Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0370.001 2002-2004 JAMES Y. ARAKAKI ~ r¢',~ "~i, Phone: (808) 961-827_ ('hoinnan~Presid(ng Oj{)cer b~ FaX: (808) 9C1-$780 .J.` ~ i f '03 NUU 17 Pal 2 11 COUNTY COUNCIL COU'. CoamrygfHawai'i COUNII' % d- 11i,1''drJl Hawaii County 6uildinR 2J Aupuni Sheet Hilo, Hawaii 96720 November 17, 2003 TO: Council Members FROM: James Y. Arakaki Chair - RE: Bill No 159 and Bill o. 160 Puna Sugar Mill, I TM K: 1-6-3:99 This is to request your serious consideration of the attached Bill No. 159, Draft 2 and Bill No. 160, Draft 2. I propose these dratts based upon the attached memorandum from the Legislative Auditor's Office. The condition contained in Bill No. 159 prohibiting the landowner to seek reclassification would set a questionable precedent and creates policy that would take numerous state land use reclassifications less than 15 acres in size out of the council's legitimate authority. Draft 2 deletes this condition. Condition D in Bill No. 160 should be tied to the preparation ofa "fIAR rather than prohibiting a permitted use. Draft 2 recommends the preparation of a Traffic Impact Analysis Report if a Home Improvement Center is proposed, and mitigation measures implemented prior to occupancy. Condition H in Bill No. 160 has been rewritten to clarify the Milo Street extension roadway trontage improvements in conjunction with the MI, 20 zoning and the Ag-Sa zoning. Thank you for your thoughtful deliberation of the proposed amendments in Dratt 2 of both bills. Att. 13i1/ /Sy D. d r~/ /rco, .D. 1 3 ~ o . ~ Ref. Ta ~~eseef C o v N c« Ref. Date w~R~T November 13, 2003 TO: James Y. Arakaki, Chair Leningrad Elarionoff, Planning Committe,(e Chair FROM: Constance R. Kiriu, Legislative Auditor' ~ RE: PUNA SUGAR MILL, LLC Bill No. 159 & Bill 160 BILL 159 BILL 159 reclassifies 14.901 acres of land from State Land Use Agricultural to Urban. An 8-acre portion remains in Agricultural. Bill No. 159 contains a condition forbidding the landowner of the remaining 8-acre portion from reclassification from Agricultural to Urban for five years, unless state land use law is amended. The condition also contains a restrictive covenant in the deed that would run with the 8 acres in case the land is subdivided and sold. COMMENT 1. This is an unusual condition (may be the first) that has not been included in State Land Use reclassifications by the County Council. According to the record, the condition was recommended because of a February 13, 2003, comment letter from State Land Use Commission Executive Officer Anthony J.H. Ching. 2. The condition appears to be arbitrary unless: • A similar condition is placed on all reclassifications where a portion remains in Agriculture or Rural; or • The County passes an ordinance setting forth the criteria it will use when accepting less than 15 acre applications for processing; or • The State legislature passes a more specific law. 3. In addition, the condition contradicts homerule. • It ties the hand of the council for five years. • The County would be sending landowners to the State Land Use Commission when the Council has been acting on these situations in the past. RECOMMENDATION Remove the condition from Bill 159. Bill 160 Bill 160 contains Condition D, which reads "No Home Improvement Centers may be constructed on the Limited Industrial-zoned portion of the property." COMMENT The Council should tread lightly when applying a condition to ensure that it furthers the public purpose or welfare. The concern seems to be one of traffic and the fact that a TIAR has not been prepared for the use. Perhaps, the condition should tie the use to the preparation of a TIAR and implementation of recommended improvements. The problem being there is no other rule or requirement triggering a TIAR when a level of intensity is reached. Ideally, the Department of Public Works should have an adopted rule that triggers a TIAR when a use on a property intensifies. Then it would apply to all uses and the County would benefit from such analysis. On the other hand, the question of Home Improvement Centers as a permitted use in the Limited Industrial zoned district should be evaluated on its own merits and the Code changed accordingly as suggested by the Planning Director. RECOMMENDATION 1. If traffic is crucial when a Home Improvement Center is proposed, the Council might replace the prohibition condition as follows: "D. [No Home Improvement Centers may be constructed on the Limited Industrial- zoned portion of the property.] If a Home Improvement Center is proposed a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) shall be prepared by the applicant or assigns and submitted for review and approval by the Department of Public Works Mitigation measures recommended by the TIAR shall be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Home Improvement Center." 2. To address Mr. Arakaki's desire to position Milo Street extension for future improvements and dedication, Condition H would read: "ML-20 District: The applicant shall comply with the standards outlined in Standard Details for Public Works Construction R-34 (revised-top of page) and shall provide improvements, including shoulders and continued berm treatment, to the [Limited Industrial zoned] Milo Street extension frontage of the ML-20 zoned portion of the property [including the '/z section of the roadway frontage with shoulders and continued berm treatment. Should the Milo Street extension to be dedicated to the County in the future, the applicant shall improve the roadway frontage to full dedicable standards.] ML-20 and Ag-5a Districts: The applicant, successors or assigns shall dedicate its '/z section of the Milo Street extension frontage total 60-foot right-of-way) of the subject property at no charge to the County at the County's request. Further, prior to dedication, the '/z section of the ML-20 roadway frontage shall be improved to full dedicable standards at no cost to the County. A copy of the proposed covenant(s) to be recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances containingthis dedication provision shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. A copy of the approved covenant(s) shall be recited in an instrument executed by the applicant and recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval." z