Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 119 07/31/2006 2004-2006 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: July 31, 2006 Re: Comm. No. 953Bi11 No. 305 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 Bill No. 305, reports as follows: Bill No. 305, transmitted via Communication No. 953 from Mayor Harry Kim, dated June 2Q, 2006, presents a Change of Zone Request by Ivan Mochida at Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-2-36: 102 & 103. Bill No. 305 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 Multiple Family Residential - 2,500 Squaze Feet (RM-2.5) at Waiakea, South Hilo, containing an area of 67,500 square feet. Communication No. 953 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 June 2, 2006. There were four votes in favor of a motion to send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council. The lack of five affirmative votes constitute a "no action" by the Commission as required by Section 13-4(I), Hawai`i County Charter. Under Section 25-2-42(d)(3) and Planning Commission Rules 11-3(b)(2), the Commission's non-action constitutes an unfavorable recommendation. The Planning Director recommended favorably on the change of zone application. Communication No. 953 transmits the following findings and recommendations: I. The properties are located on both sides of Laukapu Street between Lanikaula Street and Leilani Street, Waiakea Houselots, Waikea, South Hilo, Hawaii. TMK 2-2-36: parcels 102 and 103, aze owned by Ivan Mochida Trust and, TMK 2-2-36: parcel 60 is owned by the Aburamen Trust. 2. Applicants initially requested a change of zone from Single Family Residential - 10,000 Squaze feet (RS-10) to Multiple Family Residential - 2,500 Square Feet (RM-2.5) for approximately 90,400 Squaze feet of land. Subsequently, applicants requested deferral of action on TMK: 2-2- 36: Pazcel 6Q, owned by the Aburamen Tmst and located on the east side of Laukapu Street until such time the General Plan LUPAG Map designation is amended from an Industrial designation to a Medium Density Urban designation. If the General Plan amendment is approved by the Council, rezoning of Parcel 60 will resume. Currently, the proposed project now only includes TMK: 2-2-36: 102 & 103 on the west side of Laukapu Street. 3. Applicant proposes to construct four (4) two-story structures approximately 25 feet in height instead of the originally requested five (5) two-story structures. The original proposal provided for at least 20% of the units were proposed at the affordable level, while remaining units sold at market prices. Commencement of construction proposed for early 2007 and occupancy towards the end of the year, at a cost of approximately $8 million. PC Report No. 119 Communication 953 Bill 305 Page 2 of S 4. Access to the project site is proposed from Laukapu Street, a County road with 20-foot wide pavement and grassed shoulders with a 40-foot right-of--way. As part of the rezoning approval, a five-foot road widening strip along Lanikaula Street was required and applicants state if required, sidewalks will be constructed in front of the project site. The Department of Public Works recommends applicants provide full improvements to the entire frontages along Laukapu Street consisting of, but not limited to, pavement widening with concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, drainage improvements, and any required utility relocation. 5. County water, electricity and telephone services are available to the site and the project will connect to the County sewer line and, if required, a Solid Waste Management Plan shall be prepared. 6. 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 for pazcels 102 and 103 (west side of Laukapu Street) and Industrial for pazcel 60 (east side of Laukapu Street. Until a General Plan amendment is approved, the requested zone change would be inconsistent with the current LUPAG designation of Industrial for parcel 60. Therefore, applicants have requested a deferral of action on parcel 60 until the General Plan amendment is approved by the County Council. • The State Land Use designation for the property is Urban and is unclassified by the Land Study Bureau's Productivity Rating. The Hilo Community Development Plan (CDP) adopted in 1975, suggests retention of residential uses in this area. However, land uses in the immediate area aze a mix of residential and commercial and the proposed change of zone would complement the existing land uses in the area and provide for orderly development. To keep the proposed development more compatible with existing single-family dwellings in the area, a condition will be included to restrict the height of proposed structures to 35 feet and the Planning Director is requiring two (2) parking spaces per unit to avoid overflow of vehicles onto Laukapu Street. • The Change of Zone request is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes relating to Coastal Zone Management as the subject properties are not located ni the Special Management Area and will not be impacted by coastal hazard and beach erosion. • 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. Thus, it is not anticipated that the proposed request will have any adverse impact on cultural or historical resources in the area. • The project site is located within Zone "X," an area determined to be outside the 500-year floodplain. All development generated storm run-off shall be disposed of on-site and not allowed onto adjacent properties or roadways. PC Report No. 119 Communicalion 953 Bi11305 Page 3 of 8 • Requisite of the Planning Director's favorable recommendation for the Change of Zone request, aze twenty-one (21) conditions contained in Bill No. 305 that outline specific requirements for the proposed project. At the July 31, 2006 Planning Committee meeting there were four persons who presented testimony in opposition to the proposed project. Lloyd Nekoba, stated there is no affordable housing element for this project since the parcel that the affordable units were to be built on was taken out of the application. Ms. Keoni Heraldi's opposition was due to current road conditions, major accidents that have occurred in the azea and cars speeding throughout the day and night. Mrs. Victoria Abe's opposition was primarily because of lack of infrastructure in a houselot community of this size, and that the project does not provide adequate open space for yards or parks. Mrs. Abe said if an Improvement District process meant it would cost the community money to correct the current lack of adequate infrastructure, then she wants the area left the way it is. Mrs. Miriazn Hamakawa presented opposition testimony on behalf of herself and three sisters. She stated Waiakea Houselots is an old subdivision created before rules were in place to address flooding roads and parking. She requests denial of applicant's request, however, if the Council should approve the rezoning, she believes the applicant should have to provide on-site drainage for 20- year storm and pave all shoulders. She also stated the 10-year storm limit should be increased to a 20- year limit. Council Member Arakaki asked Planning Consultant Fuke if applicant would prefer to postpone this matter for a while, talk to the community again and re-configure the project. Applicant, Ivan Mochida stated that due to construction deadlines and availability of supplies, etc. he would prefer the council move forward with his application. Mr. Arakaki stated that if at some point during the discussion Mr. Mochida decides he wants a postponement, Mr. Arakaki would make the request. Applicant's planning consultant Sidney Fuke stated that applicant's decision for the proposed project was made about two years ago after determining what could be done in the azea pursuant to the General Plan designation of medium density. Mr. Fuke said that azound 1991/1992 portions of area were redesignated into low density however, in 1997/1998 the General Plan changed the area back to a Medium Density designation upon which Mr. Mochida relied upon in making his decision for the proposed project. Mr. Fuke stated that even without the change of zone, Mr. Mochida could still subdivide his property into a b- lot residential subdivision with `Ghana dwellings on each lot. With respect to the traffic concerns, Mr. Mochida stated that all traffic from his project will occur inside the development not on the streets. Mr. Mochida said that although he is allowed to build 40 units, he did reduce the number of units to 25 units and designed the project to look like a mansion (split into six units) unlike a condo project and provides six entry and exit points to the project. With regard to flooding, Mr. Mochida said water is not going to the Mrs. Abe's side of the street, just on one side of Laukapu Street and that he will perform a massive drainage assessment to keep water "on-site". Committee Chair Pilago noted extraordinary testimony from neighbors in the community and recognizes qualifying strong values of both sides. Mr. Nekoba, stated he lives across the street from the proposed project and that Laukapu Street is a narrow street only 20-feet in width and, regazdless that curbing and sidewalks are required, it's only for the area fronting the project, and the rest remains unimproved. He said although it's a well designed project, there is no playground or recreational component to the project. Additionally, he reiterates that the affordable housing element has been removed and explained that a mortgage based on the proposed unit sale price of $400,000 would require a mortgage payment of approximately $2,500 per month. In response to Committee Chair Pilago's question whether they were PC Report No. 119 Communication 953 Bill 305 Page 4 of 8 still opposed to the project after hearing applicant's presentation and rationale, Mrs. Abe and Mrs. Hamakawa stated they still have concerns about parking because excess cars will end up on the street. Council Chair Higa stated for the record that he lives on the comer of Leilani and Laukapu Street and that traffic concerns are understandable as Laukapu Street has been the connector road since it's one way to access Kawili Street. He noted this is a tough matter for him because believes affordable units should be included in his azea and though the project does have merits, density has been a sticking point for him. Mr. Higa stated his opposition due to the density issue and noted his dilemma as he thinks the timing of this application is off and wished that Mr. Arakaki's suggestion of postponement was entertained. Mr. Higa commended Mr. Mochida for his past work with the county and his contributions in using his equipment to clear property in the area free of charge. Committee Vice Chair Hoffmann stated that given what was just said, would applicant entertain Mr. Arakaki's suggestion to postpone. Applicant's consultant, Sidney Fuke stated that reducing density to 16 units would not be feasible, especially since the project initially included Parcel 60 (Mr. Aburamen's pazcel), but has since been removed from this application due to an Industrial designation and that if approved, the affordable housing component would have to be built on Mr. Mochida's property. Council Member Ikeda expressed concern regarding pictures showing collection of water on the streets, drywells that fill up and ponding. Mr. Fuke responded that with or without the proposed project, flooding will still occur. Mr. Mochida said Council Member Ikeda was right, being close to sea level does have an impact on drainage and because of that he said the standard drywell would not be used on his project. Council Chair Higa noted that the flooding shown in the photograph of the doctor's lot is caused by the doctor's drywell being located in a wrong location (at the top of the doctor's property) and that additionally, water is coming from outside of the immediate area. Council Member Doc. Holschuh stated that if Ms. Hamakawa's issue regarding drainage could be agreed upon, maybe this could be worked out, but noted that if density had to be reduced to lower than what it is now, it can't be feasible to do the project. In response to Council Member Safarik's inquiry regarding the current medium density zoning and what can be developed there now, Mr. Fuke stated applicant could subdivide his pazcels into 6 lots, then sell each lot and request `ohana dwellings for each and then end up with 12 lots with no affordable housing requirement. Applicant stated he doesn't azgue that density he is requesting would be twice as much as currently zoned, but his issue is insurance premiums of which the dollar amount requirement for this project is too high. Mc Mochida noted that every department who looked at his application was okay with it and that his townhouse project would generate less traffic. Mr. Mochida noted that the police department did not have concerns and various studies completed with no objections. He noted that the rest of the people who are against his project aze home renters and because they are in an Industrial azea, he believes the community should be worried more about industrial uses and not concerned about his little project. Council Member Arakaki stated he still thinks it is a good idea to re-look at this project again. If less density (something less than 25), talk with the community and see what they could live with and take care of some of the problems. Mr. Arakaki thinks it will be worth the effort, otherwise the process would have to be started all over again. Mr. Arakaki noted it's known what happens under `ohana zonings, but a nice PC Report No. 119 Communication 953 Bill 305 Page 5 of 8 planned development could be compatible and better than `Ghana zonings and suggested applicant take a break, postpone this matter, look at the numbers and then come back again. Planning Director Yuen stated he recommends approval because of the need for affordable housing and that Wainaku is zoned for something like this. However, he said sewer availability needs to be upgraded. So if not in the Laukapu azea, there are no other real alternatives for affordable housing and when ranking compatibility with surcounding area, Mr. Yuen ranks multi-family housing first and industrial uses last. Director Yuen stated affordable housing is needed in Hilo, but that it is difficult to find areas within which to do it. Council Chair Higa stated he is still voting against this application, but had concerns with the `ohana aspect which may end up housing more people than what amulti-family residential unit will generate. Director Yuen stated there is no limit as to number of people per single family home, but occupants may be limited based upon sewer availability. Mr. Yuen stated a total of five unrelated people can occupy one house and that currently, the requirement is one and a quarter pazking space for each multi-family unit, however, Mr. Mochida is being required to provide two. Mc Fuke stated Mr. Mochida is now willing to postpone until next planning committee meeting. Upon Committee Vice Chair Hoffman's inquiry if postponement to the next meeting would be sufficient time for applicant, Mr. Higa stated he would have no problem with postponing this matter for two committee meetings. Motion made to postpone until first committee meeting in September. Committee Chair Pilago spoke against the postponement since the applicant had earlier expressed his desire to have this matter voted upon today and noted Mr. Nekoba's comment stating that postponing this matter would not make a difference. By a show of hands, this matter was postponed to the first Planning Committee meeting in September. At the October 18, 2006 Planning Committee meeting the applicant Ivan Mochida, Planning Consultant Sidney Fuke and Director Yuen were present. No testifiers were present at the Kona or Waimea Council Offices, however, at the new Council Chambers in the Ben Franklin Building in Hilo, public testimony was received from the following persons: Mrs. Toyama testified in opposition to Bill 315 and noted that she was extremely disappointed with the proposed development which will increase current density causing safety issues and give rise to increased traffic and congestion. She also expressed major concerns regarding increased surface runoff and flooding since Laukapu Street lacks proper infrastructure. Mrs. Miriam Hamakawa testified in opposition and noted she was willing to compromise to a reduction in units from 25 to 12 as density has been a big issue however, no compromise was reached. Mrs. Victoria Abe testified in opposition and noted her primary concern was to keep the neighborhood "single family residential." She understands that change happens and she is willing to compromise however, she feels that a density of 25 units negatively impacts the area. She stated that her husband asked Mr. Fuke whether Mr. Mochida would consider a compromise reducing the number of units from 25 to 12, but Mr. Mochida declined. Mrs. Abe stated that with respect to the other possibilities being discussed today, there is still no assurance that those possibilities will actually materialize in the future. ('Che Planning Committee is joined by Council Chair Higa and Council Member Safazik) PC Report No. 119 Communication 953 Bill 305 Page 6 of S Mr. Thomas Hirano testified that he owns property in Waiakea Houselots within a block of the proposed project. He spoke in favor of Bill No. 305 and stated that if changes to the community are well planned, the proposed project is a good location for a mixture of homes that addresses the lack of affordable housing. Mc Les Aburagen testified that he lived at Laukapu for almost thirty years and in his view, all objections to the proposed project can be resolved. He saw nothing wrong with the project and feels that applicant should get his change of zone. Mr. Lawrence Valverde testified in favor of the proposal. Mr. Valverde owns property directly in back of Mr. Mochida and is the lowest lot that has always had a water runoff problem. Mr. Valverde believes the project benefits the community by providing out of town students a place to rent when attending college. He said the community needs to step forward and give our children opportunities to purchase a home. Mr. Art Taniguchi testified in favor of project. He said he's seen many changes in the community over the years and believes if this project fits parameters of General Plan, meets all requirements and has the support of the Planning Director, it should be allowed to proceed. Mr. Taniguchi said he believes commercial type entities have enhanced the area and considers this proposal a step forwazd into the future. Mr. Lloyd Nekoba reiterated his continued opposition to the proposed project and distributed to Committee members photos of the area depicting the narrow roadways and flooding. Mr. Nekoba also noted that with a $400,000 price tag per unit, it is not "affordable." Council Member Ikeda noted that the people from the neighborhood who signed the Petition previously submitted to the committee, all live in the area and will be directly affected by this proposal. Because of that, Mr. Ikeda is supportive of the Petitioners' position especially since additional time was given to allow applicant to meet with these residents to resolve their concerns. Since that was not accomplished, he supports the petition owners in opposition to the project. Council Member Jacobson stated that residents have certain priority in matters such as this as it impacts them directly. Therefore, he would not support the change of zone. Planning Consultant Sidney Fuke provided an overview of the project and submitted proposed renderings of the project with an explanation of what transpired since the last meeting. Mr. Fuke stated this is a Townhouse-type project and, if approved, applicant's intent is to sell units at a price of between $250,000 and $400,000. However, if applicant proceeds with current zoning which allows for `ohana dwellings, this project would not provide rental units. Committee Chair Pilago noted that the reason for postponement of this matter was to broker a compromise between the applicant and residents and that is what the committee was looking forwazd to. Committee Chair Pilago asked Mr. Fuke to explain who initiated these contacts, who was contacted and the outcome of any such compromise. Mr. Fuke explained that some of the property owners he spoke to were here today and testified in favor of the project. Mr. Fuke stated that a compromise was primarily discussed with Mc Nekoba and conducted PC Report No. 119 Communication 953 Bill 305 Page 7 of S on an individual basis, not through calling a meeting and inviting neighbors to participate. Mr. Fuke explained that the issue was density and infrastructtue and that a project this size would require applicant to obtain insurance in an amount close to a million dollars. Therefore, applicant's new proposal is to reduce the number of units by one and therefore compromise discussions between residents and applicant failed. Mr. Fuke is now looking to the council to decide on applicant's revised proposal. Mr. Fuke gave background details of a prior change of zone involving Dr. Ching who lives on the block. Mr. Fuke said Dr. Ching's zone change required that he construct curb, gutter and sidewalks fronting his property which, to date, has not been done. Mr. Fuke said that applicant is hopeful that if Dc Ching completes his portion of the improvements and Mr. Mochida agreeing to improve the remainder, this would complete infrastructure improvement for a full block. Mr. Fuke said the new proposal limits the number of units to 24, provides two parking stalls per unit and requires improvement to the entire length of Laukapu Street (extending improvements from Dr. Ching's property to Council Chair Higa's property.) Mr. Fuke stated that an additional five feet along the road right of way is also required and, if improvements extend the entire length of Laukapu, Mr. Higa and other affected landowners would have to agree to give up five feet of their property to allow these improvements to be made. Should other landowners refuse to give up five feet of their property, then proposed improvements along the entire length of Laukapu Street would have to be made within the existing road right-of--way. Council Vice Chair Isbell stated she sees an attempt being made to put infrastructure in place and noted this would set the parameter for any future development in the area. Mr. Yuen stated it would in fact set a standard for the area and also be an improvement. He therefore remains in favor of the project. Mr. Nekoba stated that regardless of the sidewalk, curb and gutter improvements, there still remain impacts as a result of increased density. Council member Safarik noted that the Planning Commission did not support the Director's rationale for recommending approval Mr. Yuen stated his support is primarily to increase housing opportunities in Hilo. He said people will agree that more multi-family units aze needed, but tend to disagree where it should be built. He concluded there has always been hesitancy about this kind of a project when it's being proposed to neighborhoods such as this for the first time. Council Chair Higa stated he views Mc Mochida's new proposal as a template for the entire area and should the proposal succeed, he would need to declare a financial interest as this project impacts him directly. Mr. Higa stated he needs to study the situation more closely. Council Member Jacobson noted there were 69 petitioners who opposed this proposal and that approving the application is somewhat of an insult to the people who chose to live in this area and therefore will again vote against proposal. Committee Vice Chair Hoffmann noted that at the Planning Commission level strong community opposition was due to density issues and therefore the Commission decided not to accept the Director's recommendation. Mr. Hoffmann said that he was sorry no compromise was brokered and because of that suggested adding some kind of timeline for the improvements to be completed as outlined in Condition J. Mr. Fuke noted that the new proposal from Mr. Mochida was the result of unsuccessful compromise attempts with neighbors. Council Chair Higa stated he would like to see every street in his district have curbs, gutters and sidewalks and will be voting kanalua "no" at the present time until he gets more information and reserved PC Report No. 119 Communication 953 Bill 305 Page 8 of 8 his right at the council level. Council Vice Chair Isbell stated she will vote for this because it requires that curbs, gutters and sidewalks be provided and liked Mr. Hoffinami's idea of providing a time limit for these improvements to be made in light of the Dr. Ching situation. Council Chair Higa moved to amend Bill No. 305 as written and distributed by Mr. Fuke to the Committee. Mr. Higa also noted that in accordance with Rule No. 13.3 he identified his financial interest and reserved his right to vote. There was discussion whether to bifuracate the amendments and discuss each separately. Council Member Safarik noted point of order and that he still had the floor noting he wants the amendment to be taken in its entirety. The Committee voted to amend Condition J to provide a time limit to complete curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements. Mr. Nekoba and Mrs. Abe summarized their respective positions regarding failure of compromise attempts with applicant. Mr. Nekoba stated that reducing the number of units from 25 to 24 is not a compromise and that having sidewalks only on one side of the street is ridiculous. Mrs. Abe stated she was disappointed that no one contacted her until the beginning of October and doesn't feel what's happening is really a compromise. She feels that proposing sidewalks in front of their residences was just a bribe and that density is really what concerns all of them. A motion to approve this measure received four (4) aye votes. Pursuant to Council Rules, 5 aye votes are needed to pass a measure. Therefore, your Committee on Planning forwards Bill No. 305, as amended to Draft 2, to the Council with a negative recommendation. and AYES NOES A&E EX Respectfully submitted, ARAKAHI X HIGA X COMMITTEE ON PLANNING HOFFMANN X C~~/~ /J HOLSCHUH X //~lj II~DA X ~ ISBELL X / JACOBSON X K. ANGEL PILA ,CHAIR p~GO X PC REPORT NO. 119 SAFARIK X ADOPTED: OFFICE INFORMATION ONLY November 15, 2006 -Council Meeting (49a' Session) Meeting: Action: Passed Bi11305, Draft 2, on first reading - 11/15/06 Public Hearing Held - 9/ 14/06 Postponed - 10/31/06 PC Report 119 transmitted the above bill with a "negative recommendation" due to 4-ayes and 5-noes. BILL 305, DRAFT 2/C-953.12/PC-119 Re: