Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2017/04/04 (2016-2018)Committee on Planning 5th Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii April 4, 2017 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at ORDER: 11:45 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair. R(1T T CAT r Present: Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair Ms. Eileen O'Hara, Vice Chair Mr. Aaron Chung, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Mr. Dru Mamo Kanuha, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member Ms. Jennifer Ruggles, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Max Newberg: Bill 22 (Comm. 181), comment. Rufus Sonognini: Bill 256 (Comm. 1151), comment. COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. (There were none.) ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. (There were none.) BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Bills ORDINANCES: for Ordinances. PC -5 April 4, 2017 Bill 256: AMENDS CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 25-4-51 OF THE HAWAII (2014-2016) COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED) RELATING TO OFF- STREET PARKING AND LOADING Establishes the required number of parking spaces for single-family and double - family or duplex dwellings that are occupied for a period of less than 180 days. Reference: Comm. 1151 Intr. by: Mr. Onishi Referred to Planning Director and Planning Commissions: November 15, 2016 (Note: There is a motion by Mr. Onishi, seconded by Mr. Kanuha, to recommend passage of Bill 256 on first reading.) ; and Comm. 186: From Mayor Harry Kim, dated March 13, 2017, transmitting the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions' favorable recommendations, with suggested revisions as recommended by the Planning Director. CHR. EOFF: Okay. Thank you. I'll open it up for discussion. Council Members, Director Yee couldn't be here today, but we have a Planner from the office, Maija Jackson, and if you have any questions, she's willing to come forward. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Yes, thank you. Maija, if you don't mind coming forward. (Note: At this time, Maija Jackson Planner came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. LEE LOY: This bill was introduced by my predecessor, Fresh Onishi and this is in my District. And just to give the rest of the Council Members an overview, this is what happens when we have subdivisions that were built and approved in the `70's and `80's. So we have road right-of-ways that are just 12 feet wide, or 15 feet wide, which doesn't allow for off-street parking. Am I saying that right, Maija? MS. JACKSON: On -street parking. MS. LEE LOY: On -street parking. These homes, again, were built with different standards. So as these subdivisions kind of rehabilitate themselves with rental units or units that extend past 180 days—now keep in mind, a lot of the homes back then, they were built with a single -car garage because most families could only afford one car. There was no reason to have more parking on their property. Page 2 PC -5 April 4, 2017 So as these neighborhoods kind of rehabilitate themselves, kind of get into the rental market, the residents that continue to live there get impacted by this transition. And what this bill does really allows for the neighborhood to continue in that residential feel, but ensure that it doesn't impact those narrow roads that they had because those were the subdivision codes back then. I also attended the Windward Planning Committee meeting and there was a favorable recommendation from the Planning Director with some modest amendments. And what I'd like to do is request to amend the motion with Communication 186.1 which encompasses and includes the Planning Director's suggested edits. Motion to Amend: Ms. Lee Loy moved to amend Bill 256 with the contents of Comm. 186.1. Seconded by Mr. Kanuha. MS. LEE LOY: So speaking to that motion, and I justif I could ask Maija to elaborate about Communication 186.1. Thank you. MS. JACKSON: My name is Maija Jackson and I'm with the Planning Department. Thank you, Council Member Lee Loy, we appreciate your amendment since it's almost identical to what the two Planning Commissions had suggested. And the reason for the amendment is the bill that Mr. Onishi had originally initiated did not account for when a property owner rents out the entire home as a whole to one family as a vacation rental. And so we wanted to account for that in allowing a home to be rented, either rooms individually or the entire home to be rented as a whole. And obviously, you're going to have different impacts, if each room is rented versus if one family, that's most likely coming in from another area. You know, they rent a rental car usually it's one, maybe two which is similar to what a homeowner would have, one or two vehicles. So this suggested language from the Commissioners accounted for that. MS. LEE LOY: So really what I provided the rest of my colleagues, is building off of what Council Member Fresh Onishi provided to the Planning Commission, have it vetted and reviewed and provided their technical expertise and then grabbed their suggested edits and dovetailed that into Mr. Onishi's original bill. yield. CHR. EOFF: Thank you for bringing that forward. Any other discussion on the amendment, Council Members? Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Yes, thank you. Thanks for being here. I just have one question. So Communication 186. 1, are these parking spaces on-site or off-site? Within the property? Page 3 PC -5 April 4, 2017 MS. JACKSON: This bill would require that they park on the property off the street. MS. DAVID: On the property? Okay. That was my question, thank you. MS. JACKSON: This whole section of the Code is related to off-street parking. MS. DAVID: Thank you. CHR. EOFF: Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: This may be a question for you, Councilwoman Lee Loy. Obviously this will impact some people and correct some problems that we've heard articulated. Has this been evaluated? Because though I'm completely supportive of something like this for all the right reasons, it will impact some people's businesses. And has that been looked at? And is it allowable to have the parking on the property in some instances? Are we going down a path where there's no alternative for the people but to shut their doors as far as the rental? I pose that question. MS. JACKSON: I think it may impact some folks who have small lots and there's no public parking allowed on the street. We haven't actually done a study to see how many people that would impact, because we don't necessarily have a really good handle of how many vacation rentals there are out there. So it will most likely impact the smaller lots in the more urban areas like Hilo and Kona. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. Follow up? CHR. EOFF: Go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: So I think this probably highlights the bigger question that we're going to have to tackle sometime in the very near future, but this is maybe a band aid we do need. Thank you. CHR. EOFF: Thank you. Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: I appreciate Ms. Lee Loy for bringing this forward and to the Planning Department and the Commissions for working out the wording here. This is a tricky subject and one, as Mr. Richards alluded there's a bigger picture here that we really need to tackle in the way of vacation rentals. I live in a neighborhood it's not in Hilo and it's not in Kona. It's in lower Puna and it's in a subdivision that has CC&R's (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions) that restrict uses to single-family dwellings only. But we have a lot of vacation rentals and a lot of B&B's (Bed and Breakfast) who are not under the B&B rules of the County, but they're operating nonetheless, Airbnb and what not. Page 4 PC -5 April 4, 2017 And we also have restrictions on street parking in our subdivision, but what we don't have is enforcement capability because we're a subdivision and we have CC&R's. But the County doesn't help with the enforcement of CC&R's. So I welcome this in terms of having an enforceable rule that we can look to and the problem is, as Mr. Richards said, going to affect small lots. In my subdivision, the more desirable areas are down by the ocean. The lots are usually 10,000 square feet and under so it's highly unlikely that they're going to be able to provide significant off-street parking. They may be able to accommodate one rental unit or two at most. But that also addresses a bigger problem for our neighborhood where we see a lot of, I won't say illegal, but kind of operating on the fringe of vacation rentals and B & B's. So I appreciate that this has come forward but it is, as you pointed out, a band aid to a much bigger problem. Thank you. CHR. EOFF: Thank you. Any other comments? Go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Just on the amendment, and really I just want toI wasn't sure what the protocols were because when I read through the background report, there was the suggested edits and I wasn't sure if the Planning Department or if the Chair would—so I do really want to thank Leslie Chow from the LRB (Legislative Research Branch) Division for picking this up and getting it in front of us so we can continue to move this forward. CHR. EOFF: And I think by your being astute and bringing it forward at this point, we can address it now. It's fine. Okay. Vote on Motion to The motion to amend Bill 256 with the contents of Amend: Comm. 186.1 was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff – 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. EOFF: Okay. Then we're back to the main motion which is the approval of Bill 256 now as amended. Any discussion? No? Page 5 PC -5 Vote on Bill 256 Draft 2 (Approved) April 4, 2017 The motion to recommend passage of Bill 256, as amended to Draft 2, on first reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. EOFF: We'll move Bill 256 to Council with a positive recommendation. Moving on to Bill 22. Bill 22: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-13 (PUAKO-`ANAEHO`OMALU ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL — FIVE ACRES (A -5a) TO INDUSTRIAL — COMMERCIAL MIXED — 20,000 SQUARE FEET (MCX-20) AT WAIKOLOA, SOUTH KOHALA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 6-8-001:058 (ADDlicant: R132 Investors. LLC) (Area: aDDrox. 1.756 acres) The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this change of zone, which would allow the applicant to modify and incorporate an existing building and parking lot and add two additional buildings and additional parking to support a 20 -unit commercial and light industrial lease space for businesses, offices, self -storage, and a restaurant. Reference: Comm. 181 Intr. by: Ms. Eoff (B/R) Motion to Approve: Mr. Richards moved to recommend passage of Bill 22 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. EOFF: Would you like to come forward, Mr. Harris? (Note: At this time, Roger Harris Representative of R132 Investors, LLC came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. HARRIS: Hello, my name is Roger Harris, I'm representing R132 Investors, as the applicant from the mainland, Mr. Cory Redding, and he apologizes that he couldn't be here. It was kind of short notice coming up, but he will be here a few times in the new future. He hopes to get started in the summer sometime and when he does come, I'll call Max and we'll talk. Page 6 PC -5 April 4, 2017 CHR. EOFF: Okay. MR. HARRIS: Briefly, I know there aren't any graphics here, but this is in the inland portion. It's about a mile in from the shoreline of the Fairmont Hotel at Mauna Lani Resort, maybe a quarter mile from the Mauna Lani shops, which is a fancy shopping area at Mauna Lani. The intention here is to take the old Mauna Lani school site, which was shut down for lack of demand and the subsidy from Tokyu dried up. There is some day care at the hotels now, but the school has not been able to find a new operator and reopen. So the site was sold by Tokyu Corporation to Mr. Redding. His intention is just to fix up the old building and rent it out for various, lower key uses than the shopping area, and then put in a little storage building for some mini storage, and then wait and see how the market is. And in a few years, hopefully they'll be enough demand to add another building. So it's 1.7 acres and we are fine with all of the recommended conditions except for one, and I could explain that now. We just submitted a letter addressed the Council Planning Committee Chair today. We got a little bit nervous about the language of Condition F that the Planning Department recommended at the Planning Commission, and that is that we would comply with all the standards outlined in the Standard Details for Public Works Construction R-33, which would apply to business zoning. It's a little ambiguous in our minds what this would actually require, so we, on page two, we have spelled out different language which essentially requires that the resort's standard roadway at Mauna Lani have a paved shoulder and then landscaping. And the pave shoulder acts as an area for the pedestrian and walkers and bikers to go. There are no typical business sections at Mauna Lani, it's all what they call resort standard. The grading in the right-of-way is according to the standard and that's all been done. So the addition—we would like to specify that the addition be of six and a half feet. The shoulder that's existing now in this vicinity of Mauna Lani Resort is six and a half feet from the white stripe into the edge, and that's what everybody uses. So we're proposing that we'd be required to put in a six and a half foot shoulder on our area. Right now, the grading has been done, there's naturalized lava along that area that would be pushed back and smoothed out and then the improvements to the pavement would be added. And Maija has a comment from the Planning Department on this. I talked to Kai Emler a couple of times and he is fine with it, but we'll put that a little more formal. Beyond that, I'm here to answer any questions. CHR. EOFF: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Harris. And Maija, would you like to fill us in on the Planning Department's recommendation? Page 7 PC -5 April 4, 2017 MS. JACKSON: Yes, we received a copy of Roger's letter this morning and the Planning Director has no objections to the condition language he's suggesting on page two. However, we would request that at the end of the first sentence, we just add "meeting with the approval of Department of Public Works (DPW)," just so that we have a mechanism for DPW to review their plans for construction. CHR. EOFF: And would you be willing to work with Mr. Richards if he intends to draft up the amendment? MS. JACKSON: Yes. Absolutely. CHR. EOFF: Okay. Thank you. The question is do we want to postpone this in committee while we work out the amendment? Or is there a timing issue? Do we want to assume that Mr. Richards will bring forth an amendment for first reading and we move it along with that understanding? I'll leave that up to discussion. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Again thanks, Mr. Harris for coming in, appreciate it and thank you Mr. Tarnas for attending as well. I look forward to working with you and I will introduce an amendment and I'll get it rushed through so my—this is my District and I'm very familiar with the property and very familiar with what we're discussing here. And reading through what the request is, and knowing what the property looks like, and what the intention is, I think that request is very appropriate. And so I will work on getting that amendment and I'll work with Planning to get that done. My thoughts are that I don't see a reason to delay this in committee, I think we can move it out of committee and get it to Council and have it ready and prepped for that. I did—there were some things going through this that I had questions on, so I did have a conversation with Mr. Harris concerning things and I think this is a good project. Again, economic development, repurposing, I mean it makes all the right sense for all the right reasons. So I'm supportive of this and I'll help move this thing along. CHR. EOFF: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments, Council Members? Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: I'm going to be supporting moving this forward and awaiting Mr. Richards' amendments. I think there's lots of time. What these amendments do is actually keep the entire resort area consistent, and I cannot see Public Works providing road standards that are inconsistent with the resort node. And I believe that entire area is covered by a whole bunch of different design guidelines anyway. So I will be supporting moving this forward and awaiting Mr. Richards' amendments. Thank you. Page 8 PC -5 April 4, 2017 CHR. EOFF: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? Go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Just as a project as a whole, I appreciated your comments when you sat down, Roger, and said you'd be meeting with Max to talk story about again, we're talking about economic development. We're also talking about putting people to work, so I appreciate that comment. Thank you. CHR. EOFF: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Tarnas, you're sitting back here, did you want to add anything? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Kanuha. MR. KANUHA: Thank you. I'm in favor of moving it forward as well. Just as aI know there's other commercial areas right around—over there with the shopping center, is that?—you know the amendments that we're talking about, is the amendments that we're going to be putting in here consistent with what's happening at that commercial location? MR. HARRIS: They have just a paved shoulder as well. There are no curbs, gutters, and sidewalks in Mauna Lani. It's not that these standards would require that, but it's a bit ambiguous and we talked to Public Works, they're okay with this. So whatever you can, timing -wise work out theMaija's suggested language is fine with us. MR. KANUHA: I'm fine with that. If it's consistent with the rest of the—as long as it doesn't interfere with any public health or safety issues then I'm okay with that. I also got concerns, not concerns, but somebody asked me about traffic impacts and I know you said—or within this proposal, it says it's going to be consistent with the 40 trips, which was consistent with the school. MR. HARRIS: Right, the prior years. MR. KANUHA: So obviously, TIAR (Traffic Impact Analysis Report) isn't really—the threshold is below—is 50, yeah to get a TIAR? So you're pretty accurate on saying that estimate 40 trips are MR. HARRIS: Yeah, especially its peak hour trips and the peak hour on a resort—actually the peak hours—cocktail hour honestly, that's what everybody goes around. So in the early part of the day, maybe we'll have cocktails, but it's a small number, it's a fairly limited thing. MR. KANUHA: And the reason I brought that up is because I actually tried to ask the Police Department or whoever it was to see if there was—because that intersection outside on the main highway, connecting Mauna Lani, there isn't a signal light, right? And I know there have been accidents there in the past, it's a pretty dangerous place. So I'm just wondering how much of an impact—is there going to be more people going in there? And where does the County or State Page 9 PC -5 April 4, 2017 begin to regulate what happens with the traffic impact, especially at that intersection? Is there a threshold where we say the traffic is going to be a certain amount, we have to put in a light here or else there's nothing else that's going to happen at that resort area? I don't know, I'm just throwing that out there for discussion now or in the future. MS. JACKSON: May I respond to that? MR. KANUHA: Sure. MS. JACKSON: So it is difficult determining trip generation for mixed commercial, industrial uses because as you know, various commercial uses can either have a really low traffic generation or a really high traffic generation. So I believe what happened in this case is Roger did the best estimation based on the square footage of the existing building and what they plan to develop in the future. As far as that goes, the Commissions did include Condition G which says that if any future use that he's proposing would generate a significant amount of traffic above 50 trips, then they would need to do a traffic study. And do any improvements to mitigate those impacts. As far as the main intersection at Mauna Lani, it's possible that the Department of Transportation has some threshold that they use. I don't know what that is, but if there's conditions embedded in the ordinances in Mauna Lani that require mitigation for that intersection, then once that threshold is reached, all of those landowners would need to contribute to mitigating that intersection impact. MR. KANUHA: Okay. Just trying to figure out the process of how that all works out. And I know I can do that on my own time, not in front of the Council, but I just wanted to bring that up as a point of interest. CHR. EOFF: Thank you. MR. HARRIS: Mr. Kanuha, there's no real condition on the original Mauna Lani approvals that say that the resort is responsible for upgrading the intersection. There's clear public opinion inside and outside and everywhere that the traffic signal at least is required at the intersection. There have been numerous bad accidents. There's a project across the street from this little old school area on Ho`ohana Street that's entitled and there's agreements between the homeowners association, Mauna Lani, and it's called the M Sites. And it was approved for almost 980 residential and 545 hotel rooms on 150 acres. That's sort of last big increment in the urban area of Mauna Lani. And under those agreements, the developer of that is supposed to make improvements to this street and also something to do with the intersection, I can't remember exactly. But there's a little bit of hope out there then Page 10 PC -5 April 4, 2017 On this project, I'd say most of the customers would be within the resort already, certainly the workers would be coming in every day and so, I think it's still minimal if we comply with the condition that Maija's recommended. MR. KANUHA: And I'm not trying to say that by approving this, we're going to make you put in a street light at the intersection, that wasn't my intent. But just trying to—where within all these agreements, the intersection's going to be seriously taken a look at? CHR. EOFF: Thank you. Just one second. Mr. Chung, you had your light on a little while ago, did you want to comment? MR. CHUNG: I agree with Mr. Richards, I think we should move this forward. l look forward to seeing what his amendments are and if I could just request that we have someone from Public Works here. I just want to understand how they're going to apply whatever you come up with because I don't want that to be a road block actually. I want to make sure that they're all on the same page as well. That's all. Thank you. CHR. EOFF: Thank you. Mr. Richards, did you want to respond? MR. RICHARDS: Yes, just a quick follow-up on Council Member Kanuha's point. I think your point is well taken, we all know that intersection and again, it's in my District. I think reference of scale—what we're talking about it relative to the population that comes through that intersection and the whole Mauna Lani Resort, compared to this little development. I don't think you'll even notice the impact. However, as was pointed out, the new entitlements that are there for another 1,000, yeah, I think we'd definitely notice that. So it's a relative scale, I agree. But it's good to keep in mind so I agree with you, Councilman, that we got to keep that in the back of our head as we go forward. Thank you. CHR. EOFF: Thank you. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: I just have a follow-up question regarding the SMA (Special Management Area) that's attached to this. When we edit the condition, do we also need to edit the conditions of the SMA to be consistent? MS. JACKSON: The SMA permit that was recently issued refers back to the ordinance, so any amendments made to the ordinance will automatically apply to the SMA permit. MS. LEE LOY: And the timing on the SMA permit? Is there like a 10 -year time window? MS. JACKSON: I believe it was five years for construction. Page 11 PC -5 April 4, 2017 MR. HARRIS: Phase one. MS. JACKSON: Of phase one. MS. LEE LOY: And then consistent with the change of zone with a ministerial time extension attached to both? MS. JACKSON: That's correct. MS. LEE LOY: Perfect. CHR. EOFF: Thank you. Any other comments? MR. HARRIS: I'd just say the Planning Director's comment is right after the word "frontage." "Applicant shall provide a 6-1/2' wide paved shoulder adjacent to the existing roadway pavement along the project frontage." They want they're suggesting adding "meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works." That's all the language is and we're good with that. I think though you'd want to float this by Kai Emler or Department of Public Works. CHR. EOFF: Okay. So then I'll just request, Mr. Richards, that when it does move to Council and you bring your amendment, that you make sure that we can hear from Public Works as well as Planning. Okay. Thank you. Vote on Bill 22: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 22 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. EOFF: Bill 22 moves to Council with a positive recommendation. Thank you folks. MR. HARRIS: Thank you very much. Page 12 PC -5 April 4, 2017 ADJOURN There being no further business, at 12:23 p.m., Ms. Poindexter moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Ms. David and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. EOFF: This meeting's adjourned. Approved: Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair U (Date) Planning Committee KE/jm Page 13