Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 080 2016/11/01 (2014-2016)OFFICE INFORMATION ONLY Meeting: Council—November 16, 2016 Action: Postponed Indefinitely (Draft 2). Council: Referred to Planning and Director and Windward Planning Commission pursuant to Section 25-2-43(b) l lawai`i County Code — August 29, 2016. Planning: Forwarded to Council with a negative recommendation—November 1, 2016. Re: Rill 228; Comm. 981; (2012-2014 term); PC -80 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: November 1, 2016 Re: Comm. No. 981.4/Bill No. 228, Draft 2 PLACE: Council Chambers Ifilo, Ilawai`i TIME: 9:04 a.m. Council Chair and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Bill No. 228, Draft 2, reports as follows: Bill No. 228, Draft 2, introduced by Mr. llagan via Communication No. 981.4 dated August 22, 2016, amends 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 — 7,500 square feet (RS -7.5) to neighborhood commercial —7,500 square feet (CN -7.5) at Punahoa 2nd, South Hilo, Hawaii, covered by'fax Map Key: 2-3-035:018. The applicant is Hilo Medical Center, and the subject parcel covers 9,230 square feet. The applicant intends to build a parking lot for employees of the Hilo Community Surgery Center, which the applicant operates and has a nearly 40 percent interest. The Windward Planning Commission, at its duly held public hearing on July 7, 2016, concurred with the recommendation by the Planning Director to send an unfavorable recommendation regarding the original Bill 228 to the Council. Your Committee on August 16, 2016, then amended Bill 228 to Draft 2 with the contents of Communication No. 981.1 and then referred it back to the Windward Planning Commission. The Windward Planning Commission, at its duly held public hearing on October 6, 2016, concurred again with the recommendation by the Planning Director to send an unfavorable recommendation to the Council. Mayor William P. Kenoi transmitted the Commission's unfavorable recommendation via Communication No. 981.7, dated October 13, 2016. Mr. Chung, in whose district the subject property is located, stated that he had already decided how he was going to vote, and said he wanted to hear what other Committee members thought. Ms. Poindexter acknowledged Cheryl Reis, who lives next to the subject property, and who provided testimony in opposition. Ms. Poindexter said Ms. Reis' comments brought her back to her interest in preserving the value of precious community places such as those that exist in Ms. Poindexter's district, and also on the street fronting the subject property. She said her heart is definitely for the grass roots and for the maintenance of a community's culture and heritage. Ms. David also thanked Ms. Reis for coming forward. Ms. David said she had read the recommendation of the Planning Director and the Windward Planning Commission. Ms. David said that what stood out to her in the director's unfavorable recommendation was that any condition that would limit the use of the property would be considered a "contract zoning," which has been successfully challenged. Ms. David also noted the director's recommendation that the full range of allowable uses in a neighborhood commercial district is not appropriate in a residential setting. Ms. David thanked Ms. Reis for putting together a comprehensive exhibit for the Committee members. PC Report No. 80 PC -80 Page 2 November 1, 2016 Ms. Hoff commended Ms. Reis for providing a well -organized and concise explanation about the situation facing neighbors near the subject parcel. Ms. David said she agreed with the unfavorable recommendation provided by the Planning Department and the concurrence by the Windward Planning Commission. She said she did not want to support the rezoning application. Ms. Eoff suggested the applicant consider relocation if the applicant has outgrown the area, and if a new facility can be built in a more compatible area. In the discussion that followed, Sidney Cake, planning consultant, Gerald Takase, who represented fee owner GELOCAG (a family firm), Ms. Reis, and Director Duane Kanuha reviewed the history behind the project, the purpose of the Hilo Community Surgery Center, compliance with the General Plan, the impacts and cost of a two-level parking structure, the unwillingness of other nearby property owners to sell their land for the parking structure, the existing fencing, landscaping on the subject parcel, and access to Punahele Street. Mr. Onishi said the bottom line is that we all try to trust people; we trust developers coming in to do the right thing; and unfortunately some things that were promised did not happen. As a result, he said, the trust between the developer and the community is nonexistent. He said the applicant should go back to the community and regain their trust. Mr. Takase said it was unlikely the applicant would seek to overturn the so-called contract zoning requirement because it was something that was requested by the applicant, rather than it being imposed by the Council. I -le said there was no intention of building anything other than a parking lot. Mr. Onishi iterated that the applicant should go back to the table and address the concerns raised by the community about the potential noise and exhaust impacts from vehicles in the parking lot. Mr. Paleka said he was familiar with the property, having worked at the nearby Hawaii Community Correctional Center, and he asked about HCCC's zoning district. Mr. Puke said the HCCC land is zoned RS -7.5, similar to the subject property. Ile added that the Zoning Code states that government facilities are considered a permitted use in residential areas. If it is a permitted use, then the only requirement is for plan approval. He said that involves the Planning Director reviewing plans and ensuring the parcel follows parking, height and landscaping requirements, among other things. That is how HCCC became established in a residential area, Mr. Fuke said. Mr. Paleka restated the importance of having the owner of the subject parcel work with the community to mitigate the impact of development in the area. Mr. Takase expressed his wish for a better relationship with the neighborhood. He said the neighbors have taken a position and they have tried to go through the Council to resolve it, which he said is the most transparent way to do things. Mr. Fuke said he favored a "win-win" situation. He restated the option that the applicant has to seek plan approval from the Planning Department, as it would be a permitted use in a subject zone. PC Report No. 80 PC -80 Page 3 November 1, 2016 Mr. Onishi urged the rezoning bill be deferred so that such a "win-win" situation could be arranged between the applicant and the neighbors. Ms. Reis brought up issues regarding noise complaints, property management, people walking through a gap in the vinyl fence, and trucks parked along the fence with the engine running, and restated her main point that the community does not want a parking lot on the subject parcel. Mr. Takase said this was the first time he had heard of the parking issue and that it was possible to put up a guard rail to discourage it. Mr. Puke said enforcement could be addressed by establishing a $5,000 escrow fund to have a "compliance officer" available to address concerns, and that such an agreement had been drafted. Ms. Wille said the county needs "code enforcement officers," and that's something the next Council needs to consider. She supported this bill because the end result of the plan approval process would be plan approval. She said there should be "teeth" for enforcement, and she encouraged some kind of compromise. Mr. Chung said there were reasons to vote for and against this item, but he had made up his mind prior to this meeting and announced he was going to vote against it. lie continued to promote discussion between both sides. Ms. Eoff asked Director Kanuha about the plan approval process. Director Kanuha said the applicant would have the burden of proving a public facility beyond a doubt. The property has to meet that criterion, he said. It would have to be related to the facility, which is a public facility. Ile added the department would want to vet the public purpose "really really thoroughly." Deputy Corporation Counsel Bill Brilhante said there is a process for decisions by the Planning Director to be appealed through the Board of Appeals. Director Kanuha was uncertain whether conditions limiting use could be accomplished through the plan approval process, even with the applicant voluntarily agreeing to those conditions. He said other components, such as landscaping and hours of ingress and egress, for example, could be addressed in the plan approval process. In response to a question by Ms. David, Director Kanuha said the process primarily involves a consultation of public agencies, but given the amount of public interest he would consider the full record generated. Ms. David said that regardless of what happens today, she would not like the applicant to have to start from scratch to eliminate all the work that has been done so far. Mr. Puke said there needs to be evidence that the applicant qualifies as a public use to seek plan approval. To him, Hilo Medical Center qualifies, he said. PC Report No. 80 PC -80 Page 4 November I, 2016 Mr. Chung asked the applicant to consider implementing a valet service as an altemun c. Ms. Wille said she would support the rezoning application in Your Committee but reserved the right to vote against it when it reaches the Council. She also hoped a development agreement could he reached. Your Committee on Planning is not in accord with the purpose and intent of Bill No. 228, Draft 2, and forwards it to Council with a negative recommendation. ps ots .ore o" t. Respectfully submitted, U11LNG X D:vrm X COMMIT -IIP OA PI AVNINCi LOO u k(,a. KANl 11 \ OVSIII s kGOR PA enn r GII.-AA, CHAIR - rurrvnrxrrR _ x PCRIiP()RI NuAli -