Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 1143.000 1980-1984r , S PLANNING DEPARTMENT , 25 AUPUNI STREET • HILO HAWAII 96720 HERBERT T.MATAYOSHI .. . Mayor COUNTY OF SIDNEY M.FUKE HAWAII Director DUANE KANUHA Deputy Director March 3, 1983 Honorable Stephen K. Yamashiro, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Yamashiro and Members: Zoning Code Amendments Submitted for your consideration and approval are a narrative , Summary: Zoning Code Amendments , and thethirteen bills it describes . Public hearings on thesethirteen bills were conducted on November 23 , 1982 , December 9 , 1982 , and January 13 , 1983 . At the December and January hearings , the Commission voted to adopt the thirteen proposals. • Sincerely, C c$1; IMAprif . Chairman, Planning Commission DT:smn Atts . APPROVED: 1CcitrK. RB RT T. MA AYOSHI , MA OR Comm.• ao /L.174,3 File 4 = � ale o. Ref. To:„_. Ref. Date: 111 11/ SUMMARY : ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS Over the years , we have found areas of the Zoning and Subdivision Codes which need to be updated. As a result , we have begun a program to systematically amend the codes . The following represent the first batch of proposed changes . 1 . Definitions Presently , the Building and Housino Codes (which are administered by the Department of Public Works) and the Zoning Code ( which is administered by the Planning Department) have definitions of common terms . These include , "structure , " "story , " "basement, " "floor, " and others . To assure greater consistency of interpretation and enforcement , we are proposing to refer said termsto the Building and Housing Codes . 2. Building Height Similarly , because of the constant debate and resultant confusion over whether a building appears to have more stories than permissible ; or considering story variances to the established height limits , it was felt that the overall height of a structure should be the controlling factor. Thus , this proposal deletes references to the number of stories allowed within a zoning district but retains the existing height { 111 2 111 limits . The Building Code already has requirements for minimum floors, height, etc. and used collectively with the maximum height limit of the Zoning Code , it is felt that the basic design intent of the Zoning Code would be fulfilled. 3 . Care and Boarding Homes The State Legislature enacted a law this past session (Act 54, SLH 1982) redefining care and boarding homes . Presently , such homes are allowed in residential zones in the Zoning Code under the definition of a "family . " "Family" is essentially defined as five unrelated individuals or any number, based upon blood lineage. The maximum boarders allowed thus were three, plus two supervisors and/or adults . O Under the proposal, if a care or boarding home is licensed by the State Departments of Health and Social Service, there could be a maximum number of 5 and 8 unrelated boarders , respectively , plus the home operators or staff. 4 . Zoning and Appeals Procedures Presently , the appeal period of the Director ' s denial of a rezoning petition is ten days . We are proposing that this be -2- ik ' amended to thirty days . This would not only be consistent with the Board ' s rules , but would give more reasonable appeal time i for the potential appellant. Further, we are recommending that the re-application period for a zone change that was denied be changed from two years to one year. 5. Use Permit Pursuant to a Charter amendment , the Zoning Code was amended to authorize the Planning Director to issue variances . In so • doing , the amendment inadvertently authorized the Director to r also issue "use permits . " In the past, this authority was r vested with the Planning Commission. However, the Code reads 0 that use permits are processed in the same manner as a variance ; and this was how the transfer of authority occurred. Staff believes that this was not the intent of the Charter ; and further believes that use permits should remain within the , province of the Planning Commission . As such, the proposed amendment would accomplish that objective . -3- 11/ 11/ 6. Non-Conforming Residential Buildings and Uses Presently , if a residential use terminated for more than a year in a zone where residences are not allowed ( such as industrial or open) , one would not be able to re-use or rebuild the structure for residential purposes . It would also apply to areas like Keaukaha , where the zoning was changed from resort to single-family residential uses . The existing multi-family uses are considered non-conforming ; and would be subjected to the non-conforming provision of the Zoning Code . In light of a recent State law which permitted non-conforming residential uses to exist, and the foregoing considerations , we are proposing to amend the Zoning Code to allow ani non-conforming residential uses to exist in perpetuity . Thus , even if a multi-family building were destroyed, the property owner would be allowed to rebuild and enjoy the same rights he/she had before the building was destroyed. This change would address the concerns raised by the various condominium owners in Keaukaha during the recent change of zone actions . 7. Limited Industrial Zone Also , during the discussion of the change of zone actions in Keaukaha , a concern was raised regarding "junkyards , " "public dumps , " and "storage of scraps" as a permissible use in the Light Industrial zone. -4- As such, we are proposing that those uses be only allowed through a "use permit" from the Planning Commission. This would occur only after the Commission conducts a hearing and acts either to deny or approve the request with or without conditions . It was also felt that public parking lots should be allowed in an industrial zone . The need for parking in built up areas is not unique to existing commercial-office or retail areas ; but this need is often similarly found in industrial areas . As such, we are proposing to make public parking areas a permissible use in the industrial zone . Said use is already considered permissible in the various commercial zones . 8. Heliports The Zoning Code allows heliports only in the County agricultural and industrial zones . However, we have found that there may be a need for heliports in other zones , particularly in resort or resort-related areas . As such, we are proposing that heliports be allowed by the Planning Commission under the "use permit" procedures . This process would enable the public to voice thier concern and similarly enable the Commission to impose any mitigative conditions to the heliport should it be favorably considered. -5- 9. Setbacks for Corner Lots Presently , the rear yard setback for a corner lot is taken from that point opposite the front yards , and a radius is then drawn from that point . This requirement often creates a "pocket" of setback. We are proposing that the side yards be extended until they intersect, thereby eliminating the rear yard setback. On that basis , a corner lot would have two front yards and two side yards with no rear yard. 10. Setbacks for Unplanned Zone The present setback requirements for lots within the Unplanned zone are 30 feet fro all lot lines . This requirement applies uniformly , regardlessof the size of the lot . As such, even smaller, non -conforming lots would be subjected to this setback requirement. In the other zones , however, the setbacks are established by the size of the lots . Thus , a 10, 000 square foot lot within an Agriculture-5 acre zone would use the 10, 000 square foot setback requirement and not the Agriculture-5 acre requirement . This is not so for lots within the Unplanned zone . We are thus proposing that a change be made to make the setback relate to the size of the lot and not necessarily the zone. -6- 1 11. This change would not only be reasonable , but would be consistent with other provisions of the Zoning Code. 11. Parking Stall Revisions The following proposed revisions are the. result of reviewing studies of other jurisdictions within the State and on the mainland , as well as a compilation of our experiences on the County level. a . This proposal would raise the percentage allotment of small car stalls from the present 10% to 33% for a number of reasons : 1) The proportion of "small" cars (those under 2, 999 pounds) to full size has risen drastically since the original requirement_ of 10% which was imposed 15 or so years ago . Today in our County , 54% of all registered autos are of compact size. State-wide , the number has markedlyalso--Kauai has Honolulu has 56%. grown63%; (These figures are from the State ' s passenger motor vehicle registration data from 1981-82 . ) A close study . of all the various makes of cars along with their curb weights and dimensions result in a generally nationally accepted classification of 14-1/2 feet long and 5. 7 feet wide and the under-3 , 000-pound-weight as the cutoff dimensions for small or compact cars ( per Consumer Report ' s annual. -7- JIP automobile survey , the Hawaii Integrated Energy Assessment project , and the City and County of Honolulu) . The trend toward more of the smaller size cars rather than full size is a national one also . Furthermore , this trend in allowing a greater percentage of small size parking stalls is indicated in the detailed survey of 81 northern and southern California cities where the allowance ranges from 25% to 45% in most of them. We feel that the 33% recommendation will give a reasonable leeway for the "worst case" occurrence in parking areas . b. An increase in the size of the compact parkingstalls is also proposed from 7 ' x 14 ' to 8 ° x 16' : 1) Compact cars have increased in size from 15 years ago when the code was originally written, \and when the predominant small car was the original Volkswagen "beetle" which size was just over 12-1/2 feet long. The average compact car size , described earlier, has since grown to about 14-1/2 feet long and proportionately wider (5 ' 7" ) . Measurements indicate that the normal person needs 24" to 30" ( depending on his girth) of door opening to enter or leave his car, and thus the 8 foot compact stall width is recommended. Compact car sizes appear, from 1976 to date , to have maintained the 5 ' 7" x l4 ' 6" dimensions , -8- • by and large , according to the Consumer Report ' s annual automobile report . c. Allow each parking.stall to have 3 feet of unpaved car overhang area . This would result in a savings of paving material which is largely oil-based asphalt. It becomes obvious to the observer that the area beyond the front wheels (or back of the rear wheels) , depending on the direction the car is pointed, does not touch the ground, i . e . , does not need pavement . By permitting this to be converted to landscaping, obvious advantages appear. The net savings in these three areas of change : 1) Percentage of small car allotments ; 2) Enlarged size compact. stall ; and 3) Permitting unpaved car overhang areas would, in a typical 40 parking stall development , result in : 10, 448 s. f. - paving under present parking requirements 9, 173 s . f. - paving with recommended changes 1 , 375 s . f. - paving material savings or about 13% d. Some parkini requirements would increase . Most office use today has a 1 per 400 square feet GFA requirement . The proposal would be 1 per 200 s . f. GFA. Basically through our experiences and study of other areas , the reason for the stricter requirement is that employee parking had not sufficientlybeen taken into account ; plus local) we do Y � not have the intensive public mass transit system which -9- a III $ .■ • , _ lik larger cities do . Food service establishments would go to 1 stall for each 150 square feet of GFA and ` doctors/dentists offices would re•uire 5 •er doctor. We are further recommending the innovation of allowing the combining of parking requirements among two or more establishments or facilities provided it can bejroven that no conflicts would arise . Other minor adjustments in parking requirements are included in the text of the bill before you. The foregoing summary constitutes the eleven ( 11) basic zoning code amendments being recommended at this time. In the next calendar quarter, we will be proposing a second "batch" in our continuing effort to improve the Zoning Code. • -10-