Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 004 12/19/2006 2006-2008 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: December 19, 2006 Re: Comm. No. 680/Bill No. 220 PLACE: Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort & Spa TIME: 9:00 a.m. Council Chair and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Communication No. 680 and Bill No. 220, transmitted by Mayor Harry Kim, dated January 24, 2006, regarding a State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application by Timothy Lynn Gardner, at Keonepoko, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-5- 7:53 reports as follows: Bill No. 220 seeks to amend the State Land Use Boundaries Maps for the County of Hawaii by changing the District Classification from the Agricultural to the Urban District, for approximately 3.317 acres, at Keonepoko, Puna, Hawaii. Communication No. 680 reports that the Hawaii County Planning Commission, as required by Chapter 4, Section 6-4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter, considered the above request and accompanying Bill No. 220 on January 6, 2006. The Commission voted to send an unfavorable recommendation to the council and concurred with the Planning Director's reasons for the unfavorable recommendation as follows: 1. The property is owned by Timothy Lynn Gardner. Mr. Gazdner is requesting approval to reclassify approximately 3.317 acres from the State Land Use Agricultural District to the Urban. 2. The subject property is located along the northeast side of the Keaau-Pahoa Road (Highway 130), approximately 1,500 feet north of the Pahoa Village Market Complex, Keonepoko Homesteads, Puna, Hawaii. 3. The applicant is also requesting a concurrent Change of Zone (Bill 221) by changing the District Classification from Agricultural (A-la) to Industrial-Commercial Mixed (MCX 1- a). 4. The applicant is requesting the State Land Use Boundary Amendment and the Change of Zone in order that he may utilize the entire 3.317-acre pazcel to construct nine (9) single- story steel buildings. The building will be divided into individual self-storage units of approximately 56,200 square feet under roof, and will include an office space of approximately 200 square feet. Applicant states that office hours will be 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and will employ one full time and one part-time employee on site. The facility will be PC Report No. 4 Communication 680 Bill 220 Page 2 of 7 managed by A-American Self-Storage Management Co. with construction to be completed within twelve (12) months at an estimated cost of $2.5 to $3 million. 5. The subject property is surrounded by lands designated State Land Use Agricultural and is not contiguous to Urban designated lands. The closest urban-designated lands are located approximately 1,800 feet across the Keaau-Pahoa Highway to the southwest. Pahoa town, that has a variety of urban uses, is located approximately one (1) mile from the subject property. Lands to the north are zoned Agricultural (A-la) and the adjacent property to the north is vacant. Properties to the east aze zoned A-Sa and in agricultural use and the adjacent property to the south/southeast is zoned A-la and is also the site for a proposed County fire station. Properties to the west across the Keaau-Pahoa Road are improved with dwellings and greenhouses and the land uses in the area are a mix of agricultural and residential uses. The urban area, with mixed industriaUcommercial uses is located to the south and southwest of the subject property and not in close proximity to the project site. 6. Approval of the reclassification from the State Land Use Agricultural (A-1 a) to the Urban District would not complement the extension of the Pahoa commercial area as all commercial establishments are currently located west of the Keaau-Pahoa Highway. Extending commercial areas across or east of the Keaau-Pahoa Highway creates a spot or scattered development along both sides of the highway. To allow the proposed use would set a precedent for an undesirable land use pattern contrary to the State Land Use Law and the General Plan. 7. The unfavorable recommendation of the Planning Director for the Change of Zone request is based upon the following: The approval of the reclassification from the State Land Use Agriculture to the Urban District for approximately 3.317 acres will not conform to Section 205-2, Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes. • The reclassification request is not consistent with the Land Use -Commercial Development goals and policies of the General Plan, which encourages the concentration of commercial uses within and surrounding a central core azea and to centralize commercial activities in Pahoa Town, rather than along the Pahoa By-Pass. • The reclassification request is not consistent with the Land Use -Industrial (Puna) course of action which states that industrial-commercial mixed use districts may be provided in appropriate locations. • To establish the proposed self-storage facility and related uses in this area would be contrary to the goals, policies and standards of the General Plan and would be more appropriate in an area where similar industriaUcommercial uses are established. PC Report No. 4 Communication 680 Bill 220 Page 3 of 7 • While the property is within the State Land Use Agricultural and County's Agricultural (A-la) zoned district, the property is not currently being used for active agricultural purposes. Although the proposed use will not have an adverse effect on the County's agricultural land inventory, it would create a separate, non-contiguous urban area with industriaUcommercialuws. • The proposed request would be contrary to the Land Resources Priority Guideline that encourages urban growth primarily to existing urban areas where adequate public facilities are available or can be provided. The State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to the Urban District does not complement the State Land Use District Regulations, and is not supportive of the State of Hawaii Plan and the County General Plan. By letter dated February 27, 2006, applicant Timothy Lynn Gardner requested the application for change of zone be deferced to the July 2007 due to medical reasons and to also time to meet with members of the Pahoa community and address their concerns. At the July 6, 2006 Planning Committee meeting, no public testimony was received. Applicant Tim Gardner, curcently a resident of Maui and Brian Nishimura, Planning Consultant, were in attendance. Mr. Nishimura gave a brief description of the proposal and location of the storage facility. He noted the property is off the highway just before the turnoff into Pahoa town and near the county proposed fire, police and park facilities, estimated to accommodate 350 vehicles. Mr. Nishimura does not agree with the negative recommendations of the Commission and Planning Director as it is applicant's position that the county is responsible for the change in character of the area that makes it no longer agricultural in nature. Mr. Nishimura stated that although on paper land use reflects an agricultural designation, that fact is Urban uses already exist and the General Plan Urban Expansion allows for it. Council member Jacobson stated he could not support this application as Highway 130 is already operating over capacity and should not be made worse. The majority of Council Members felt that, although each had their own opinions and position regarding this application, it was important that they also hear what Council Member of this district, Gary Safarik, had to say regarding this application. Council Member Safarik was not present at this Planning Committee meeting. Mr. Nishimura noted that the State Department of Transportation is requiring the County to install a channelized intersection in conjunction with construction of the fire station and noted that the channelized intersection will have an affect upon Mr. Gardner's property. Mr. Nishimura noted that if additional improvements are going to be required of applicant, applicant would work with the county but noted it was ironic the county is able to build such facilities on (ands designated agriculture while others are not. PC Repoli No. 4 Communication 680 Bi11220 Page 4 of 7 Council Member Ikeda stated that commercial areas are necessary in places near to where people can work and that does help with traffic problems. Council Member Jacobson noted the county's clear and compelling interest to provide public amenities for its communities, however, there's no compelling interest for the developer and it's not the same thing. Mr. Higa stated if the county is going to create public improvements, it makes sense to compliment them with commercial uses. Mr. Arakaki stated he is Leary of having additional traffic on this highway and would support a postponement to hear from Council Member Safarik. Committee Vice Chair Hoffmann formally moved for a postponement to allow Mr. Safarik an opportunity to provide comment. Applicant advised the committee that when he acquired the subject property it was with the intention that he would live and retire there. Although he did not speak against the county's proposed fire and police facilities he stated it would greatly impact his quality of life. Mr. Gazdner said studies show there is a great need for this kind of a facility in the azea. Committee Chair Pilago stated that the next planning committee meeting that this matter could be agendized was August 22, 2006. It was unanimously agreed to postpone Bill 220 to the August 22, 2006 Planning Committee meeting. It was also agreed that companion Bill 221 be postponed to the August 22, 2006 Planning Committee meeting. The August 22, 2006 Planning Committee meeting was rescheduled and held on August 21, 2006 at which time Brian Nishimura, applicant's consultant gave a brief presentation of what transpired since the last Planning Conunittee meeting. He noted applicant explored utilizing the fire department access to their facility instead of direct access off of the Keaau-Pahoa Highway. Mr. Nishimura noted that the applicant was willing to contribute $200,000 towards the cost of constructing the fire department access. Planning Director Yuen noted that his negative recommendation was based upon applicant's direct access from a busy highway to a commercial facility and also that this industrial commercial development is at a location that would create cross-highway movement and traffic congestion in an area where it cannot be supported. Council Member Safarik stated that the problems he sees is the police, fire and the 200-plus pazking stalls that are going to result in constant access in and out of that area. Mr. Yuen stated although there is a master plan for the area, the only thing approved is the fire station, which provides a flashing signal. Director Doug McClure stated he was not aware of any other streets being part of this master plan and he feels one entrance is adequate to service the fire and police facilities. Mr. Safarik stated that because not all of the studies have been completed he suggested waiting to act on applicant's proposal until the traffic study has been completed. Mr. McClure estimated the timeframe for completion of the traffic study to be December 2006. Mr. Safarik requested postponement to December 30, 2006. PC Report No. 4 Communication 680 Bi11220 Page 5 of 7 Committee Chair Pilago suggested postponement to the December 19, 2006 Planning Committee meeting and not the end of the year. Planning Committee Chair Pilago did note he took issue with the postponement request and applicant's suggestion that the County proposed public facilities negatively impacted applicant's proposed project. Committee Vice Chair Hoffmann stated he would give a solid consideration to applicant's proposal after determining what the Puna CDP position is regarding this proposal. Director McClure noted that the traffic impact study will address the county facility impacts and that the applicant would have to address his own impacts. Mr. McClure stated that the single access is all the State is allowing for at this time. This matter was postponed to the Committee on Planning's December 19, 2006 meeting. At the December 19, 2006 Planning Committee meeting no oral testimony was presented by the public on this matter. Applicant Timothy Gardner and his consultant, Brian Nishimura were present and provided updates of what transpired since the last meeting. Council Member Bob Jacobson stated he will be voting against this request. Council Member Brenda Ford said that the fire station traffic and all related activities will be impaired by this proposal. Ms. Ford notes the negative recommendations of both the Planning Commission and the Planning Director. She said the speed limit on this particular section of highway is approximately 50 mph and thus people turning into this facility will be quite a problem. Ms. Ford noted that based on applicant's calculations of the number of visits to the facility per day of 34, the proposed project is not considered an average size facility, and instead, based on national statistics, an average size facility would be around 20 visits per day. Mr. Nishimura again referred to the fact that the County is preparing a traffic study for the fire station and that the applicant has offered to contribute $200,000 to share in the cost of highway improvements if applicant's storage facility is allowed to use the same road. Mr. Nishimura noted that part of the continuation of this matter was to obtain the results of the traffic study however, when he checked with the consultant last week, it was not yet completed. Mr. Nishimura also said he understands that Parks and Recreation is no longer pursuing construction of the gym so some of the factors involved in prior committee discussions regarding roadway improvements may no longer apply. Council Member Stacy Higa noted that what Council Member Ford stated is true regarding traffic. Mr. Nishimura said applicant is in the process of trying to work out a way to use the same entrance and that applicant received a letter from the State Highway Department noting it is considering widening Highway 130. Mr. Nishimura said applicant would have no problem with setting back his property an additional thirty (30) feet or so to accommodate the state's road widening plans and is also willing to offer egress over his property to the soccer field. Mr. Gardner noted he is very flexible in trying to work this matter out with the County and the State PC Report No. 4 Communication 680 Bi11220 Page 6 of 7 so it's feasible and works for everybody. Council Member Higa stated he could go either way on this project and his only problem is working out the entrance and exit to the property. Director Yuen noted there wasn't anything in the General Plan amendments to specifically address this and he strongly opposes the application. He said the General Plan map for Pahoa has a very broad urban expansion area and he would not recommend approving the request in Bill 220 changing the designation from agriculture to urban which sometimes creates a grey area and therefore prefers to keep it in agriculture. Mr. Yuen said the reason for his negative recommendation is because of the traffic problems which are being compounded by the 3,300 building permits in that area alone. Mr. Yuen said that this is the largest number of permits in any area on the island. Mr. Yuen noted the entire Pahoa population uses Highway 130 and direct access from Highway 130 is already difficult. He strongly discourages any commercial activity directly in and out of Highway 130 and said if this self storage facility is allowed you will have a stop where people are not expecting one which creates a very dangerous situation. Council Member Emily Naeole said she grew up in Pahoa and noted several commercial businesses in the same area and felt that some people have favors and some don't. She said there are so many new families moving into her community and it's a great thing. Director Yuen assured Ms. Naeole that there is no issue of favoritism in opposing this application but he is concerned with commercial activities that already exist. Council Member Jacobson stated more uses are being placed on this highway and until the State lowers the speed limit, he looks at a policy that states it is clearly for the public's benefit but that this application is an economic benefit that results in loss of agricultural land to urbanization. Council Chair Hoffmann noted that there was strong opposition from the Puna CDP steering committee in a November 2005 letter and asked applicant whether that has changed. Mr. Nishimura stated there was no change from that group and that their position remains the same. Mr. Hoffmann stated he would be strongly swayed by the sentiments of the Puna CDP and reserved his final vote at the Council level. At the moment, Mr. Hoffmann said he will vote against this application. Council Member Ford stated she cannot support this application. Council Member Higa asked Director Yuen if the Director would still oppose this application if access was channeled through a county facility. Director Yuen stated he would still be opposed because the same problems would exist. Council Member Donald Ikeda noted that the more he thought about this application, he supports the idea. PC Repoli No. 4 Communication 680 Bi11220 Page 7 of 7 Your Committee on Planning is in accord with the purpose and intent of Bill No. 220, and recommends it pass first reading. and AYES NOES A&E EX Respectfully submitted, FORD X H[GA X COMMITTEE ON G HOFFMANN X IKEDA X ~ JACOBSON X NAEOLE X K. Angel Pilago, C} air PILAGO X YAGONG X YOSH[MOTO X PC REPORT NO. 4 ADOPTED: JAN 1 9 2001