Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 057 04/04/2006 2004-2006 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: April 4, 2006 Re: Comm. No. 691Bi11 No. 228 PLACE: Council Chambers TIME: 1:00 p.m. Council Chair and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Communication No. 691 and attached Bill 228, transmitted by Mayor Harry Kim, dated February 6, 2006, regarding a change of zone request by JOHN TOTAH at Kaloko, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-3-26:13. Your Committee reports as follows: Bill No. 228 seeks to amend Section 25-8-2 (North and South Kona District Zone Map) Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), by changing the District Classification of approximately 21.474 acres of land from Agricultural 20-acre (A-20a) to Agricultural 10-acre (A-l0a). Communication No. 69] reports that the Hawaii County Planning Commission, as required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6-4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter, considered the above request on January 20, 2006. The Commission concurred with the Planning Director's favorable recommendation for approval of this matter. Communication No. 691 transmits the following findings and recommendations: 1. The subject property is located on the south side of Kaloko Drive in the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision at approximately the 3,400-foot elevation. Surrounding lands to the west and northwest are zoned A-l0a and A-7a, in low density agricultural/residential use and surrounded by pasture and forest land. Forest lands of Makaula-Ooma abut the subdivision to the north at the 2,100 to 3,500-foot elevation and Bishop Estate lands of Kaupulehu abut the property to the north at the 3,500 5,400-fr elevations. 2. The applicant intends to subdivide the subject parcel into two lots of approximately ten acres in size to be used as residential/agricultural lots and proposes to construct a dwelling on each lot at a cost of approximately $350,000 each. 3. Proposed access to the properties is from Kaloko Drive, a 22-foot wide paved roadway with 8-foot grass shoulders within an 80-foot right-of--way. Kaloko Drive intersects with the Mamalahoa Highway approximately four miles below the subject property. 4. To address the Department of Transportation concerns regarding the numerous rezonings in the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision and the cumulative impacts of these changes on the Mamalahoa Highway and Kaloko Drive intersection, the DOT has recommended the following: 1) illuminate the intersection at night; 2) channelize turning movements at the intersection; and 3) provide other safety improvements. 5. Water can be made available from a 6-inch waterline in Kaloko Drive. The Department of Water Supply considers the Kaloko Mauka Water System a separate system from other systems in Kona and consists of transmission and distribution lines, pump stations and seven PC REPORT NO. 57 Communication 691 Bi11228 Page 2 of 5 reservoirs that extend to the 5,000-ft elevation. The reservoirs have a capacity of 500,000 gallons. All other essential utilities and services are or will be made available to the site. 6. In 1982 the `Alala Recovery Plan, completed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with the `Alala Recovery Team, recommended that certain selected essential habitats be preserved and properly managed. To properly manage these habitats to provide for the continued existence of the `Alala, the plan recommends that lands of Kaloko above approximately the 3,200 feet to 3,400 feet elevation, be designated an essential habitat for the `Alala. The subject property is located in Block 7 at the 3,400-foot elevation. 7. The Office of State Planning's five-year State Land Use Boundary Review, Water Resources Research Center recommends that the high rainfall and fog-drip area mauka of the 2,000-foot elevation be redesignated into the Conservation District for protection as a watershed recharge area.. The subject property is located at the 3,400-foot elevation is within the watershed recharge area. 8. Resolution No. 58-97 adopted in 1997, established the Council's policy relating to rezonings within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision. It established a maximum density of two dwellings per twenty acres for lands above the 3,000-foot elevation, with conditions that will protect the watershed, native forests and maintain low density patterns. The Resolution also recommended that the Planning Commission consider favorably, A-l0a zoning requests for only parcels in the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision located above the 3,000-foot elevation and included the conditions stated in Resolution 58-97, provided the request complies with other goals, policies, and standazds of the General Plan. 9. The Planning Director recommended favorably on this request based on the following: • The Change of Zone request from Agricultural 20-acre (A-20a) to the Agricultural 10-acre (A-l0a) district will conform to the goals, policies and standards of the General Plan Economic and Land Use elements. • The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map designates the subject area as Important Agricultural Land and the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) designates the property as Zone "X", an area determined to be outside of the 500-year flood plain. • The property is designated as Other Important Agricultural Land (DIAL) by the Agricultural Lands in the State of Hawaii (ALISH) System. OIALs are lands other than Prime or Unique Agricultural Land that is of statewide or local importance for production of food, feed, fiber and forage crops. • The Change of Zone request is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes relating to Coastal Zone Management as the subject property is located approximately eight miles mauka of the shoreline and will not be impacted by coastal hazard and beach erosion. • There have been several archaeological studies conducted in the azea. No formal archaeological reconnaissance survey, oral history of kamaaina accounts of the area, historical survey of documentary records or botanical study was included in the PC REPORT NO. 57 Communication 691 Bi11228 Page 3 of 5 application. The parcel was the subject of a reconnaissance survey in 1970 and 1971 as well as a ]991 National Park Service Study, which study identified remains of an agricultural field system up to the 3,500-foot elevation. • Conditions are being imposed to address potential adverse visual impacts clearing the property for home sites and agricultural uses may have upon upland forest chazacter, as well as to preserve the forest corridor along the roads of Kaloko Mauka Subdivision. Also recommended is a condition to restrict construction of second dwellings on each lot, preparation of a conservation plan for each lot and a "fair share" contribution to mitigate any potential impacts. • Requisite of the Planning Director's favorable recommendation for the Change of Zone request, are twelve conditions contained in Bill No. 228 that are necessary to prevent circumstances that may be adverse to public health, safety and welfare as well as are reasonably conceived to fulfill the needs of the public. At the Apri14, 2006 Planning Committee meeting, public testimony was received from Jcel Gimpel representing the Kona Traffic Safety Committee. Mr. Gimpel disagreed that the subject rezoning would have minimal impacts upon traffic conditions in the Kaloko Mauka area. Mr. Gimpel also stated that the community is entitled to an accounting of "fair share" contributions to date, to know when the Kaloko Drive/Mamalahoa Highway intersection improvements will begin and who will construct these improvements. Mr. Gimple concluded that the cumulative impacts of past and upcoming rezonings in the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision have not been adequately addressed and cautioned against any further rezoning approvals in this area. Planning Committee Chair Pilago asks Vice Chair Pete Hoffmann to conduct the meeting and called the applicant's representative Greg Mooers to provide an update summary of applicant's request. Mr. Norman Hayashi, representing the Planning Department, was also present. Mr. Mooers gave a summary that the request is consistent with prior Council resolutions with regard to the 10-acre minimum lot size in Kaloko Mauka Subdivision. He also noted the Planning Commission and Planning Department's favorable recommendations for approval. Mr. Mooers said that despite the fact there is approximately $400,000 collected from fair share assessments attributable to rezonings in Kaloko Mauka Subdivision, there is probably another $110,000 From the approximately eleven pending rezoning applications. Mr. Mooers stated that improvements to the Mamalahoa Highway/Kaloko Drive intersection is not happening and that despite Department of Transportation's comment that this particular intersection is inferior, the State has not stated any clear mechanics to design the intersection project nor is it willing to fund the improvements. Committee Chair Pilago stated that as accelerated rezonings in this subdivision have come through to date, certain land use patterns have been established and he cautioned that the further we move along and approve these applications, the more difficult will it be to correct. Mr. Pilago suggested holding off on further rezonings in Kaloko Mauka Subdivision until the Kona Community Development Plan is validated. Mr. Pilago stated that current traffic problems and much needed infrastructure improvements need to get better first and urged denial of the application for the greater public good. PC REPORT NO. 57 Communication 691 Bi11228 Page 4 of 5 Norman Hayashi stated that the department did receive a cost estimate and analysis in response to the County's request for a study and that they are in touch with the Department of Transportation regarding intersection improvements. Mr. Hayashi estimates that the $400,000 is enough to do the intersection improvements, but not installation of signalization. The study estimated a cost of $350,000 to construct intersection improvements, but the signalization costs were not part of that estimate. Mr. Hayashi also stated he was not sure where the Watershed area started, but the department was following Council resolutions that it's okay to rezone. Council Member Jacobson noted that the applicant's statement that there is minimal or no impact as a result of the rezoning does not necessarily make it true. Mr. Jacobson said the density in Kaloko Mauka Subdivision has more than doubled in some instances and further rezonings cannot be justified by the fact that these kinds of rezonings have been done before. Mr. Jacobson confinned with Mr. Hayashi that original lot sizes in Kaloko was 20-acres and noted that there are already a variety of A-3 and A-5 rezonings that have increased density four or six-fold in many sections of Kaloko Mauka Subdivision. Council Vice Chair Isbell stated the need to determine the total amount of fair share contributions and whether or not this application is approved, the intersection improvements still need to be made. The traffic situation in this area is not functioning because Kaloko Mauka Subdivision has been "nit-picked" at for years. Ms. Isbell concluded we need to stop and take a look at Kaloko and protect the forest. The Planning Department needs to come through with a very clear statement because although there is a condition in all these rezonings that require SO% of every single lot remain in forest, this is not being done. Therefore Ms. Isbell is not supporting anything in Kaloko. Committee Member Safarik discussed the State ownership of that portion of the Mamalahoa Highway that intersects with Kaloko Mauka and the fact that this particulaz improvement project has not been a part of or included on the State Transportation Improvement Project ("STIP") list. Mr. Safarik stated that the County can do everything it can, but if the particular project is not included in the STIP, the project can't move forward. Mr. Mooers responded that the State wants the County to identify the improvements to be made, then the Department of Transportation wants to approve the proposed project and then have the County pay for it. Mr. Safarik stated that he sees the dilemma, however potential rezoning of other 20-acre parcels will definitely increase density in the area and eventually something has to be done with that intersection. Mr. Safarik concluded these discussions are long overdue. Council Chair Higa stated that the applicant knew at the time he purchased the property, that it was zoned A-20 and therefore he is leaning towards holding off on these kinds of applications until completion of the Community Development Plan for Kona. Chair Higa also stated he'd like to wait for the fair share dollar figures to come back from the Planning Department. Council Member Safarik acknowledged Mr. Mooers' statement that Mr. Mooers as well as other consultants are not clear as to the direction this council is taking with respect to development in this area. Mr. Safarik stated however, when the General Plan authorized initiation of a CDP for Kona, the concept of concurrency was evident and concluded what is consistent, is that any development that is approved, infrastructure must be able to carry it. Mr. Safarik agreed that both the legislature and administration need to come up with a policy. PC REPORT NO. 57 Communication 691 Bi11228 Page 5 of 5 Committee Vice Chair Pete Hoffmann reiterated the Department of Transportation's concerns regarding past rezonings, land use changes and cumulative impacts as well as the need for traffic safety improvements. Mr. Hoffmann stated it is time to make these improvements and a line needs to be drawn. He stated that unless the needed changes at Mamalahoa Highway and Kaloko Drive are completed, he will not approve applications such as this. Mr. Mooers stated discussions regarding improvements have been going on longer than this current rezoning request and that the problem has been coordination between the State and County. Mr. Mooers suggested that the council allow applicants this rezoning but withhold subdivision approval until infrastructure improvements at Mamalahoa Highway and Kaloko Mauka Subdivision intersection are made. Council Member Ikeda supported the idea of including a condition that applicant cannot subdivide until infrastructure improvements were complete and suggested a postponement to the next Committee Meeting on May Is`. Council Member Safarik expressed concern that postponing would send mixed messages. Committee Chair Pilago spoke against postponement and stated that despite the noted recommendations of the Planning Commission and the Planning Department, this body does not rubber stamp approvals and stated that the matter should be voted up or down. Council Member Holschuh spoke in favor of postponement if the condition suggested by Council Member Ikeda was made. The Motion to postpone Bill 228 was defeated. A motion to approve this measure received seven no votes. Pursuant to Council Rules, 5 aye votes are needed to pass a measure. Therefore, your Committee on Planning forwards Bill No. 228 to the Council with a negative recommendation. and AYES NOES A&E EX Respectfully submitted, ARAKAKI X HIGA X COMMITTEE ON PLANNING HOFFMANN X HOLSCHUH X IKEDA X ISBELL X K. Angel Pila ,Chair JACOBSON X PILAGO X SAFARIK X PC REPORT NO. 57 ADOPTED: