The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutREP PC 045 12/06/2005 2004-2006 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: Ueccmber 6, 2005 Re: Comm. No. 547/Bill No. 174 PLACE: Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort & Spa, Kailua-Kona "TIME: 1:30 p.m. Council ('hair and Members I lawai'i County Council Milo. Hawaii 96720 four Conunitiee on Planning, to which was referred Communication No. 547 and Bill No. 174, bansmitted by Mayor f tarry Kim, dated November 4, 2005, regarding a State Land Use Boundary Amendment application by Martin E. Smith, at Kanehoa Estates Subdivision, Ouli, South Kohala, Hawai'i.'hMK: 6-Z-I 1:30 reports as follows: Bill No. 17d seeks to amend the State I and Use District Boundaries Map for the County of Hawaii, by dumping the Distract Classiticuiion for approximately 5304 acres of land from the Agricultural District to Rural District. Conununirnion No. 547 reports the liawai`i County Planning Commission, as required by Chapter 4, Section 6-43~C), l lawai`i County Charter, considered the above request and accompanying Bill No. 174 on Odoper 21, 2005. The Commission concurred with the Planning Director's favorable recommendation on this m;dtcr. Communication No. 547, in synopsis, reports the Planning Director's findings and recontmendaiions as the tbllowing: I. the applicant is an owner of the property. The applicant is requesting a State land Use Boundary Amendment ibr 5304 ~icres Iron the AgRicultural District to the Rural District. • l'he subject property is located along the south side of Kawaihae Road with access t?om Kanehoa Street, Kanehoa f'state.< Subdivision, Ouli, South Kohala, Hawaii. Access to the properly is from Kanehoa Shccl to Easement 22 (Apo Place), a private roadway with an approximately Sp-fool right-of=way with 16 feet of asphalt paving and amass shoulders. • 1 he applicant is also requesting a concurrent Change of 'hone (Bill 175) from the Agricultural 5- acrc (A-Sa) to the Residential and Agricultural 2-acre (RA-7a) zoned district. • 'fhe applicant is requc>ling the State Land Usc Boundary Amendment and the Change of lone so that he may lurthcr subdivide the property into two residential/agricultural lots. The applicant proposes to construct a new dwelling on each of the two proposed lots. The property has preciously been used G,r pasturing animals. • fhe subject property uus purl of the original 27-lot Kanehoa Estates Subdivision that was created in 1085. Z. From 1998 lu the present, the County Council has approved similar reyuests for SLU Boundary Amendments and Changes of lone from A-Su to RA-2a in both the Kanehoa 1~'states Subdivision and neighboring Anekuna Fstates Subdivision. According to page 2 of Communication No. 547, °as of March 2005, there were twenty-three similar requests approved by the County Council." PC REPORT NO. 45 Connnuniurtion 547 Bill 174 Page 3. fhe approval of the reclassification from the State Land Use Agricultural District to the Rural District will not be violative of Section 205-2, Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes, nor will it be inconsistent with the Land Use Commission Rules, Rule 13 of the Planning Commission Rules of Practice and Procedures, the Hawaii County General Plan and the Hawaii State Plan based on the followine: • according to the Hawaii Land Use Commission Rules, the following three standards shall apply when determining an area for the Rural district boundaries: I . Areas consisting of'small farms; provided that the areas need not be included in this district if their inclusion will alter the general characteristics of the areas; 2. Activities or uses as characterized bylow-density residential lots of not less then one- half acre and a density of not more than one single-family dwelling, per one-half acre in areas where "city-like" concentration of people, structures, streets, and urban level of services are absent, and where small farms are intermixed with the low-density residential lots; and 3. Generally, parcels of land not more than five acres; provided it may include other parcels of land which are surrounded by, or contiguous to this district, are nut suited to low-density residential uses for small farm or agricultural uses. 4. hhe Planning Director recommended favorably on this request based on the following: • ~fhe request conforms to both the Land Use Commission Rules and the Hawaii State Plan. Land Use Commission Rules encourage compatible and low-density residential uses with a minimum lot size of unc-half acre, except as provided by County ordinance pursuant to Section 46-4(c), Ilawai'i Revised Statutes. • "fhe action also complements the band Use and Dousing elements of the General Plan by providing additional rural and residential-agricultural housing opportunities in designated areas. • The Rural classification is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on abniculture activities, to traditional, cuswmary Hawaiian rights or resources, nor is it adjacent to the shoreline. At today's meeting ('ouncil Member I loffmann reminded everyone of the survey he had taken of the people in Waimea who indicated their strong preference not to have him approve any of these particular rezonings or redistricting and dial continued upzoning and increased density is not what the people in Waimea feel is important. He said the community felt that infrastructure in this particular area would not withstand additional homes and that traffic along Kawaihac Road is stretched to the limit at the moment. PC REPORT NO. 45 Communication 547 Bill 174 Page 3 Mr. Hoffmann slated that the community has consistently reaftirmed their staunch opposition to this type of clTort until a Conununity Development Plan is completed. He asked the Council to be cognizant of wh,u his constituents in Waimea have indicated and that we're all together trying to work for the good of Ibis County. (bunch Member Jacobson stated he is going to oppose Bill 174, despite the fact that in the past he did vote for some oi'these rezonings and reclassifications. He stated he re-examined his opinion in light of Mr. Hoffmann's survey and what he said was that this falls under "death by a thousand cuts." One lot cut in half realh~ doesn't mean too much, but when you cut lot after lot after lob you start doubling your density. Mr. Jacohson concluded that until proper planning and adequate in5~astructure is in place, he views this as rather unwise and for those reasons will oppose this BiII. In response ro Council Member Ur. Holschuh's questions, Applicant's representative Mr. Gregory R. Moocrs, staled the land is vacant and Applicant intends to build his home on one lot and sell the other. Mr. Moocrs said he is on the Board of Directors of Anekona Estates Subdivision which is just to the east of the Kauchoa Esta~cs Subdivision and that his community association is in strong support of'these rezonings. He stated the association has amended the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("CC& R's) of their subdivision to allow division of each original lot into no more than two final lots. Mr. Moocrs stated to Dr. Holschuh that he thinks each subdivision ought to be evaluated on its merit, based on conunents from agencies, the Planning Commission and the public He states there have been over thirty of these rezoning requests already processed and approved, meaning 120 public hearings. He noted that in those 120 public hearings he's attended, there was never a member of the public, an agency rcprescn~ativc ur the Planning Commission who opposed one of these rezonings. Mr. Moocrs said 8 lugs remain ghat have not doubled their density and only two lots (Applicant's lot and npplicant's neighbor) that already have a second water metes The other remaining lots have one water meter each and that wells in Ouli may resolve water problem in the area. He also said Applicant's lot does not have drainage or hooding problems, just a low spot where water collects. Council Member .lacobson stated he believes in consistency and that the council should look at the whole and the needs of all people on this island and that the District of Waimea is more than these thirty or sixty lot owners. l lc also noted our dwindling water supply and that the General Plan was amended many times hclbro, mostly for developers and that he doesn't think the General Plan makes a good argument to support npplicam~s request. Council Member Virginia Isbell asked Mr. Moocrs what the prior administration's rationale was when it tried to subdivide ~hc emirs area'? Mr.Mooers stated that prior zoning was "unplanned" and in those days people were using the Condominium Property Regime ("CPR") hi develop lands and the County would always oppose CPRs in the area. Then two or three years later it was the Planning Director's initiative to suppoil change of zone in the area. No members of the public presented testimony on Bill 174. PC KEPORT NO. 45 Communication 547 Bill 174 Page 4 A motion to approve this measure received four auc voles. According to Council rules, five aye votes are needed to pass a measure. Therefore, your Committee on Planning forwards Bill No. 174 to the Council with a negative recommendation mpd nvxs ~uuHS n&e ~ xx Respectfully submitted, ARAKAKI X _ HIGA X COMMIT'T'EE ON PLANNING HOFFMANN X HOLSCHUH X IKEDA X . - tseELt, X K- Angel Pilago, Chair .rncoesoN - - - X _ rlLACO X I - .SA FARIK - - - X- - C PC REPORT NO. _ 4_5_ _ _ ADOPTED: OFFICE INFORMATION ONLY Meeting: December 21, 2005 - Council Meeting (27th Session) Action: Bill 174 passed first reading PC Report 45 transmitted the above bill with a "negative recommendation" due to a vote of 4 ayes, 3 noes, and 2 absent& excused. Re: C-547/BILL 174!PC-45