HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0526.003 2010-2012SUBMITTED BY: KENNETH GOODENOW, REPRESENTATIVE FOR APPLICANT
ARL MITH ALL LL
Opposition to Bill 168
Presented to the Hawaii County Council
Planning Committee by
Kenneth Goodenow
HONOLULU • }111.0 • LON1 AUDI . GL NI S.W'AN • IA5ANUM. FS
HCC Section 25 -2 -40
"This chapter may be amended...
whenever the public necessity and
convenience and the general welfare
require such amendment, and when such
amendment would be consistent with the
goals, policies and standards of the
general plan."
COUNTY CLE
COUNTY OF F H 1
2012 1, I fl �1►�
• 3
Coyo .6267
Point 1:
The Project would set a
Dangerous Precedent
Contrary to the General Plan
which Discourages Strip
Development
Comm. No.
Ref. Tos
£24.3
P /PG 1
Ref. Date JAN t s 71119
County of Hawaii General Plan
• 14.3.2 Goals: "Provide Commercial
developments that complement the overall
pattern of transportation and land usage ".
• 14.3.3 Policies: "Encourage commercial
areas to develop on an axis perpendicular
to the highway "; "Existing strip
development shall be converted to more
appropriate uses when and where it is
feasible ".
2
Point 2:
The Project Location is
outside the Medium Density
Urban Designation and thus
Requires a General Plan
Amendment
"Originally, this parcel was approximately
11,660 square feet in size, with no access pole.
The access pole portion was created under
Subdivision No. 5501 approved on January 23,
1987"
- Planning Department's Original Recommendation
Planning Department's Original
Recommendation:
....While this designation would allow
neighborhood and convenience type
commercial uses in the Neighborhood
Commercial (CN) zoned district, the CV
designation is more appropriate in the
Medium Density Urban or Urban Expansion
designated areas."
Planning Department's Original
Recommendation:
"Further, and most importantly, the request
is inconsistent with the General Plan
LUPAG map, which shows the property as
situated in the Low Density Urban area...
Planning Department's Original
Conclusion:
"Thus to establish the automobile repair
shop in a CV zoned district, it would be
necessary to obtain a concurrent General
Plan Amendment and Change of Zone."
3
Point 3:
The Project Will Create
Dangerous Traffic Conditions
"It can be life- threatening to cross
Highways 130 and 11 on foot. This
is particularly true for youth, the
elderly and the disabled."
- Puna Community Development Plan
Point 4:
Uses allowed in a CV Zoned
District would Not be
Compatible in this
Residential Area
4
!,:,,,,„., •. ''''''.',,
,.‘,.iii.,•,..,,..,,..„....
igitig.•:•,,,,,j,"."."'"'"""':'''''4'""4
.,,;..0.•!!..:,•01.1,•piiiii;;:t!!!i''''.
,o, • -1
5
Planning Department's Original
Recommendation:
"In this case, as properties along Nichols
Road as well as across Highway 11 are
mostly in residential uses, it would be more
prudent to retain the largely residential
character of the neighborhood along
Nichols Road. This is further supported by
the GP LUPAG map, which identifies the
property as Low Density Urban."
Commercial Uses allowed by the Zoning Code in
the CV district:
Bars and Restaurants
Financial Institutions
General Manufacturing Facilities
Hotels (with approval of the Director)
Medical Clinics
Mortuaries
Offices
Publishing Plants
Theaters
Point 5:
Commercial Activity Should
be Located in the Historic
Mountain View Village Center
6
Planning Department's Original
Recommendation:
"Existing commercial (CV -10) zoned lands
are already located north of the site,
between Highway 11 and Old Volcano
Road...where commercial uses and traffic
patterns have already been established.
Existing infrastructure could support
commercial development at this location."
Point 6:
Do Public Necessity and
Convenience and the
General Welfare Require this
Zoning Amendment?
7
Zoning is a legislative power — it is for the
Council to interpret the General Plan.
The Planning Department and Commission are
performing a purely advisory function and in that
sense are "performing a function which a
legislative committee would normally perform."
Kailua Community Council v.
City and County of Honolulu, 60
Haw. 428 (1979).
In Conclusion...
8