Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0267.006 2006-2008 ~SY o• X~~ Harry Kim ~ ~ Dizie Kaetsu Mnyor Mnrtngtitg Director ' Barbara Kossow ~t• Of •M•'+• Deputy Mnrtnging Director County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Stree[, Room 215 • Hilo, Hawaii 967204252 (808) 9615211 Fax (808) 961 b553 KONA: 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 103 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 (808) 329-5226 Fax (808) 3265663 September 24, 2007 c:, Honorable Pete Hoffinann, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii - 333 Kilauea Avenue Hilo, HI 96720 Deaz Chaimran Hoffmann and Members: - State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 07-000014) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 07-000064) Request: A-Sato RM-1 Applicant: Seascape Development, LLC Tax Map Key: 7-3-10:3 ~unty Council Initiated Amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) Relating to Off-Street Parking and Loading County Council Initiated Amendments to Chapter 23 (Subdivision Code) and Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) Relating to Subdivisions of Seven or More Lots County Council Initiated Amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) Relating to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Cluster Plan Development (CPD) Applications State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 07-000015) Request: Agricultural to Urban Tax Map Key: 6-7-2:portion 20 Change of Zone Application (REZ 07-000068) Request: A110a and ML-20 to CV-7.5 Tax Map Key: 6-7-2:20 and portion 51 Comm. NO. 2(~ . ('p Applicant: North Hawaii Community Hospital Ref. To; Rof. Date UCj 0.5 207 Honorable Pete Hoffmann, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 2 September 24, 2007 As required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6-4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter, transmitted herewith for the County Council's consideration and action are the Planning Commission's letters and enclosures regarding the above-referenced requests. Sincerely, Harry Ki U Mayor Enclosures cc: Planning Department 1083107may .h •7 d.~P ••~A•p~•M~,+ County of Hawaii PLANNING COMMISSION Aupuni Cen[er • 101 Pauahi Street, Sui[e 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 Fax (808) 961-8742 September 24, 2007 Pete Hoffinann, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 333 Kilauea Avenue, 2"d Floor Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Hoffinann and Council Members: County Council Initiated Amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition as amended) Relatine to Off-Street Parkin¢ and Loadin>; The Planning Commission at its duly held public hearing on August 31, 2007, voted to forward an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council regarding the proposed amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), as amended, relating to off-street parking and loading. The proposed amendment (Bill No. 79 Draft 2) would increase the number of public parking spaces for various establishments. Enclosed are transcripts of the hearings, the Background and Recommendation Reports, and an August 27, 2007, memo to the Planning Commission containing the Planning Director's proposed version of the draft bill. Si re y, William Graham, Chairman Planning Commission Lcounci Ibi I179(offstparking) Enclosures cc: Planning Department-Kona Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 3, 2007 A regularly advertised hearing on the COUNTY COUNCIL AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) REGARDING OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING was called to order at 10:00 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 Rodney Watanabe Andrew Iwashita Shelly Ogata Alvin Rho Rene' Siracusa Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Brad Kurokawa, Deputy Planning Director Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 4 people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL Amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), as amended, relating to off-street parking and loading. The proposed amendment (Bill No. 79 Draft 2) would increase the number of public parking spaces for various establishments. ALAMEDA: We are on Agenda Item No. 3 and I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Darrow for a background report. DARROW: Just briefly, and then I'll turn it over to the Commission for discussion and for testimony. This next agenda item is a County Council initiated bill, an amendment to Chapter 25 of the Zoning Code relating to off-street parking and loading. The proposed amendment would increase the number of public parking spaces for various establishments. In essence, Bill No. 79, Draft 2 which is your Exhibit 1 proposes to amend parking requirements to improve the ability of the public to find and use parking spaces in appropriate locations by increasing the number of public parking spaces for various establishments and amending the method of determining the number of parking spaces by requiring standard sized parking stalls for multiple family dwellings. Our Planning Director supports the bill but with modifications. This is Exhibit No. 2. There are some issues regarding the bill that is initiated by the Council. And the Planning Director has mentioned his concerns within the background and has initiated his own modifications to that bill. 1 ALAMEDA: Okay. Commissioners, any questions regarding the recommendation made by the Department or for Mr. Darrow? Seeing none, Mr. Kurokawa, do you have anything else to add? KUROKAWA: Yes, I just wanted to ALAMEDA: Sure. KUROKAWA: You know, in general our concerns for the bill, we're trying to address the concerns that were initiated by Councilman Ford, which is I think in the Kona areas they have a lot of areas with certain types of uses, restaurants, multi-family condominiums where not enough parking so people are parking on the street. With the traffic congestion, you know, things get even little harry. So what we did in response to that is to kind of look at current recommended standards, urban planning standards, and made some adjustments to our current Code, but not to all of her suggestions and recommendations, and came back with our recommendation. And, also, one of the other key areas that we're concerned about is non-conforming use if we change the parking ratios. And so we've inserted a recommendation in terms of how to deal with that so that when someone has, say, if their building burns down and have to rebuild that they would be able to do so, and then with conditions for adding additional parking if they're able to. So those are the major areas. And then in general what we're trying to do is, you know, this kind of balancing act between you add more parking, change the ratios on a blanket-wide basis. It affects the whole island. And it's kind of in contradiction to what we're trying to do which is reduce the auto dependency and also to encourage people to walk and bike, and those types of things. So, in conjunction, recognizing that we still have a lot of these things to put into place, we still did not want to, you know, go the route of encouraging, in essence, by increasing some of the parking ratios. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: One of the comment letters that we got from an architect or landscape architect was that we were basically encouraging the use of more large vehicles, like the supersized SUVs and stuff like that as opposed to encouraging compact cars which would take up less space in a parking area and that sort of thing, that this bill would do that and encourage more automobile dependency. KUROKAWA: Right. SIRACUSA: Would you address that concern, please. KUROKAWA: Yeah, so currently we have, you know, our current Code allows for two- thirds, 66 percent, standard size parking and the remainder, you know, third in compacts. So we have actually kept that because I think the proposal was to do 100 percent standard parking. And you know, from again, from trying to encourage the smaller cars as well as have less impervious surfaces would be supported by what we currently have; and so we kept that, kept it in. 2 SIRACUSA: Follow-up? ALAMEDA: Sure. SIRACUSA: Yeah, just for clarification, so you're saying that it's the Council- generated version, that's the one that he was objecting to; and the one that the Planning Deparhnent did a little tweaking on has maintained the ratio between compact and standard? KUROKAWA: Correct. SIRACUSA: Okay, thank you. ALAMEDA: Very good. Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa, for bringing that up. That's helpful. Any other questions, Commissioners? Mr. Darrow, we just were wondering what kind of action should we take on this? DARROW: This particular item is going to be continued until our next Kona meeting. ALAMEDA: Do we need a motion for that? DARROW: I believe we do. ALAMEDA: Okay. DARROW: Do we? Do we need a motion to continue it to our next meeting? TORIGOE: You can do it by voice vote. ALAMEDA: How about I do it by voice vote. All those in favor of continuing this agenda item to our next meeting say aye? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. ALAMEDA: All those not in favor manifest by your hand. Seeing none, this will be continued to our next meeting. Will it be in Kona? Is this one of the 14? SIRACUSA: Is it already on the Kona agenda? FUJIMOTO: Yes. DARROW: This will be at our August 3151 Kona agenda. ALAMEDA: As one of the 14 agenda items? DARROW: Correct. ALAMEDA: Okay. 3 KUROKAWA: It's going to be a long one. ALAMEDA: All right. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? ALAMEDA: Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mainly because the Kona meeting agenda is so full and I hopefully won't want to say anything in the Kona meeting, I want to make a record now, I guess, of my bigger picture view about this particular proposal. And that is that I really appreciate, you know, the concern and the intent to reduce the auto dependency in our community; and I think that's something that we all, well, I would hope that we all would support doing. You know, every time I read the paper and we see little tweaking of things like this, right, my concern is that that's all it is and that it's, you know, trying to tweak, trying to do little things that may or may not, you know, help towards getting away from auto dependency. And, really, what I think is needed which I've said before is that the County should spend 2, 3, 4 million dollars, whatever it takes in the next couple of years, and do the community development planning in an, I would say, effective way. And my view of that is to do it in a way not by, what it is, Council districts or those kind of gross kind of, in my mind, not real appropriate planning kind of areas, that it should be as small as, done on the smallest scale as possible; and then that way the community would Like my friend Junior De Luz here in the audience, he and his fellow business people in the Kanoelehua area, they all ought to get together with houselots people and figure out what that area should look like, on that kind of a scale. And I think that it can be done if we structure it properly. And that really would be, if it's done all at one time island-wide everybody knows that we're all doing this at one time on a large island-wide basis but in a smaller context that the community development plan will be as effectively done as possible. So that, and if in fact I mean there are people out there I know that are going to say, hey, I want a freeway, I want to be able to drive, you know, no speed limit to go to Kona in an hour kind of a situation. But all of those different concerns can be raised and But it really needs to be done on that, to me, at that kind of a level, in that kind of a format in order for this County, this island, to effectively deal with, you know, getting away from auto dependency or being actually, to put it positively, you know, to establish an effective public transit system down the road, you know, planning for half a million, seven-hundred thousand, a million people living on this island, you know, 30, 40, 50 years from now. So the concerns are legitimate. I just think that, you know, trying to do it on a piece-meal basis really just takes away from the big picture; and in the end to me we're going to just end up like Honolulu, no matter what we do. Because they had all the same concerns and they got what they got. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just received the administration's input and recommendations and I'm glad that it's going to be continued to the next meeting, of which I'm pretty sure I'll not be able to attend. But, you know, my concern is what I see here is the Legislative body slowly trying to arrest the functions of the administrative body. And, you know, for instance reviewing zoning applications beyond "x" number of lots and all that. And what we see is trying to intermix the functions of the legislative and the administrative branches. 4 And, to me, my opinion is that's going to be a very, very serious, pose a very serious problem or it's going to be very sensitive because you'll find both bodies contending with each other. You know, at the present time you have the Zoning Code which outlines the policies and procedures and the direction of growth on this island; and the administration is delegated the responsibility to administer those policies as adopted by the County Council. So what you find here is that here the administration is approving something that the County Council in the past had approved and is contained within the Zoning Code, and then now the Council though it's not of their doing when this was first adopted saying, look, we want it to come back to us so we can review it and stamp our signature of approval. You know, that's repeating the whole process. I mean, if the legislative body has some specific concerns, let's go ahead and amend the Zoning Code, amend whatever that needs to be done so that the administration can do it according to the way the Council wants to do it. You know, we're speaking of accountability right here. You know, where's the accountability going to be, with the administration or the County Council? The County Council is just apart-time body with staff. You can visualize that if this is adopted that the increase in staffing for the legislative branch will certainly grow. And, you know, our type of charter and the type of government that we, the public, originally subscribed to does not, does not, mandate that this be like this. There should definitely be a sepazation of powers. And that's why, in general, that's my concern, you know. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ALAMEDA: You're welcome. Any other concerns in general? Seeing none, we don't have any testimony. We already voted to continue this matter to the next Kona meeting. The discussion ended at 10:08 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 5 PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 31, 2007 A regularly advertised hearing on the COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) RELATING TO OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING was called to order at 1:37 p.m. at the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman William Graham presiding. PRESENT: C. Kimo Alameda ABSENT & EXCUSED: Takashi Domingo William Graham Shelly Ogata Andrew Iwashita Rene' Siracusa Alvin Rho Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 18 people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL Continuation of a Public Hearing on an amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), as amended, relating to off-street pazking and loading. The proposed amendment (Bill No. 79 Draft 2) would increase the number of public parking spaces for various establishments. GRAHAM: Will the meeting of the Hawaii County Planning Commission come back to order, please? Our agenda begins with No. 6 on our list here, which is a public heazing on an amendment to Chapter 25 of the Zoning Code relating to off-street parking and loading. The proposed amendment which was initiated by the County Council would increase the number of public pazking spaces for various establishments. The presentations on 6, 7 and 8 coming up here now, I think our Planning Director, Mr. Yuen, will make to the Commission. So Chris, whenever you are ready to start, we aze ready to go. I also might say on this Item No. 6, I don't have any public testifiers yet, but if anybody wants to testify from the public, please go up to the end of the table there and sign in for that. YUEN: This agenda item concerns a Council initiated change to the Zoning Code, the parking requirements. Now normally the Commission deals with changes of zone. But the Zoning Code also has a lot of development standazds; and one of the development standards is number of required off-street parking places for different types of development. So the way this works is that when plans are brought in to the Planning Department for plan approval, the Department checks the number of required parking stalls against the Zoning Code. 1 So there will be a certain number of parking stalls required, for example, for amulti-family building. The County Council-initiated amendments to the Zoning Code would increase the number of required off-street parking stalls for vazious categories; and that's Bi1179 that's in front of you. And in some respects these very greatly increase the number of stalls that aze required. The Department took a look at this, and agrees to some extent that some of the off- street pazking requirements in the current Zoning Code are too little, but disagrees with some of the changes as far as the extent of those changes. To talk about the points of disagreement for the moment, under the current pazking requirements for a retail commercial building, you need one stall per 300 squaze feet of gross retail floor space. The Council bill would require one per 100 square feet of retail space, which is about the tripling of the current requirements. To give a ballpark idea, many of the big box establishments like the Hilo Wal-Mart have one to 200, if you have an idea of that. And many commercial establishments in recent years have put in more parking than is required by the Zoning Code, simply because of their own analysis of their needs. So the Council bill would, for example, require, say the Hilo Wal-Mart parking lot to be roughly twice the size that it is. What the Planning Depaztment's bill suggests is that the requirement for restaurants be increased to one to 100 square feet. There have been some problems with restaurants, and if you look at the - we refer to national parking standards that do have more pazking requirements for restaurants because of higher turnover - and if you think about the seating in a typical restaurant versus the density of people in a typical retail establishment, you have a lot more people per square foot typically. So we are proposing one to 100 square feet for the category of restaurants. Multi-family buildings, the current Code requires 1'/< parking stalls per unit for amulti-family building. We agree that this is unrealistic in today's world. Many of the buildings that have been built in the last few yeazs have provided more. We think that a good number would be 2 plus 10 percent for other guests and loading-type spaces. The Council bill is 2'/Z. There are also changes that both bills propose for hotels. This was heard a couple of weeks ago. We looked at it, and made a couple of slight changes that for duplexes that there be two per unit with 10 percent additional guest parking, rather than 2.5. This would be the same as our recommendation for multi-family units, leaving the requirement for rooming and lodging houses at one per two beds, rather than one per one which is in our last draft. And then there had been a provision included in our recommendation at the last meeting that was not actually put in our version of the ordinance; and that recommendation was a way to handle nonconfonming buildings. This becomes an important issue with something like parking because if you increase the number of required pazking spaces, say an existing apartment building, for example, that had the minimum number of spaces or less than the new requirement becomes a nonconforming building. This is fine as long as the building is there. But if the building burns down or is destroyed in a hurricane or something, then it has to be built to the new standazds. This can cause problems for things like the insurability and for insurance payments on a building. And our recommendation to avoid hardship is simply to say that a building that's made nonconforming because of changes in the parking requirements can still be rebuilt to the same footprint that was before. 2 We have a statement in our recommendation about why we disagree with very large parking requirements. And basically what happens is if you have excessive parking requirements, you create this huge parking lot. You end up with a sea of cars; you end up with a lot of impervious surfaces that increase drainage problems; and you create something that is basically a very unattractive environment. So in many cases the businesses can be left to decide. The parking standards should be a minimum. If the businesses want to put in more, they are always allowed to do that. But we don't want to mandate excessive parking requirements. So that's the presentation. If there are any questions WOODWARD: Mr. Yuen. GRAIIAM: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Where do these numbers come from? I mean, are there some standards for, other than just somebody thought these numbers up? YUEN: There are national standards. This is something, of course, that communities throughout the country deal with. And in the recommendation we do have an example of some of the national standards. Our standards for a commercial at one per 300 square feet are in the general range that you find throughout the country. You'll find some places that employ more of a use by use control on parking. That's another approach where you have one requirement for a retail store, another requirement for an office building. And we have some of that in our Code, but you'll find some places where it's much more specific than that. And then it does require a lot more administrative control over changes of use within a building. But what we've presented is based on national standards. And the national standards have a range; and what we've presented is within that range. GRAHAM: A follow-up? WOODWAI2D: Yeah, if I might follow up. I've spent a little time looking over some of the letters that we've gotten in opposition; and admittedly most of these people are from industry, so they have a little bit of an ax to grind. But several of their points I have to bring up because I kind of agree with them. One of them was, you know, "take paradise and put up a parking lot;" and the other one is "build it and they will come." You know, the more parking spaces you build, the more you encourage people to use cars for transportation. You end up using up green space; and there is one article in here from an architect who specializes in greenhouse emissions that says that these new regulations would end up causing a 19 percent increase in greenhouse gas emissions, add to the amount of green land that would be required to compensate for that. So there are some realistic objections to this, and that's why I asked you where the numbers came from. You know, if there is a rational basis for this, we'll say, okay, you know, we've done this study and this is how many spots you have to have. Well, that's one thing. But there are some realistic objections to it, and I think they are worth noting. YUEN: The objections that were made by, I think there were about three or four architects who wrote in. Generally I agree with those objections that there are big problems created with having too many parking spaces. And there is a lot of planning literature that says 3 the same thing. So we aren't proposing any changes to the commercial level except for, as I said, for restaurants. And I believe we are on somewhat the lower end of the scale even for restaurants as far as parking requirements. The changes that we are proposing for multi-family 1'/o to, the Council's bill proposes 2'/~, we propose 2, up from 1'/4. One and a quarter is a little unrealistic in today's world; most households do have two or more cars. And actually the most of the multi-family buildings that we've seen have had two cars voluntarily recently. The Code for hotels is also currently unrealistic. This hasn't actually proven to be much of a problem, but it says that a hotel without a kitchen requires one stall for three hotel rooms. It may have been written with the idea that most visitors were coming and going on buses. That's probably not true now, so we have an increase in hotel rooms. But I do agree with the thrust of what you just said and those letters from the architects that you don't want to mandate excessive parking. And particularly, you know, this one stall per 100 square feet of retail is really excessive. GRAIIAM: Other questions or comments from Commissioners? WATANABE: Just GRAHAM: Yes, Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: Mr. Yuen, just for clarification. With regard to the restaurant, that includes square footage of the kitchen, everything, not just the dining area? YUEN: Let me make sure of that. It would include everything, yes. One to 100 square feet of gross floor area, not just the dining area. WATANABE: Okay. GRAHAM: Any other questions from the Commissioners? I don't have anyone signed up from the public to testify. If anyone would like to testify, come forward, please. Chris, as far as where we go next, do we take a vote and pass this on today, or are we going to keep it open? YUEN: Yes, actually our request would be that the Planning Commission send a favorable recommendation on the Director's version of Bill 79. That would be our specific request. GRAHAM: All right. So I'll close the public hearing part of the process, and we can go forward. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I'll make a motion. I'll move that a favorable recommendation be sent to the County Council for amendment to Chapter 25 as revised by the Planning Director. ALAMEDA: Second. GRAHAM: Thank you. Seconded by Commissioner Alameda. Chris, will we need to take any separate vote on the bill as presented to us by the Council? 4 YUEN: I think for the sake of clarity that would be a good idea. GRAHAM: Okay. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yeah, just for the record, I'm pretty much looking at this letter from Dr. Foulk, this Parthenon Group stationery, and I guess my interpretation of it is that, or what I get out of it is that he's saying, you know, don't, don't increase it at all. So I'm looking at this. And my perspective is that, you know, we should be doing other things like the Dr. talks about in this letter in terms of making changes that concentrate the development for multi-family and lessening for cars, and not focus on the car part of, you know, which is basically what our laws do. It's like, you know, every development is driven around this whole pazking space issue and, you know, getting people in their cars to get to where they want to go. So I'm inclined to not favor either proposal. GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe, do you have anything further? WATANABE: No, I don't think so. I think I'll reserve comment GRAHAM: Mr. Yuen, would you volunteer any response to what Commissioner Iwashita said? I think he's referring to a situation where maybe if you have a sort of node of development where people live near where they shop and all, you don't need so much parking space as YUEN: There are provisions in the Code where the Director can reduce the number of parking spaces. It can be done, for example, by a variance. So the opportunity is there. It can be done; I wouldn't say it's a normal thing, but it can be done. GRAHAM: Thank you. Any YUEN: A Planned Unit Development is another option, for example, if the developer can show circumstances where the parking requirements can be reduced. And I think that there is also acatch-all provision in the Code which would enable the Director to do that under circumstance where they show that they do not have, they don't generate the parking needs that are otherwise required. GRAHAM: Thank you. Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: I would agree with Commissioner Iwashita. And you know, I've had a lot of problems with traffic in Hawaii, but parking has never been one of them. And I think we are maybe addressing an issue that is really not a problem, and I think we aze wasting our time. And we are creating regulations that would require a variance for people who live in places that are not densely inhabited, that would put undue hazdship on them, and they have to seek a variance to get around it. And so I am not really in favor of either bill, for that matter. GRAHAM: Thank you. Any further commentary? Mr. Torigoe, if we wind up having an indecisive vote today, can we still pass this on to the Council with that vote, as opposed to carrying it forward again? 5 TORIGOE: Well, it depends on your timeframe because there is a 120-day timeframe on these Council-initiated issues. So I think in the past we've basically interpreted your rules and the Code to require a good faith effort within the time that you are given. So, you know, that's what I think we should look at. If you can't get a vote today and if you aze still within the 120 days, you should probably try again. And I don't know if staff can tell us where we aze. GRAHAM: All right, thank you. Anything further before we go for a vote? Go ahead, Jeff. DARROW: Just for clazification purposes, the motion before us is to send a favorable recommendation for the Planning Director's proposed redraft and an unfavorable recommendation of the County Council's proposed amendment. Is that correct? WATANABE: Yes. Or do you want to keep that sepazate? GRAHAM: I think we wanted to keep it separate. WATANABE: Okay, okay. Then it will be just a favorable then, just a favorable for the Planning Director's, with the Planning Director's proposed changes. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Yes, Commissioner Woodwazd. WOODWARD: Yeah, I think it really needs to be separate because if one of us is against the Director's proposal, and we aze also against the other one; if we vote no, then we aze saying no to the Director's proposal and yes to the other one. So there needs to be separate votes. WATANABE: Yeah, it has been sepazated. WOODWARD: Okay. GRAHAM: All right, Jeff, do you want to take the roll? DARROW: Sure. The motion before us is to send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council for the Planning Director's proposed redraft of the pazking requirements. With that, I'll take the vote. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? 6 IWASHITA: No. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: No. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Aye. DARROW: The motion does not pass, four to two. GRAHAM: I might also, after conferring with Mr. Torigoe a little bit here, if I didn't misunderstand him, suggest if anyone on the Commission would like to make a motion that we directly pass this up to the Council, informing them of our vote but with the understanding that not having a majority means effectively a negative recommendation, Ithink we could do that. Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE: Well, basically I think we've been advising that if you have time in which you can consider it again, you should do so. The other option is if someone wants to float a different motion, for instance a motion to just send a negative recommendation on the bill that's before you, then that's another option, if you can get the votes. HAYASHI: Mr. Chair? GRAHAM: Yes, Norman. HAYASHI: Just to let you know, the 120-days runs out on September 8`h. Our next meeting is on September 7~h. However, bylaw we are required to agendize the item six days prior to, and we won't be able to meet that deadline. TORIGOE: Okay, so GRAHAM: Okay. So the question is moot, essentially. Thank you. So we move forward to the second item which is the Council's initiated Zoning change. WATANABE: You don't want to vote on that GRAHAM: Excuse me? WATANABE: This was two separate, right? 7 GRAHAM: Right. And now we are looking at the one where the Council initiated the one WATANABE: So you want a motion on the Council's one. GRAHAM: Yes, I would. WATANABE: Okay. I'll move to send an unfavorable recommendation for the Council initiated amendments to Chapter 25. ALAMEDA: Second. GRAHAM: Okay. Moved by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Alameda, to send an unfavorable recommendation on the Council's original suggested ordinance. Any comments from the Commissioners? Jeff? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council initiated amendment to Chapter 25 for off-street parking and loading. With that, I'll take the roll. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, six to zero. WATANABE: I have a question. GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe? 8 WATANABE: It sounds to me like, yes, we do have time within the 120 days but we wouldn't be able to agendize it, so we would be outside the 120 days; therefore, it maybe appropriate to send it directly up to the Council from this point, especially since we've already decided on sending a negative recommendation on their proposal. Is that reasonable? TORIGOE: It's going up. GRAHAM: My understanding is that's what's going to happen automatically. Jeff, if you think we need to take any affirmative action in that regard, or are you aware of our need to do that? DARROW: I don't think so. GRAHAM: No. Thank you. The discussion ended at 2:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer West Hawaii Secretary 9 BRCCIOitiatedParking.doo-7/30/07 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND AND RECOMMENDATION 1NTITATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25 The County Council has submitted an amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawau County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), as amended, relating to off-street parking and loading. The proposed amendment (Bill No. 79 Draft 2) would increase the number of public pazking spaces for various establishments. BACKGROUND The County Council has referred a proposed amendment to the Zoning Code to the Planning Director and Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. In essence, Bill No. 79 Draft 2 (Exhibit 1) proposes to amend pazking requirements to "improve the ability of the public to find and use parking spaces in appropriate locations" by increasing the number of pubhc parking spaces for various establishments and amending the method of determining the number of parking spaces by requiring standard-sized pazking stalls for multiple-family dwellings. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Director supports portions of Bill No. 79 Draft 2, but with modifications. While the intent of the bill is to provide additional parking spaces for certain establishments, a "predict and provide" parking planning contributes to widespread auto dependency and ultimately, more urban sprawl. Instead, pazking management would provide optimal pazking supply, with support for transit-oriented development, reduced storm water management costs, water pollution, and improved travel options for non-drivers. Ultimately, pazking management would lead to more livable communities. In place of a blanket revision of the Zoning Code, focused changes such as revising or adding parking ratios for specific high pazking uses including restaurarns, grocery stores, discount stores and banks would be a better alternative. The 2006 issue of the APA Planning and Urban Design Standards reference additional references with respect to pazking guidelines: 1) Parking Generation, 3`a edition, Washington, D.C., Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2004; 2) -i- Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers, 2nd edition, Washington, D.C., Urban Land Institute and International Council of Shopping Centers, 1999; and 3) Shared Parking, 2"d edition, Washington, D.C., Urban Land Institute and International Council of Shopping Centers, 2000. According to the guidelines and references noted above, the recommended number of parking spaces for certain uses is as follows: Commercial uses -The proposed one stall for each 100 square feet of gross floor area (GFA) translates to 10 stalls per 1,000 square feet of GFA vs. the recommended 3.5 to 6.0 stalls for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (general retail to grocery). The Zoning Code's requirement of one stall for each 300 square feet of GFA meets the existing guidelines for commercial parking. Dwellings, multiple-family -The proposed 2.5 standard-sized stalls for each unit is slightly higher than the recommended 2 stalls per dwelling unit. The director recommends an amendment from the current 1.25 to 2 stalls for each unit. In addition, it would make more sense to locate delivery and loading zone parking in azeas where space is needed, and not distributed evenly throughout the complex. Hotels and Lodes: The recommended ratio is 1.25 stalls per guest with additional ration for other activities such as a restaurant, banquet and/or meeting rooms. A shazed pazking analysis should be used to arrive at the composite total for the hotel or lodge. Sports arenas. auditoriums. theaters. assembly halls: The standards and guidelines differentiate between the various uses such as theaters and public assembly halls. The standards for arenas and stadiums are .33 stalls per seat. Bi1179 Draft 2 also proposes to amend the distance of a pazking azea from the building housing the activities. While the Zoning Code requires a distance of not more than 1,000 feet, the proposed 300 foot distance exceeds the 400 to 1,000 feet "A" Level of Service Standards. A variety of pazking strategies aze available, including "Destination Shared" strategy, where a parking lot or structure serves multiple buildings and/or activities; "Central Focus", where a central parking facility serves surrounding buildings; and "Intercept", where pazking is provided at the perimeter of an activity center and either transit or pedestrian way require people to walk to the activity and/or building(s). -2- The bill fiu-ther proposes requiring all standard-sized pazking spaces for multiple-family dwellings, a deviation from the 67% standazd/33% compact stall ratio. Recommended standazds call for compact stalls not to exceed 15% of the total pazking capacity of a site and are allowed in constrained or remnant space. These reduced stalls use land more efficiently as well as reduce impervious surface and added storm runoff. One major concern of the bill relates to the creation of non-conforming uses should the proposed changes be passed. Changing parking requirements will render many buildings nonconforming if the parking requirements change. A nonconforming building is one that complied with regulations when constructed, but does not comply with the new regulations. For example, an apartment building constructed in compliance with the previous standazd of 1.25 parking stalls per unit will no longer be in compliance if the requirement is to provide 2.5 standard-sized stalls for each unit. Therefore, we recommend 2.0 stalls in line with nationally recognized standards. While a nonconforming building can cominue (the apartment building in the example above would not have to find additional pazking spaces), if it is destroyed or damaged by more than 50% of its replacement value, it must be rebuilt to conform to current regulations. It maybe difficult to rebuild and comply with new, increased pazking requirements, because for many apartment and commercial buildings, the building and the parking spaces occupy most of the site. The consequences for the owners can be very serious. Typical fire inswance policies will pay for the replacement of a building, but if it cannot be replaced (for example, because it is non- conforming) the policies pay "actual cash value", which in many cases is much less than the replacement value. The owners of a condominium apartment building, for example, may not be able to replace the building with one having the same number of units, and may not get full value from the insurance proceeds. There are additional coverages sometimes available for this risk, but most owners do not carry them. The director therefore recommends that some special accommodation be given for buildings that become nonconforming because of changes in the parking regulations caused by this bill, so that a building could be rebuilt with the parking required prior to its passage. The -3- planning director would require more pazking if it was feasible on the site. The alternative to including a special condition in the Code is to allow buildings to be rebuilt through the variance process. This creates an element of uncertainty whether the variance will be approved or not. The Planning Director recommends that specific changes be made by amending Section 25-4-65.1 to read as follows: Section 25-4-65.1. Exceptions to nonconforming use and building provisions. The following shall be [an] exceptions to this division: (1) Amultiple-family building or use, when the non-conforming situation is the consequence [ (2) A buildine made nonconformingZ with respect to pazking requirements by Ordinance No maybe replaced or reconstructed if destroyed or damaged. to its prior condition. in conformance with the harking requirements existing immediately prior to the enactment of Ordinance No .provided that the director shall require additional parking be provided if it is feasible to do so and construction shall commence within five yeazs from the date the building is damaged or destroyed. For these reasons, the Planning Director is offering an alternative bill, attached as Exhibit 2. In addition, it is recommended that several additions be included: 1) Restaurants: one for every 100 square feet; and 2) Self Storage Units: one per 100 units. The Planning Director recommends that the Planning Commission send a favorable recommendation on the proposed alternative recommendation identified as Exhibit 2 to the Hawaii County Council. The accompanying draft bill to amend Chapter 25 is provided for your consideration. -4- tvwM- ~L~ ' , COUNTY OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII ~~0( M~~` BILL NO. Z~ (DRAFT 2) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25, ZONING CODE, ARTICLE 4, DIVISION 5, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to amend Chapter 25, Zoning Code, Article 4, Division 5, of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), relating to Off-Street Parking and Loading, to improve the ability of the public to find and use parking spaces in appropriate locations. SECTION 2. Chapter 25, article 4, division 5, section 25-4-51, of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), is amended to read as follows: "Section 25-4-51. Required number of pazking spaces. (a) The number of parking spaces for each use shall be as follows: (1) Bed and breakfast establishments: one for each guest bedroom, in addition to two for the dwelling unit. (2) Bowling alleys: four for each alley. (3) Commercial uses, including retail and office uses in RCX, CN, CG, CV, MCX, V, RA, FA, A and IA districts: one for each [three] one hundred square feet of gross floor area. (4) Day care centers: one for each [terf] five caze recipients of design capacity or one for every two hundred square feet of gross floor azea, whichever is greater. (5) Dwellings, multiple-family: ( ' two and one half standard-sized stalls for each unit, plus: (A) An additional ten percent of total number of parking spaces in the complex shall be designated for guest parking and shall be distributed evenly throughout the complex and marked as guest parking; and (B) An additional two and one half percent of total number of marking spaces in the complex shall be added for delivery and loadi~ zone~arking and EXHIBIT shall be distributed evenly throuehout the comnlex and mazked as delivery and loadin¢ zone pazking (6) Dwellings ] _single-family, two for each dwelling unit, and double-family or duplex two and one half for each dwelling unit. (7) Funeral homes and mortuaries: one for each seventy-five square feet of gross floor area. (8) Golf courses: four for every hole. (9) Hospitals: one for each bed. (10) Hotels and lodges: (A) For hotel guest units without a kitchen, one for [eveee] each unit[s], nlus one space for every three units for emnlovee and additional ¢uest azP king; (B) For hotel guest units with a kitchen, one and one quarter for each unit, plus one space for every three units for emnloyee and additional ¢uest azu kinu. (11) Industrial uses in ML, MG, MCX, RA, FA, A and IA districts: one for each four hundred squaze feet of gross floor area. (12) Laundromats, cleaners (coin operated): one for every [€euf] two machines. (13) Major outdoor amusement and recreation facilities: one for each two hundred squaze feet of gross floor area within enclosed buildings, plus one for every three persons that the outdoor facilities are designed to accommodate when used to the maximum capacity. (14) Meeting facilities, including churches: one for each seventy-five squaze feet of gross floor area. (15) Nursing homes, convalescent homes, rest homes and homes for the elder]y: one for every two beds. (16) Parks: as determined by the director. (17) Recreation facilities, outdoor or indoor, other than herein specified: one for each two hundred square feet of gross floor azea, plus three per court (racquetball, tennis or similar activities). (18) Rooming and lodging houses, religious, fraternal or social orders having sleeping accommodations: one for each [five-beds] bed. (19) Schools (elementazy and intermediate): one for each twenty students of design capacity, plus one for each [feu] two hundred square feet of office floor space. . (20) Schools (high, language, vocational, business, technical and trade, college): one for each ten students of design capacity, plus one for each [fear] two hundred square feet of office floor space. 2 (21) Sports arenas, auditoriums, theaters, assembly halls: one for every [fear] two seats. (22) Swimming pools (community); one for each forty square feet of pool area. (23) Warehouse and bulk storage establishments where there is no trade or retail traffic: one for each one thousand squaze feet of gross floor area. (b) No additional parking is required for any change of use in a building as long as the previous use of the building had the required number of parking stalls for that use; provided, that additional parking shall be required pursuant to section 25-4- 51(a) above for a change of use in any building where the building is converted from residential to commercial use or from wazehouse and manufacturing use to retail or commercial use. (c) Where uses and activities do not occur simultaneously, parking space requirements may be shared, provided that: (1) The utilization of the combined pazking [is] shall be shown to the satisfaction of the director to be [nexeen~etiag] non-competing as to time of use; (2) The number of parking spaces [isJ shall be based on the lazgest pazking requirement of those respective facilities; (3) The parking areas [are] shall not be more than three hundred feet from any of the buildings housing the activities; and (4) The parking areas [areJ shall be encumbered for that use for the life of the facilities being served." SECTION 3. Chapter 25, article 4, division 5, section 25-4-52, of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), is amended to read as follows: "Section 25-4-52. Method of determining number of parking spaces. (a) When computation of required pazking spaces results in a fractional number, the number of spaces required shall be the next highest whole number. (b) In stadiums, sports aeenas, meeting facilities, and other places of assembly in which patrons or spectators occupy benches, pews or other similar seating facilities, each twenty-four inches of width shall be counted as a seat for the purpose of determining requirements for off-street parking. (c) If bicycle parking stalls are constructed on any building site, the total number of required parking spaces shall be reduced by one pazking space for every five bicycle parking stalls constructed. (d) At least sixty-seven percent of the required parking shall be standard-sized parking spaces, and thirty-three percent may be compact spaces except for multiple-family dwellings which shall all be standard-sized pazking aces. (e) The director may increase the required number of parking spaces for any use during plan approval if the director reviews the proposed use and its impact to the 3 immediate area and finds that the increase will further the public safety, convenience and welfare. (f) If there is any doubt as to the requirements for off-street parking for any use not specifically mentioned or for any other reason, the director shall determine the required number ofparking spaces for such use." SECTION 4. Material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New material is underscored. In printing this ordinance, the brackets, bracketed and stricken material, and underscoring need not be included. SECTION 5. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance aze declazed to be severable. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INTRODUkC~ED BYE: COUNCIL MEMBER, COLTNTy OF HAWAII Hilo, Hawaii Date of Introduction: Date of 1st Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Effective Date: ~Fc'REPSCc': Comm: 267.3 A,w,":~I ~w ,4 COUNTY OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII i "«w•' BILL NO. 79 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25, ZONING CODE, ARTICLE 4, DIVISION 5, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to amend Chapter 25, Zoning Code, Article 4, Division 5, of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), relating to Off-Street Pazking and Loading, to improve the ability of the public to find and use parking spaces in appropriate locations. SECTION 2. Chapter 25, article 4, division 5, section 25-4-51, of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), is amended to read as follows: "Section 25-4-51. Required number of parking spaces. (a) The number of parking spaces for each use shall be as follows: (1) Bed and breakfast establishments: one for each guest bedroom, in addition to [sae] two for the dwelling unit. (2) Bowling alleys: four for each alley. (3) Commercial uses, including retail and office uses in RCX, CN, CG, CV, MCX, V, RA, FA, A and IA districts: one for each three hundred square feet of gross floor azea. (4) Day care centers: one for each [tea] five care recipients of design capacity or one for every two hundred square feet of gross floor azea, whichever is greater. (5) Dwellings, multiple-family: [ ' two standazd- sized stalls for each unit. plus: (Al An additional ten~ercent of total number of pazking~aces in the complex shall be designated for guest parking marked as guest parkins. (6) Dwellings ] single-family, two for each dwelling unit. and double-family or duplex ],two and one half for each dwelling unit. EXHIBIT 2 (7) Funeral homes and mortuaries: one for each seventy-five square feet of gross floor area. (8) Golf courses: four for every hole. (9) Hospitals: one for each bed. (10) Hotels and lodges: (A) For hotel guest units without a kitchen, one for [ever-y-three] each unit[s], (B) For hotel guest units with a kitchen, one and one quarter for each unit, (11) Industrial uses in ML, MG, MCX, RA, FA, A and IA districts: one for each four hundred squaze feet of gross floor area. (12) Laundromats, cleaners (coin operated): one for every [€et~] two machines. (13) Major outdoor amusement and recreation facilities: one for each two hundred square feet of gross floor area within enclosed buildings, plus one for every three persons that the outdoor facilities aze designed to accommodate when used to the maximum capacity. (14) Meeting facilities, including churches: one for each seventy-five square feet of gross floor area. (15) Nursing homes, convalescent homes, rest homes and homes for the elderly: one for every two beds. (16) Parks: as determined by the director. {171 Restaurants' one for ever 100 square feet of gross floor area. [(4-7a] 18 Recreation facilities, outdoor or indoor, other than herein specified: one for each two hundred square feet of gross floor azea, plus three per court (racquetball, tennis or similaz activities). [(}8)] 19 Rooming and lodging houses, religious, fraternal or social orders having sleeping accommodations: one for each [Evve-beds] [f}931 ~ Schools (elementary and intermediate): one for each twenty students of design capacity, plus one for each [few] two hundred square feet of office floor space. (211 Self-storage units• one for every 100 units [(28)](22 Schools (high, language, vocational, business, technical and trade, college): one for each ten students of design capacity, plus one for each [fetes] two hundred squaze feet of office floor space. [(~l)] 23 Sports arenas, auditoriums, theaters, assembly halls: one for every [€ex~] three seats. 24 Swimming pools (community): one for each forty squaze feet of pool azea. [(23)] 25 Warehouse and bulk storage establishments where there is no trade or retail traffic: one for each one thousand square feet of gross floor azea. 2 (b) No additional pazking is required for any change of use in a building as long as the previous use of the building had the required number of pazking stalls for that use; provided, that additional pazking shall be required Qursuant to section 25-4- 51(al above for a change of use in any building where the building is converted from residential to commercial or restawant use or from wazehouse and manufacturing use to retail or restaurant or commercial use. (c) Where uses and activities do not occur simultaneously, pazking space requirements may be shazed, provided that: (1) The utilization of the combined pazking [is] shall be shown to the satisfaction of the director to be [~e~g] non-competing as to time of use; (2) The number of parking spaces [is] shall be based on the largest pazking requirement of those respective facilities; (3) The parking azeas [are] shall not be more than one thousand feet from any of the buildings housing the activities; and (4) The pazking areas [sre] shall be encumbered for that use for the life of the facilities being served." SECTION 3. Chapter 25, article 4, division 5, section 25-4-52, of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), is amended to read as follows: "Section 25-4-52. Method of determining number of parking spaces. (a) When computation of required parking spaces results in a fractional number, the number of spaces required shall be the next highest whole number. (b) In stadiums, sports arenas, meeting facilities, and other places of assembly in which patrons or spectators occupy benches, pews or other similaz seating facilities, each twenty-four inches of width shall be counted as a seat for the purpose of determining requirements for off-street pazking. (c) If bicycle pazking stalls are constructed on any building site, the total number of required pazking spaces shall be reduced by one parking space for every five bicycle pazking stalls constructed. (d) At least sixty-seven percent of the required pazking shall be standard-sized pazking spaces, and thirty-three percent may be compact spaces. (e) The director may increase the required number of parking spaces for any use during plan approval if the director reviews the proposed use and its impact to the immediate azea and finds that the increase will further the public safety, convenience and welfare. (f) If there is any doubt as to the requirements for off-street pazking for any use not specifically mentioned or for any other reason, the director shall determine the required number of pazking spaces for such use." 3 SECTION 4. Material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New material is underscored. In printing this ordinance, the brackets, bracketed and stricken material, and underscoring need not be included. SECTION 5. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INTRODUCED BY: COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII Hilo, Hawaii Date of Introduction: Date of 1st Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Effective Date: 4 . ~ . ~ , M August 27, 2007 TO: Planning Commissioners , / i , / ~ FROM: Christopher Yuen, Planning Duector ~ ~_r~ SUBJECT: Bi1179 j Upon further review of the issue, I would like to make some slight changes to the version of Bi1179 that I prepared for the last meeting. The changes aze as follows: 1. To leave the pazking requirement for duplexes at 2 per unit, rather than 2.5, with a requirement for 10% additional guest pazking, when the complex has more than five double-family or duplex units. This would make the requirement consistent with the Director's proposal for multi-family units. 2. To leave the requirement for rooming and lodging houses at one per two beds. 3. To add the provision regarding buildings that would be made nonconforming by the changes in parking requirements to this bill. The proposed redraft of Bill 79, incorporating all of my changes, is attached as Exhibit 3. @f ,~~V Oi Mu `~S" ~'uL COUNTY OF HAWAII ~ STATE OF HAWAII ~h~0l~Ni~~ BILL NO. 79 Planning Director's Proposed Redraft ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25, ZONING CODE, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING AND NON-CONFORMING USES AND BUILDINGS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to amend Chapter 25, Zoning Code, Article 4, Division 5, of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), relating to Off-Street Parking and Loading, to improve the ability of the public to find and use parking spaces in appropriate locations, and to amend the provisions relating to nonconforming uses and buildings to reduce the potential for hardship resulting from changes to the parking requirements. SECTION 2. Chapter 25, article 4, division 5, section 25-4-51, of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), is amended to read as follows: "Section 25-4-51. Required number of parking spaces. (a) The number of parking spaces for each use shall be as follows: (1) Bed and breakfast establishments: one for each guest bedroom, in addition to [arts] two for the dwelling unit. (2) Bowling alleys: four for each alley. (3) Commercial uses, including retail and office uses in RCX, CN, CG, CV, MCX, V, RA, FA, A and IA districts: one for each three hundred square feet of gross floor area. (4) Day care centers: one for each [tart] five care recipients of design capacity or one for every two hundred square feet of gross floor area, whichever is greater. (5) Dwellings, multiple-family: [ ' two standard- sized stalls for each unit, plus: (A) An additional ten percent of total number of parking spaces in the complex shall be designated for guest parking marked as guest narking. (6) Dwellings ] _single-family, and double-family or duplex [r two for each dwelling unit plus an additional ten percent of total number of parking spaces EXHIBIT 3 in the complex shall be desienated for Quest narking marked as ¢uest narkine, when a complex consists ofdouble-family or duplex buildings and contains more than five dwelline units. (7) Funeral homes and mortuaries: one for each seventy-five square feet of gross floor area. (8) Golf courses: four for every hole. (9) Hospitals: one for each bed. (10) Hotels and lodges: (A) For hotel guest units without a kitchen, one for [everee] each unit[s], (B) For hotel guest units with a kitchen, one and one quarter for each unit, (11) Industrial uses in ML, MG, MCX, RA, FA, A and IA districts: one for each four hundred square feet of gross floor area. (12) Laundromats, cleaners (coin operated): one for every [€eur] two machines. (13) Major outdoor amusement and recreation facilities: one for each two hundred square feet of gross floor area within enclosed buildings, plus one for every three persons that the outdoor facilities are designed to accommodate when used to the maximum capacity. (14) Meeting facilities, including churches: one for each seventy-five squaze feet of gross floor area. (15) Nursing homes, convalescent homes, rest homes and homes for the elderly: one for every two beds. (16) Parks: as determined by the director. (17) Restaurants: one for every 100 square feet of Bross floor area. [(-1~}] 18 Recreation facilities, outdoor or indoor, other than herein specified: one for each two hundred squaze feet of gross floor area, plus three per court (racquetball, tennis or similar activities). ~ Rooming and lodging houses, religious, fraternal or social orders having sleeping accommodations: one for each two beds. [(-1-9~] 20 Schools (elementary and intermediate): one for each twenty students of design capacity, plus one for each [few] two hundred square feet of office floor space. (21) Self-storage units: one for every 100 units. [(~0j](~ Schools (high, language, vocational, business, technical and trade, college): one for each ten students of design capacity, plus one for each [feu] two hundred square feet of office floor space. ~ Sports arenas, auditoriums, theaters, assembly halls: one for every [few] three seats. 2 ~ Swimming pools (community): one for each forty squaze feet of pool area. 25 Warehouse and bulk storage establishments where there is no trade or retail traffic: one for each one thousand squaze feet of gross floor azea. (b) No additional parking is required for any change of use in a building as long as the previous use of the building had the required number of parking stalls for that use; provided, that additional parking shall be required pursuant to section 25-4- 51(a) above for a change of use in any building where the building is converted from residential to commercial or restaurant use or from warehouse and manufacturing use to retail or restaurant or commercial use. (c) Where uses and activities do not occur simultaneously, parking space requirements maybe shared, provided that: (1) The utilization of the combined parking [is] shall be shown to the satisfaction of the director to be [~eASexi~petiag] non-competing as to time of use; (2) The number of parking spaces [is] shall be based on the largest pazking requirement of those respective facilities; (3) The parking areas [aye] shall not be more than one thousand feet from any of the buildings housing the activities; and (4) The parking areas [are] shall be encumbered for that use for the life of the facilities being served." SECTION 3. Chapter 25, article 4, division 6, section 25-4-65.1, of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), is amended to read as follows: Section 25-4-65.1. Exceptions to nonconforming use and building provisions. The following shall be [a{t] exceptions to this division: (1) Amultiple-family building or use, when the non-conforming situation is the consequence [ (2) A building made nonconforming with respect to pazkine requirements by Ordinance No. maybe replaced or reconstructed if destroyed or damaged, to its prior condition, in conformance with the pazkine requirements existing immediately prior to the enactment of Ordinance No ,provided that the director shall require additional parking beprovided if it is feasible to do so, and construction shall commence within five years from the date the building is damaged or destroyed. 3 SECTION 4. Material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New material is underscored. In printing this ordinance, the brackets, bracketed and stricken material, and underscoring need not be included. SECTION 5. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INTRODUCED BY: COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII Hilo, Hawaii Date of Introduction: Date of 1st Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Effective Date: 4 MtV os M~ v~.~~ COUNTY OF HAWAII ~ STATE OF HAWAII a:•a' BILL NO. 79 Planning Director's Proposed Redraft ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25, ZONING CODE, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING AND NON-CONFORMING USES AND BUILDINGS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to amend Chapter 25, Zoning Code, Article 4, Division 5, of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), relating to Off-Street Parking and Loading, to improve the ability of the public to find and use parking spaces in appropriate locations, and to amend the provisions relating to nonconforming uses and buildings to reduce the potential for hardship resulting from changes to the parking requirements. SECTION 2. Chapter 25, article 4, division 5, section 25-4-51, of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), is amended to read as follows: "Section 25-4-51. Required number of parking spaces. (a) The number of parking spaces for each use shall be as follows: (1) Bed and breakfast establishments: one for each guest bedroom, in addition to [ere] two for the dwelling unit. (2) Bowling alleys: four for each alley. (3) Commercial uses, including retail and office uses in RCX, CN, CG, CV, MCX, V, RA, FA, A and IA districts: one for each three hundred square feet of gross floor area. (4) Day care centers: one for each [tern] five care recipients of design capacity or one for every two hundred square feet of gross floor area, whichever is greater. (5) Dwellings, multiple-family: [ ~ two standard- sized stalls for each unit, plus: (Al An additional ten percent of total number of narking spaces in the complex shall be designated for guest narking marked as guest parking. (6) Dwellings ] ;single-family, and double-family or duplex two for each dwelling unit plus an additional ten percent of total number of narking spaces in the complex shall be designated for Quest parking marked as guest pazking, when a complex consists ofdouble-family or duplex buildings and contains more than five dwelling units. (7) Funeral homes and mortuaries: one for each seventy-five square feet of gross floor area. (8) Golf courses: four for every hole. (9) Hospitals: one for each bed. (10) Hotels and lodges: (A) For hotel guest units without a kitchen, one for [e~eree] each unit[s], (B) For hotel guest units with a kitchen, one and one quarter for each unit, (11) Industrial uses in ML, MG, MCX, RA, FA, A and IA districts: one for each four hundred square feet of gross floor area. (12) Laundromats, cleaners (coin operated): one for every [€eur] two machines. (13) Major outdoor amusement and recreation facilities: one for each two hundred square feet of gross floor azea within enclosed buildings, plus one for every three persons that the outdoor facilities are designed to accommodate when used to the maximum capacity. (14) Meeting facilities, including churches: one for each seventy-five square feet of gross floor area. (15) Nursing homes, convalescent homes, rest homes and homes for the elderly: one for every two beds. (16) Parks: as determined by the director. (17) Restaurants: one for every 100 square feet of gross floor area. 18 Recreation facilities, outdoor or indoor, other than herein specified: one for each two hundred square feet of gross floor area, plus three per court (racquetball, tennis or similar activities). [(d-8~] 19 Rooming and lodging houses, religious, fraternal or social orders having sleeping accommodations: one for each two beds. ~ Schools (elementary and intermediate): one for each twenty students of design capacity, plus one for each [€sur] two hundred square feet of office floor space. (21) Self-storage units: one for every 100 units. [(-29~](~ Schools (high, language, vocational, business, technical and trade, college): one for each ten students of design capacity, plus one for each [€eur] two hundred square feet of office floor space. ~ Sports arenas, auditoriums, theaters, assembly halls: one for every [few] three seats. 2 ~ Swimming pools (community): one for each forty square feet of pool azea. [(~3~] ~ Warehouse and bulk storage establishments where there is no trade or retail traffic: one for each one thousand square feet of gross floor azea. (b) No additional parking is required for any change of use in a building as long as the previous use of the building had the required number of parking stalls for that use; provided, that additional parking [oaf] shall be required pursuant to section 25-4- 51(a) above for a change of use in any building where the building is converted from residential to commercial or restaurant use or from warehouse and manufacturing use to retail or restaurant or commercial use. (c) Where uses and activities do not occur simultaneously, parking space requirements maybe shared, provided that: (1) The utilization of the combined parking [isJ shall be shown to the satisfaction of the director to be [naesempet-gig] non-competing as to time of use; (2) The number of parking spaces [is] shall be based on the largest parking requirement of those respective facilities; (3) The parking areas [are] shall not be more than one thousand feet from any of the buildings housing the activities; and (4) The parking areas [aye] shall be encumbered for that use for the life of the facilities being served." SECTION 3. Chapter 25, article 4, division 6, section 25-4-65.1, of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), is amended to read as follows: Section 25-4-65.1. Exceptions to nonconforming use and building provisions. The following shall be [ate] exceptions to this division: (1) Amultiple-family building or use, when the non-conforming situation is the consequence [ (2) A building made nonconforming with respect to parking requirements by Ordinance No may be replaced or reconstructed if destroved or damaged, to its prior condition in conformance with the parking reauirements existing immediately prior to the enactment of Ordinance No ,provided that the director shall require additional parking be provided if it is feasible to do so, and construction shall commence within five years from the date the building is damaged or destroved. 3 SECTION 4. Material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New material is underscored. In printing this ordinance, the brackets, bracketed and stricken material, and underscoring need not be included. SECTION 5. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INTRODUCED BY: COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII Hilo, Hawaii Date of Introduction: Date of 1st Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Effective Date: 4