Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 094 07/06/2006 2004-2006 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: July 6, 2006 Re: Comm. No. 884Bi11 No. 282 PLACE: Council Chambers TIME: 2:00 p.m. Council Chair and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Planning, to which was refereed Bill No. 282, reports as follows: Bill No. 282, transmitted via Communication No. 884 from Mayor Harry Kim, dated April 26, 2006, presents a Change of Zone Request by Big Island Candies, Inc. at Waiakea House Lots, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-2-34:66, 78, 79. Bill No. 282 seeks to amend Section 25-8-33 (City of Hilo Zone Map), Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), by changing the District Classification from Single Family Residential - 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to General Commercial - 20,000 squaze feet (CG- 20) at Waiakea Houselots, Hawaii, for Parcel "A", containing an area of 22,500 square feet, Parcel "B", containing an area of 11,900 square feet, more or less and Parcel "C", containing an area of 11,900 squaze feet, more or less. Communication No. 884 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 March 9, 2006. Although the Planning Director recommended approval of the application, the Commission voted to send an unfavorable recommendation to the Council based on concerns regarding impacts to the community and the legality of the process. The Commission noted the proposed zoning change does not conform to and is not allowed under the current General Plan designation of medium density but that the Planning Director is initiating a General Plan amendment to High Density Urban for these properties. The Commission also noted the rezoning of these properties will not take effect until the General Plan amendment is adopted and that the General Plan process did not involve the "larger picture" of what the community wants. Communication No. 884 transmits the following findings and recommendations: 1. The subject property, owned by Big Island Candies, Inc., comprises three parcels of land that aze adjacent to the existing Big Island Candies facility. Parcel 66, located on the northeast corner of Kekuanaoa and Hirano Streets, contain two existing residences proposed for demolition in the future. Parcel 78 is vacant and fronts Laukapu Street and located immediately south of the existing facility. Parcel 79, also vacant, is located on the northwest corner of Kekuanaoa Street and Laukapu Street, immediately south of and adjacent to pazcel 78, at Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii. 2. Applicant is requesting a change of zone from Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet (RS- 10) to General Commercial 20,000 square feet (CG-20) to allow for an additional production storage facility and related uses. PC REPORT NO. 94 Communication 884 Bill 282 Page 2 of 5 3. Applicant proposes to construct an approximately 25,000 - 26,000 square foot two-story structure on Pazcels 78 and 79 and, some time in the future, utilize the remaining Pazcel 66 for an open area for visitors. The proposed facility will provide additional production capacity and assist in optimizing production efficiency as well as additional cold storage and wazehouse storage space to support current operations and expand the retail line. 4. Applicant states one of the main objectives for the rezoning and future landscaping is to enhance visual quality of the visitor experience as well as the visual character of the surrounding area. Applicant states the cost of the project is approximately $2.5 million. 5. Access to the project site will be utilized as follows: Pazcel 66 will utilize the existing driveways on Kekuanaoa Street. Pazcels 78 and 79 will take access from Laukapu Street as well as the existing driveways on Pazcel 67. Access shall be prohibited from Kekuanaoa Street, except for access to the two existing homes until the homes are demolished. 6. County water, electricity and telephone services are available to the site. 7. The properties are connected to the County's sewer line, a Solid Waste Management Plan has been prepared and solid waste generated by the project will be incorporated into the existing process established for solid waste disposal. 8. The Planning Director's favorable recommendation on this request based on the following: • The Change of Zone request 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 component of the General Plan is representative of goals and policies that guide the coordinated growth and development of the County, and designates this area as Medium Density Urban. • General Commercial (CG) uses are not permitted in the Medium Density Urban designation and a General Plan Amendment from Medium Density Urban to High Density Urban is required to allow the proposed uses. The Planning Director is considering an amendment to the General Plan land use designation for the affected properties as part of an interim amendment package and a condition will be included stating that the Change of Zone will not become effective until the General Plan amendment is adopted. • The State Land Use designation and the Land Study Bureau's Productivity Rating for the project site is Urban and the Hilo Community Development Plan (CDP) adopted in 1975, suggests retention of residential uses in this azea. However, land uses in the immediate azea are a mix of residential, commercial and industrial uses. The proposed change of zone would compliment the existing commercial land uses that already exist. • The Change of Zone request is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes relating to Coastal Zone Management as the subject properties aze not proximate to the shoreline and will not be impacted by coastal hazard and beach erosion. PC REPORT NO. 94 Communication 884 Bi11282 Page 3 of 5 • No valued cultural, historical or natural resources exist on the properties and there is no evidence of any traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights being practiced on the properties. • Requisite of the Planning Director's favorable recommendation for the Change of Zone request, aze nineteen (19) conditions contained in Bill No. 282 that outline specific requirements for the proposed project. Condition B provides the Change of Zone shall be effective only if the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map for the project is amended to High Density Urban. By letter to Chairman Higa and Council Members dated April 26, 2006 from Planning Director Chris Yuen, Director Yuen states the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the current Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map because it requests a CG zone, while the LUPAG Map calls for Medium Density Urban. Director Yuen concluded that after consulting with Corporation Counsel, it is the Department's position this is a gray azea in the current law and that it would be a safer process if the council did not enact the proposed rezoning until the General Plan amendment was approved. At the July 6, 2006 Planning Committee meeting Committee Chair Pilago noted that no representative from the Planning Depardnent was present despite several attempts by his staff to arrange for a Planning staff person to attend. Committee Vice Chair Hoffmann stated that Director Yuen's letter regarding the change of zone restricts what this Committee can do and it was clear that the council should not act on this request. However, he was not clear what action could be taken and although he had no real problem with this application, if this matter proceeds, precedence would be established. Council Chair Higa stated his support for this application but noted he was irritated about the fact that Director Yuen previously discussed these General Plan amendments with Mr. Tsukazaki and the applicant a long time ago. He said although the Director promised the interim amendments would be made, it has not been done yet. Mr. Higa noted that Big Island Candies has been a tremendous benefit to the community and a good neighbor and has had to wait since last summer for Mr. Yuen's interim General Plan amendments. Mr. I-Iiga reminded the committee that applicant is not adding more retail space, only a much needed storage and production facility that fits with the overall scheme of the general area. Attorney for Big Island Candies, Ben Tsukazaki said he doesn't think the council is bound by Director Yuen's letter. Mr. Tsukazaki stated he did try to get Mr. Yuen to move this application forwazd without a General Plan amendment but that it was the manner in which Mr. Yuen amended the General Plan is why applicant now has to wait for General Plan approval before proceeding with his rezoning. He stated applicant is not hiring more employees and just needs additional storage area and so he wants the council to move this application forward with a condition that it takes effect when the General Plan is amended. Mr. Tsukazaki then said he never agreed with Director Yuen's interpretation that no action be taken and therefore wants the committee to decide that applicant does not need to wait for the amendment. When asked by Mr. Higa whether applicant could go ahead and build its facility if the committee passed the measure, Mr. Tsukazaki responded yes. However, Committee Vice Chair Hoffmann noted that Condition B states that could not be done and if the measure was passed as written, applicant in fact, can not do anything pursuant to Condition B. PC REPORT NO. 94 Communication 884 Bill 282 Page 4 of 5 Committee Chair Pilago noted that when the Director comes before the Committee at the July 31, 2006 Planning meeting, these amendments will be discussed. Mr. Pilago noted that the Committee has two options: vote now and move it on to full council or, the other much cleaner way, is to wait for approval of the General Plan Amendment and then discuss the application in August. Mr. Pilago stated the choice would be up to Mr. Tsukazaki. Council Member Jacobson stated that the process is very important and that this body should not disregard the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the Planning Director. He also said he has a problem with taking the advice from a developer's attorney and wants to postpone this matter until Planning staff is available and said he is uncomfortable ignoring the laws of this state. Council Member Arakaki noted that in the past the entire area was designated light industrial until the General Plan down zoned it. He stated thatjust azound the block commercial zonings were granted to other properties and he didn't think this applicant needs to wait for a General Plan amendment. Mr. Tsukazaki stated he'd like to move this forward and, if the General Plan is heard on July 31, 2006, asked whether this matter could be added to the agenda so that when the General Plan is entertained, further action on this application can be done at the same time. He stated his clients do not want to delay final action until September and his preference is to have this committee take action today. Council Member Jacobson's motion to postpone this matter fails. Committee Chair Pilago stated he will be voting against this application as the General Plan needs to be addressed first. However, Mr. Pilago stated that after approval of the General Plan amendments he would then support this application. Council Chair Higa said one of the problems they had in looking at the General Plan amendments was that it seemed the Planning Director has the power of telling the Council what it can and can not do. What concerns him is that promises were made in the past that haven't been delivered and he intends to take a long look at Mr. Yuen's interpretation. Mr. Higa has no problem approving this application because that's what is needed in his district. Committee Vice Chair Hoffinann stated that legally, the committee can't go ahead on its own without a General Plan amendment and therefore wants to be careful so as not to put the committee in a bind since this measure cannot be passed until the amendments are approved. Mr. Tsukazaki agreed that rezonings cannot happen unless it is consistent with the General Plan, however, what he is saying is that the council has the authority to interpret and decide if the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. The Director provided his interpretation, but the Council is not legally bound to it and the Council can make its own interpretation. Mc Tsukazaki concluded if the committee looked closely at this application, it will find applicant's proposal does not require a General Plan amendment. PC REPORT NO. 94 Communication 884 Bill 282 Page 5 of 5 Your Committee on Planning is in accord with the purpose and intent of Bill No. 282 and recommends it pass first reading. and AYES NOES A&E EX Respectfully submitted, ARAKAHI X HIGA X COMIvIITTEE ON PLANNING HOFFMANN X HOLSCHUH X II~DA X ~ \I LSBELL X JACOBSON X K. ANGEL PILA PILAGO X PC REPORT NO. 94 sAFARHC x a,DOPTED: .1111 1 9 7f106