistent with what Public Works wants and with providing better traffic flow in that area. Since you don’t have any plans, you know, I take it that probably that would be the best compromise; and in that respect you could move your planned access to share with the adjoining lots since you own it right now. And if you need it to or decided to sell that property later on, you know, you’d still be in a position where you wouldn’t have to do any additional work. I guess what I’m driving at is from my personal point of view I don’t think two accesses on Manono is really negotiable. CHUN: I would like to address that, Mr.Watanabe. I did talk to Kelly Gomes from the Public Works Department because it was a concern, cause initially, you know, it was, when I did write the report I asked for consultation. And I said, well, should I consolidate or not? And it came to the point where most of the people that were a advising me said, well, you should consolidate because it will make your life easier. However, as I got closer to the ending part of submitting and, you know, getting a better understanding I found out that when I did talk to Kelly he said at this moment in time they see it as two separate properties -- So both properties have an entryway, currently both of them have their own driveway -- however, if you should consolidate the two properties you now will be set under a condition where you will only have one access point. And at that point he said, well, what do you plan to do; and I said, well, I don’t know. So he said well then if that is the case then you should just keep it separate, so just remove the condition. So that is what I did. So basically they see it as two separate properties. He said it is not, they don’t see it as one. WATANABE: I understand, I understand. But I -. CHUN: So to have more options in the future, you know, it would be best to have two and so -. But with the other, the properties surrounding, you know, the conditions were to consolidate, so I am going to do that. But I would like to keep -. Kelly Gomes said although you consolidated the back portion you still will be able to get, most likely, two entryways from the Hinano side. So that’s the only reason why I took it off. It’s so that, you know, I would have more options. WATANABE: I understand what you’re saying. But, you know, and it’s all correct, except that the two parcels, the parcel you’re looking for requires a rezone, so it’s not a commercial parcel right now. It’s zoned Residential which implies less traffic. So, yes, you have access to Manono Street. On the other hand, what we are talking about is CN-20 which implies heavier traffic. And that is the purpose for, you know, requesting or making a condition, yeah, of one access. And, you know, I don’t have as much of an issue with individual access to the current parcel that you’re applying to rezone if it’s like two sedans going in and out occasionally. But it’s very different if you put a 7-Eleven in there and we have a lot of cars going in and out. You see? That’s the differential and I EXHIBIT B 6 don’t think Public Works or the Planning Department is trying to make it more difficult on you. It’s just that it fits better for overall traffic flow, especially considering the increased traffic should this rezoning go through. ALAMEDA: Any other questions for our applicants or Mr. Hansen? Okay, seeing none, we do have a testifier. So I can ask you to be seated at this time. Okay, we have Aunty, Aunty Dorothy Hirowatari. Please come forward. HIROWATARI: I know that she’s -. NOMURA: Microphone. ALAMEDA: They’ve got to get everything on the microphone. That way we don’t need to take minutes. HIROWATARI: I swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. ALAMEDA: We’ve already sworn you in. We’ve got your address so go ahead, Mrs. Hirowatari. HIROWATARI: Okay. Now I think, when my friends and I had the land, and now it’s quit-claim deed to me, that 556 and 556A. During the last month they’ve been speeding along and they’ve been getting the graders to go there. And I’ve seen old cars and stuff in there. And I did talk to her mother a long time ago, Mrs. Hara, please help. I did, you know, help cut the trees in between, those big lousy trees. And now you’ve got about five African Tulip trees which if she’d help me get rid of it -. I went there about two times, talked to her mother directly. Then lately I found out looking at her, you know, letterhead that she works for Chris Brilhante. And I was going to ask Chris Brilhante, are you involved with her in the development? But I had no chance. I was going for a doctor’s checkup that afternoon, too old. Anyway, going back to the problems I’ve seen, and I feel sorry for the Planning Director’s cause he has got to approve those plans. And I’m wanting you right now to ask her truthfully did she ever go and get these grading things corrected? I did talk to someone who she probably retained, maybe it was this gentleman, I don’t know, somebody was with a bulldozer. I said, you know, I’m a former realtor, would you go back and talk with the family to see if they had done all they did to correct this? I go to Star Bucks often and I run into people that are very much, you know, talking about the global warming, talking about cleaning of toxic. And so I did see batteries, tires, junk cars; and now when you go, I don’t think you’ll see because they have already brought in, you know, fillers there. And the place that I think is a problem is not on Manono, it’s more on Hinano where I live. The front house is my interest. And we used to have people go through the bushes and break into our houses. They come through the back yard and when I’m not there they’ll go and take some, couple of beers, and go there. So it has been a problem. But now if you go, it’s nicely done. But I think it’s illegal things that are going on. If you want to do any kind of planning, give the person the right to do their plan, which is the right that we have in buying our properties. We have to do it very, very nicely. You don’t try to hide from the law. And for that reason I’m very unhappy. When it comes to this girl’s family, they’re big people. They’re not small, you know, people. And even I struggled to make my own life because I’m too, too honest, I think. I don’t have this hedge that I will go through. But in the eyes of what I see, it’s not fair for me to go against her or anybody else. But because it affects me, that is why I came to this hearing. And I’m terribly sorry, Gina, for EXHIBIT B 7 whatever I’m saying right here, but this has to be corrected before it goes another half year. Maybe in three months you’ll get what you want. The road in Hinano and Manono is very congested. Because if you look by Nekoba’s place, you know, the one with the Potato Chip family, they have a business there, and it sort of goes and then gets wide, because the County planners or the Road Department agreed to widen there; and so it makes it easy to go left turn or right turn, no problem. But it’s Hinano that, just recently I was in the Big Island Candies and somebody just hit -. But yet I would think that she would be happy to have the access for the front, the Hinano side, plus for the Manono side. And yet you folks are agreeing and she’s going, what do you call that, ahead of the cart. You’re back here on the driver’s seat, try -. And she talks names in here who I don’t think knows what’s going on in here, too.I feel very sorry for what’s going on. You cannot plan sometimes too fast, all you do is hurt yourself. So I’m for development but how it’s done sometimes I get very unhappy. I never tried to talk to her on the side because I thought if I came here she would know me for what I am. And some of you folks know me from before. I don’t have any misgrudge. I feel sorry for a lot of things that goes on. I’m excused, right. Thank you. ALAMEDA: Okay. I wasn’t going to excuse you cause I don’t want to get spankings (jokingly) though. Thank you very much, Mrs. Okay, seeing no further testimony, I can invite the applicant and Mr. Hansen back. CHUN: I would like to address what Mrs. -. ALAMEDA: Sure, go ahead. CHUN: I just want to say that I am a realtor, I do work for Chris Brilhante Realty. He has no interest. He is advisor, I mean, you know, he’s a friend and an advisor. But as far as, you know, he’s not sitting here, he has no interest. There’s nothing. As far as if things were done legally, you know, I’m realtor so my fiduciary responsibility is to follow the laws. And the first thing I did was hire a very well-known and well- respected contractor, Bruce Hansen, who has handled everything thus far. The trees, there are some trees left but we didn’t want to cut them down until, you know, we could do it without disturbing Mrs., disturbing Dorothy at all.So maybe Bruce can explain what he has since done at this point. ALAMEDA: Okay, all right. Mr. well-respected Mr. Hansen, go ahead. HANSEN: Thanks, huh. Basically I checked with Kelly Gomes. I did not need to get a grading and grubbing permit for what we did. We just cleaned off existing rubbish, trees that had grown up. We did go ahead and hauled off as much rubbish piles that were there from a previous clearing, yeah. There’s a lot of rubbish we took. We’ve recycled everything that was possible, hand sorted all the metals out and stuff, and did it the best way we could. And through the Solid Waste Division, took it to the County dump because of the -. We did everything per, everything was checked and done properly. We left a couple, the couple trees she’s referring to up by her house by her powerline, I’ve got to take them down by hand slowly piece by piece. Because the powerline is real close and I don’t want to knock the trees – then get it up and get it away EXHIBIT B 8 from us -- and take the power out of her house, yeah. So they will be removed; but I want to do it carefully with a snorkel type of lift kind of trip. That’s all. ALAMEDA: Okay. CHUN: I want to also say that clearing the property and removing the rubble the way it’s supposed to was a tremendous cost, more than we had anticipated. Our originally quote was $11,000 and it came out to $42,000; $30,000 worth of it went to the County for the recycling portion. ALAMEDA: Mr. Watanabe, follow-up? WATANABE: Yeah, I’d like to follow-up on my original comment with regard to access to Manono Street. Then I was wondering if you had an opportunity to think that over and whether you could agree to removing the subdivision but also having cross- easements such that only one entry to Manono Street would be required for this lot as well as your existing parcel. CHUN: It would be our preference, again, to have two. However, if it is the Council’s wish to only have one, then so be it and we will work around it. But, again, it is for the best interest of the overall development to keep our options open, so we ask that you consider having two. ALAMEDA: Any other questions before we move towards our motion? Seeing none, you may be seated. Okay, this is Agenda Item No. 2. Any of the Commissioners care to entertain a motion, or would you need some discussion first? WATANABE: Mr. Chairman? ALAMEDA: Commissioner Watanabe, go ahead. WATANABE: I move to forward a favorable recommendation for Change of Zone Application REZ 07-000072, and for the record, I guess, we should substitute DMS Investment, LLLP with GHC Family Limited Partnership, and inclusive of the revision to Condition C which describes the requirements to install a fire hydrant fronting the subject property; and also a revision to Condition B, removing the requirement to consolidate these parcels and replacing it with the requirement for cross-easements so that only one access to Manono Street would be required. ALAMEDA: Mr. Darrow, is that an adequate motion? DARROW: I believe so. I think we’re looking at a similar condition as our last application where it would require either consolidation or cross-easements. The actual requirement for the single access is listed on Condition -. WATANABE: E. EXHIBIT B 9 DARROW: Yeah. WATANABE: Condition E. DARROW: Yeah, Condition E. WATANABE: Yeah, I’m not sure how you want to word this cross-easement part, but I believe that was what the Director had recommended if we were to remove the consolidation. And the only reason I suggested removing the consolidation requirement is because it doesn’t appear like they have specific plans for this particular parcel. ALAMEDA: Well, let’s ask Mr. Director. YUEN: Yes, the wording would be very similar to the previous application that would either, so to start off the same and then say that if the, or if the property is not consolidated the applicant shall establish cross-easements to permit circulation between TMK, and then we would list the three TMKs, that would be implemented in connection with plan approval for the construction of any new buildings on the property or any resubdivision of the properties, and then comma, so that there is a single access point from Manono Street for TMKs 2-2-34:84 and 85. ALAMEDA: Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Okay. ALAMEDA: Okay. Is there a second? DOMINGO: Second. ALAMEDA: Motion made by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Domingo. Discussion? Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Just procedure, are we closing the hearing? ALAMEDA: Thank you, thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. I would like to for the record close the hearing.All those in favor of closing the hearing at this time please note by saying aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. ALAMEDA: Okay, so noted. The hearing is officially closed. Is there any discussion around this motion? Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Just, are there going to be two accesses on Hinano Street? EXHIBIT B 10 ALAMEDA: Mr. Darrow? DARROW: I believe there will be. I did speak with a representative from Department of Public Works yesterday regarding access on Hinano Street and they said they had no problem with two accesses on Hinano. Their main concern was Manono Street. ALAMEDA: Follow-up Commissioner Iwashita? No? IWASHITA: No. ALAMEDA: Any other questions? So clarification, again. Commissioner Watanabe, I know you mentioned you had reservations on having two entrances with the higher traffic. Is that -? WATANABE: Yeah, that was in respect to Manono Street, and it echoed the concerns of the Department of Public Works. I did note that Hinano Street already had two accesses. ALAMEDA: Okay. Mr. Darrow, you have a question? DARROW: Just looking at the submitted site plan, the second submitted site plan, it does show one access, but then again that could change. But it does show just one access onto Hinano Street at this time. ALAMEDA: Director? YUEN: You know, I don’t have an issue with having two accesses on Hinano Street. Manono Street is a major cross town street, and it would be better to limit the number of access points on Manono Street. ALAMEDA: Mr. Watanabe, would that change your motion? WTANABE: No. ALAMEDA: Okay. WATANABE: No, the motion was -. ALAMEDA: Okay, very good. Any discussion? Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHTIA: Just for the record, I’d like to, if there’s no objections, incorporate my comments from the prior proceeding into this record. (SEE ATTACHMENT 1) EXHIBIT B 11 ALAMEDA: Okay. Any objection to Commissioner Iwashita to incorporate his previous comments to this? WATANABE: In the interest of time, no. ALAMEDA: Okay. IWASHITA: I’d be happy to read it again. WATANABE: I was too afraid of that. ALAMEDA: So there are no objections. So, Ms. Nomura, that can be translated over. NOMURA: Yes. ALAMEDA: Thank you. And thank you, Commissioner Iwashita, for that. Any other comments or -? Seeing none, I’m ready for a roll. Mr. Darrow. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council with a revised Condition B and a revised Condition C. With that I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: No. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes five to one. EXHIBIT B 12 ALAMEDA: And, Mr. Darrow, this particular agenda item now that they have five, that goes up to the County Council, yeah? DARROW: Correct. ALAMEDA: Okay. All right, well, good luck at the County Council level. Have a good day. NEKOBA: Thank you. ALAMEDA: And you will be informed in writing of this decision. The discussion ended at 10:44 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawai‘i Secretary EXHIBIT B 13