Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0964.017 2004-2006 Harry Kim Christopher J. Yuen Mayor Director 4~+t of pi«~ . r Brad Kurokawa, ASLA LEED® AP X02 6 ~ ? I .i Deputy Director (fl luntu of "IFRIrz£uttti PLANNING DEPARTM)9NT 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Ha HA'7 0-3043 - (808) 961-8288 • FAX (808) 961-8742 August 16, 2006 Honorable Stacy K. Higa, Chair and Members of the County Council COUNTY COUNCIL 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chair Higa and Members of the County Council: SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN INTERIM AMENDMENTS, BILL 309 Councilmembers have asked whether resort development could occur within the area around Honokohau Harbor if the Council enacted the proposed General Plan interim amendment E-4. This amendment would re-designate an area around the harbor from "Open" to "Urban Expansion." The short answer is no. The purpose of this letter is to explain why in more detail. The Council is aware that I oppose the concept of a major resort at the harbor, as explained in my July 17, 2006 letter to the Council, referring to Resolution No. 383-06 (since filed) which would have amended the General Plan to specifically allow resort uses. On the other hand, I have introduced amendment E-4, which would allow future zoning that could permit some range of urban uses around the harbor. The General Plan has a specific way of dealing with resort areas that has been basically consistent in the 1971, 1989, and 2005 General Plans. Resort areas are designated in the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map specifically as "Resort". In the 2005 LUPAG map, there is also "Resort Node" for the major resorts. The geographical areas where they are allowed are also listed as "resort" in the table of urban centers, resort areas, and industrial areas in the text of the General Plan. This is Table 14-5 in the 2005 General Plan; p. 81 in the 1989 General Plan; and p. 78-79 in the 1971 General Plan. Comm. No. Ref. To: PresMgf Ref. Ltote AUG 2 as Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Honorable Stacy K. Higa, Chair and Members of the County Council COUNTY COUNCIL Page 2 August 16, 2006 The various General Plans all identify four basic types of resort areas: "major", "intermediate", "minor", and "retreat." This is sec. 14.7.4 in the 2005 General Plan. A "major" resort has a maximum of 3000 visitor units, an "intermediate" resort has a maximum of 1500 units, a "minor" resort has a maximum of 500 units, and a "retreat" resort has a maximum of 50 units (100 were allowed before the 2005 General Plan.) Because of their relatively small scale, the retreat resorts are the only resorts that are not always specifically mapped in the LUPAG map. There is no listing of Honokohau or Kealakehe as a resort area of any kind in the 2005 General Plan, and no listing is proposed with Amendment E-4. In the 1989 General Plan, there was an "Intermediate" resort listed at Kealakehe and a "minor" resort listed at Honokohau on p. 81. These listings were removed along with the corresponding LUPAG map resort areas in the 2005 General Plan. The 2005 General Plan explains the purpose of the various land use designations on the LUPAG map on p. 14-7. "Resort Node" and "resort area" are two described categories where hotels are specifically mentioned as a use, and it is very clear that a major proposal such as the Jacoby development fits within one of those two resort categories. The General Plan describes an "Urban expansion area" as allowing "for a mix of high density, medium density, low density, industrial, industrial-commercial and/or open designations in areas where new settlements may be desirable, but where the specific settlement pattern and mix of uses have not been determined." The description in the 1989 General Plan was similar, but also had this sentence, which has been removed: "Within areas designated for development as resorts, portions of the resort area may be included in the urban expansion area." The removal of this sentence in the 2005 General Plan makes it clearer that a "resort" and an "urban expansion area" are different, but even under this sentence, the urban expansion area would have to be within an area designated in the text of the General Plan as a resort to allow resort development. The Jacoby development for Honokohau Harbor proposes 1700 timeshare and about 800 hotel units, for a total of about 2500 units. This clearly constitutes a "major resort" in the General Plan. To authorize zoning for a project of this size, the General Plan would have to be amended to list the area as a "major resort" on Table 14-5, and the LUPAG map would have to be amended to show a "resort node." If the project were scaled down to a maximum of 1500 visitor units, it would still need a General Plan amendment for an "intermediate resort" designation on Table 14-5, and a "resort area" designation on the LUPAG map. Honorable Stacy K. Higa, Chair and Members of the County Council COUNTY COUNCIL Page 3 August 16, 2006 This procedure is consistent with the actual practices followed in Hawaii County during the 1980's and 1990's. When a development came forward seeking a resort where it was not shown on the LUPAG map, it applied for and received a LUPAG map amendment to "resort", not "urban expansion," and was put on the list of resort areas as an intermediate or major resort. Some examples are Kuki'o, Kohanaiki, Awake'e, O'oma, and the "Hawaiian Riviera". On the other hand, the Manini'owali project, which was prohibited from having a hotel by the conditions of a land exchange, applied for and received an "Urban Expansion" designation. The proposed urban expansion LUPAG map amendment E-4 was meant to facilitate future zoning that would allow some urban uses around the harbor, such as commercial development, or businesses providing repairs and services to boats and ocean-related businesses. The future operation of the harbor, and its expansion, could have a synergistic relationship with land-based businesses on state land. The current LUPAG map shows the area around the harbor as "Open" and it is in an "Open" zone, where very few uses are permitted. Current laws governing commercial leases on state land, such as H.R.S. sec. 171-41(a), sec. 171-42, and sec. 171-60, require that these leases be consistent with county zoning. Thus, to have some future businesses around the harbor on state land, there should be a two-step process of amending the General Plan to urban expansion, then follow-up zoning for those uses. This is the basic idea behind E-4. I continue to oppose allowing a large growth-generating resort at Honokohau for the reasons stated in my earlier July 17 letter. A representative from Jacoby Development argued to the Council that the project could be accommodated within an "urban expansion" General Plan designation because this could allow CV ("Village Commercial") zoning or PD ("Project District") zoning. A hotel is a permitted use in a CV zone "when the design and use conform to the character of the area, as approved by the director", Haw. Cty. Code sec. 25-5-122(a), and it can be a permitted use in a PD zone. It is true that a hotel could be allowed by zoning in a CV zone, or a PD zone, that is not in an area designated as "Resort" in the General Plan. We have a few examples of small hotels in CV zones, like the Hotel Honoka'a Club or Kamuela Inn, that are not in "resort" areas listed in the General Plan or shown on the LUPAG map. But it would be stretching the concept to call such hotels a "resort." Like many issues in land use, this is a question of scale. A small hotel in a CV or PD zone may not have a great impact, but General Honorable Stacy K. Higa, Chair and Members of the County Council COUNTY COUNCIL Page 4 August 16, 2006 Plan is clear that minor, intermediate, and major resorts are significant and are supposed to be mapped as resorts in the LUPAG and specifically listed. Anything within the scale of a major, intermediate, or minor resort must be in a resort area designated in the text of the General Plan and shown on the LUPAG map. To say otherwise completely repudiates the purpose behind having these categories in the General Plan, and repudiates the consistent practice for many years. I will be happy to discuss these issues further with the Council if it wishes. Sincerer CHRISTOPHER J. N Planning Director CJY:pak Wpwin60/Chris2/General Plan Interim Amendments, Bill 309 cc: Mayor Harry Kim Corporation Counsel