Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-07-03 Hearing Transcript - LK&RR Enterprises, LLC REZ 14-174 WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JULY 3, 2014 LK & RR Enterprises, LLC A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (REZ 14-174) was called to order at 9:02 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i with Chairman Myles Miyasato presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Myles Miyasato, Charles Heaukulani, Gregory Henkel, Raylene Moses, and Stephen Ono. ALSO PRESENT: Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), Margaret Masunaga (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Amy Self (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Planning Director, from 9:37 a.m. to 12:25 p.m.), Melody Parker (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Planning Director from 9:13 a.m. to 12:39 p.m.), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Maija Cottle (Staff Planner), Sarah Hata-Finley (Secretary), Kim Tanaka (Secretary), and Melissa Dacayanan (Planning Commission Support Technician). And approximately 12 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: LK & RR ENTERPRISES, LLC (REZ 14-174) Application for a Change of Zone from Single-Family Residential-10,000 square feet (RS-10) to Neighborhood Commercial-10,000 square feet (CN-10) for approximately 22,500 square feet of land. The property is located on the east side of Hīnano Street, approximately 100 feet south of its intersection with Hualani Street, Waiākea House Lots, Waiākea, South Hilo, Hawai‘i, TMK: 2-2-034: 072. MIYASATO: Under New Business, the first item on the agenda is LK & RR Enterprises, LLC. DARROW: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning members of the Planning Commission. MIYASATO & MOSES: Good morning. DARROW: Welcome, thank you for, again, your service to our County. This morning our first applicant is LK & RR Enterprises, LLC. They’re requesting a Change of Zone. The area of this application is within the South Hilo District of Hawai‘i. More specifically, we’re looking in the area of the Waiākea Houselots, and that’s in this general area here. To your right of the map, you’ll also see the gray shaded areas which is the Hilo International Airport area. You’ll notice the different colors on the map. This represents the County zoning. The yellow represents Single-Family Residential. The light pink represents Neighborhood Commercial zoning. The dark red represents General Commercial. And the purple and light gray areas represent Industrial type zonings. 1 EXHIBIT A This is a closer view of the area. More specifically, we’re looking on Hīnano Street, and near the intersection of Hīnano and Hualani Street. The subject property is shaded with a black outline, and again for reference, the colors represent County zoning. You can see the majority of the area is Single-Family Residential, but you can also see that the area is in transition to commercial uses in the left side of the map in the middle and to your right side, it’s in transition to Industrial type uses. This is an aerial photo. For reference, we have Hīnano Street running in a north-south direction, Hualani Street running in an east-west direction, and the subject property identified with a red outline. You’ll be familiar with Big Island Candies which is this general area off Kekūanāo‘a. And we also have the new complex that borders Manono Street and Hīnano Street that has restaurants. You might be familiar with the Hawaiian Style Café, sorry about that [whispered], and Miyo’s. The applicant is requesting a Change of Zone from Single-Family Residential – 10,000 square feet or RS-10 to Neighborhood Commercial – 10,000 square feet, CN-10, for approximately 22,500 square feet of land. This is in order to convert an existing steel-framed single-family dwelling currently under construction into an office and retail complex. The applicant is currently constructing a 7,000 square foot steel frame single-family residential structure, which consists of two 3,000 square foot garages and a thousand square foot area of living space. The applicant is proposing to convert the garage portions of the structure into a few bays and rent them for commercial retail/office space. The 1,000 square foot single-family living area would either be retained for residential use or possibly used as an office. This is the applicant’s site plan that was submitted with the application. For reference, on the left side of the map is Hīnano Street. Access to the property is from Hīnano Street. This is the proposed commercial office retail center that’s currently in construction as a single-family residential dwelling as well as the proposed parking area. We do have some site photos. This is looking south on Hīnano Street with the subject property on your left as well as the structure. This is on Hīnano Street looking north with the subject property on the right side of the map. This is looking directly at this. Again, you have the area that will be used for parking and the structure that would be converted to commercial retail office space. This is a side view, just so that you can see the side yard setback there. The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission send a favorable recommendation to the Hawai‘i County Council. This particular area of Hilo, the Waiākea Houselots is in transition from residential to commercial uses. With that, that concludes our presentation. I do have two items to bring to your attention. We’ve received a letter from Arlene Kimata as well as some photos, and those have been distributed to the Planning Commission. Are there any questions? Thank you. 2 EXHIBIT A MIYASATO: Thank you, Jeff. Would the applicant or representative please come forward? Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai‘i County Planning Commission? FUKE: I do. KUNIMITSU: Yes. MIYASATO: State your name and residence. KUNIMITSU: Lee Kunimitsu, 1039 Pukana Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i. FUKE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Commission. My name is Sidney Fuke. I’m a Planning Consultant. I am assisting Mr. Kanemitsu [sic] who is the, one of the applicants. My business address is 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212. MIYASATO: Go ahead. FUKE: Sure. Mr. Chairman, I think your staff’s report is rather comprehensive. The proposed conditions are also acceptable. As the staff had indicated, the property is pretty much bounded by quasi-commercial type of uses. If you look on the south side, you would have like the Big Island Candies project, and a series of commercial restaurant complex. On the west side, there’s this new Tokunaga Fishing—a store that just recently constructed and opened up. On the north side, you would have like Don’s Grill. There’s a credit union. And of course on the east side, the airport side, is a miscellaneous different type of commercial uses. All of the basic infrastructure is in. I mean like there’s a sewer system running, fronting the property. The water’s adequate. The applicant is willing and prepared to install the curb, gutters, and sidewalk. Your staff had indicated that the General Plan designation is Medium Density which the proposed zoning would be consistent with. And as your staff had also indicated, the evolving land uses in this area is a mixture of commercial quasi-industrial and residential activities so we believe that the proposed rezoning would be consistent with the evolving character of that area. Are there any—oh, one, one comment I’d like to make is that I usually contract the notices to surrounding property owner, and apparently in the initial notice you know which informs surrounding property owners that, of the filing of the application, there was one property owner that was inadvertently overlooked, and this was brought up to my office by the Planning Department subsequent to being notified. We then sent out—I arranged to have a separate notice sent out to that one individual. And the more important notice to surrounding property owner which is notifying all property owners of this upcoming hearing, that individual also was notified. Thank you. MIYASATO: Commissioners, any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Okay, we have one testifier for this, Arlene Kimura [sic]. Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai‘i County Planning Commission? KIMATA: Yes. 3 EXHIBIT A MIYASATO: Could you please speak into the mic, please? KIMATA: Yes. MIYASATO: State your name and your residence. KIMATA: Arlene Kimata, 548 Hīnano Street. I’m across the street from the applicant’s property. MIYASATO: Okay, go ahead. KIMATA: I happen to be the one person who did not receive the notice. Maybe the one in the entire notification pool. That was after I had submitted a complaint to both the Planning Department and the Building Department. I should first, well secondly say, that I am just a homeowner. I’m not a builder, a planner, a real estate developer, a merchant, anybody that might possibly want to rent space in this proposed building. But what I am disturbed by is the blatant disregard for all the procedures that this Commission has set up for proposed zoning changes. You’re the only body that will help someone like me who really doesn’t have the ability to hire expensive consultants or assisted or be assisted by, you know, construction folks and know what the deal is. You know, we’re just there with our property, and we’re hoping to enjoy it with our kids, hopefully pass that property on to future family, and I just have to say that if there is no rule about having to follow the rules, there really should be. I think it’s your job as a Planning Commission and you know you’re not the only body. This whole County. I mean this—it’s something that needs to be an up-front process so that people like me don’t feel like you’re just gonna get steamrolled by applicants who are much more knowledgeable, craftier, have way more resources than we do. As I said, I am just across the street, and I’ve been watching the development of this property, and I have to say that, you have some photos there. Ever since the building was demolished, there has been constant, and the building was put in, there have been constant traffic of double axel vehicles, pumper trucks, all kinds of construction vehicles that are being warehoused in this facility. And I understand that this may not be against the rules. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. Again, I don’t know. But, what I do know is that the proposed building from the get-go was not ever a residential facility. It was constructed as a warehouse as you can see from the photos and in the applicant’s photos. There was never an intention for it to be a residential facility, and for that, I really feel like the applicant should not be allowed to have benefitted from prior rezoning and then in the future, there needs to be something done about this. MIYASATO: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you. Commissioners, any discussion? FUKE: (from audience) Can I— MIYASATO: Go ahead. 4 EXHIBIT A FUKE: Mr. Chairman, I guess before the Commission goes into discussion, I’d like to offer some clarifying comments to Ms. Kimata’s comments. First of all, like I’m not responsible for the preparation of the Building Permit or processing of the Building Permit that resulted in the partially constructed structure on the property right now. As was included in the packet as part of the departmental submittal and also the application, there is a Building Permit that was—and I included a copy of the plans—there is a Building Permit that was issued on July 25, 2012, for a 7,000 square foot single-family residential building. I realize that if you just look at it from a conventional standpoint that, that structure is very unorthodox in terms of you know whether in fact is a residential dwelling or not but the fact still remains that the, that structure for better, for worse was issued by the County, approved by the Planning Department, approved by the Engineering office, and also by the Building Department and certified for the Building Permit processes as a single-family residential dwelling. I noted in the application that should the rezoning be approved and they wish to entertain any type of commercial use other than a residential activity, then of course you would need to have a change of occupancy type of permit that would have to be issued by the Building Department. This would include things like maybe having to accommodate not only off-street parking, but also ADA or you know handicapped stalls as well as handicapped requirements within the structure. I know there’s, there’s been some comments about like the possible alleged violation that’s ongoing right now. That’s something that I cannot speak directly to. It’s something that if the Planning Department, as the enforcer of the Zoning Code, deems that whatever is happening on the property right now is not consistent with the existing residential zoning, then a notice of violation would have to go out and the Applicant would have to be responsible for whatever penalties are, are weeded out. I guess like, bottom line, however, from my perspective, you know, I’m just doing the, doing just the rezoning component of this application, so I guess from my standpoint that the fundamental question is whether that from a General Plan and a land use perspective whether the zoning is an appropriate use, and I think that as the Planning Department had pointed out and as we had tried to demonstrate in our application given the current mixture of commercial, quasi-industrial use in that area, that the proposed use would be compatible. We just hope that the Commission can concur with that reasoning as well as reasoning of the Planning Director and recommend its favorable approval. One thing I’d like to suggest, however, is that I did go through Ms. Kimata’s comments and then you know particularly as it relates to you know the, the mud and things like that you know going on the property right now as vehicles egress and ingress the property, I would like to make one proposal. This was discussed with the Applicant, and this relates to proposed Condition No., proposed Condition F. This relates to the standard requirement of having curb, gutters, and sidewalks be placed fronting the property, fronting the property in addition to setting aside a five-foot additional road right-of-way. As you can see right now, Condition F requires that the curb, gutter, sidewalk requirement be completed within a five-year period, and I think this is pretty much standard when you deal with existing structure. However, in light of the concern that Ms. Kimata has raised, I discussed it with the Applicant, and he said like, no, we will do the, we will complete the curb, gutter, sidewalk improvement requirement prior to issuance of occupancy permit. So, it’s not gonna push down, you know, like five years from now, but if the building gets occupied in about year, or like even less than that, then the curb, gutter, sidewalk improvement requirement would be completed. 5 EXHIBIT A So, we would, you know with having said that, we would like to suggest that the wording be, Condition F be amended to read as follows: A five-foot wide road widening strip along the entire Hīnano Street frontage of the subject property shall be, and then this is the new portion, submitted for subdivision and dedication to the County prior to issuance of occupancy permit. The reason why we had said, you know at least we submit the—complete the improvements, submit all of the documents for the subdivision, as well as for dedication, you know, before they can gain occupancy, is that sometimes the subdivision process might take a while or let alone, the dedication process might take a while so, but the bottom line is we just wanted to assure that the improvements would be in prior to the actual use of the property for any commercial use. MIYASATO: Okay, thank you. Any questions, Commissioners? Thank you. ONO: Mr. Chair? I tend to wonder about Ms. Kimata’s comments. It seems to be after-the-fact, but her impression about the construction seems to be valid in that the structure itself does not reflect a residential prop—a residential home. And, I’m kind of wondering, is this the cart before the horse kind of a thing? I’m not sure. In other words, the construction of the building was, really with the intent of a business aspect rather than residential when they first started this. I need clarification on this, and I don’t know who to ask. MIYASATO: Staff? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the past, we’ve had Building Permits come through Planning Department, and during our review of the permits, we have questions as to the use of the structure because it obviously appears not to be what it’s proposed to be. That was also in this case as well. There was concern that this was obviously a warehouse type building. As long as an applicant can meet the definition of whatever that use is. In this particular case, the applicant did have a living area, a kitchen area. He just happened to have larger garage areas, you know, people say they have lots of collectible cars and things like that or they need to store a lot of things. And it’s built basically in a warehouse type structure. So this is an—it doesn’t happen often but it does happen, and it does raise concerns, but again, once it goes through the process, we will question it as far as the use. The Building Department will question it whether or not it meets a single family dwelling. And it appears that this particular structure did pass that review. MIYASATO: Thank you. Any further questions, Commissioners? If not, do we have a motion? KIMATA: (from audience) I would like to say something if I can. Is that allowed? MIYASATO: Public testimony--public testimony has been concluded. MASUNAGA: Okay, give her three more minutes. MIYASATO: Okay, Mrs. Kimata, we’ll give you three more minutes. KIMATA: Thank you, like I said, this is really new to me. I’d like to respond to Mr. Fuke’s comments. Number one, I have to say, I am not against mixed use development. What I am for 6 EXHIBIT A is following the rules. If you build something like that, I don’t think any person would live in that as their residential house. Okay? Let’s be honest. Who is going to live in that kind of place? There are no walls built in that entire structure. It’s entirely open so they can pull those trucks up there any time, any size, however number. I mean, there have been as many as three, three pump—three of those pumper trucks in there. All I’m asking for is that applicants play by the rules. Mike Tokunaga, that was mentioned in the, in the application, he did that. It took him a while to get through the Planning Commission for that and various other agencies, but you know what? It’s fine. You go through the process. You play by the rules. Big Island Candies, you know, they—I don’t know, I wasn’t around when that happened, but you know, when you, when you get zoned properly, that’s the way you’re supposed to do it. You don’t go ahead and build what you want and then retroactively ask for permission. That’s wrong. And if rezoning is, in fact, an important process in this community, you should not be allowed to benefit from doing what you want and then retroactively going back. That’s all I’m trying to say. I love living in a neighborhood that has lots of different things. I don’t want to live in suburbia. I want to live in a place where I can walk to the restaurant. I mean, what better way to get to Miyo’s. You just see whether the line is long and go in. I mean, that’s what I want. That’s why I don’t live way up you know in, in Kaūmana or Waiākea Uka. I like living in a place where you can walk to things, so I don’t have any objections to having commercial development around. It’s just the process, and that’s what I’m asking you folks to do. Make sure that people follow the rules and think it’s important because otherwise, why have the rules? MIYASATO: Commissioners? MOSES: Ms. Kimata, appreciate your comments and your letter and bringing it to the awareness of the Commission. Listening to the Planning Department and Jeff’s explanation, it sounds like unfortunately, they did follow the rules, what rules are set up, and the process to follow. What the intention was? Questionable. KIMATA: (from audience) That’s what I’m saying. MOSES: Absolutely, there’s no doubt about that. You—you demonstrated that. But, they did follow the process, and whether they’re loopholes, whatever maybe the Department needs to look at that more clearly, they followed it nonetheless. And so with that, I’d like to move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for a Change of Zone, REZ 14-000174, based on the Planning Director’s Recommendation and proposed conditions with the condition that Mr. Fuke suggested to change in Condition F. MIYASATO: A second? ONO: Second. MIYASATO: Moved by Commissioner Moses and seconded by Commissioner Ono. Is there any discussion? If not— 7 EXHIBIT A DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, the motion before us is to send a favorable recommendation with the amendment to Condition F. With that, I’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Heaukulani? HEAUKULANI: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: No. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman. MIYASATO: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes four to one. MIYASATO: You’ll be notified in writing. The discussion ended at 9:28 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 8 EXHIBIT A