Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-08-01 Hearing Transcript - PD Initiated Amusement & Recreation FacilityWINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 1, 2019 A regularly advertised hearing on the Planning Director Initiated Amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Articles 2 and 5 of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2016 Edition, as amended), relating to amusement and recreation facility was called to order at 10:22 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Joseph Clarkson presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dean Au, Joseph Clarkson, Donn Dela Cruz, John Replogle. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Gilbert Aguinaldo, Thomas Raffipiy. ALSO PRESENT: Michael Yee (Planning Director), Malia Hall (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Christian Kay (Planner), Alex Roy (Planner), Jessica Andrews (Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And 2 members from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR An ordinance amending Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Articles 2 and 5 of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2016 Edition, as amended), relating to amusement and recreation facility, indoor within the Neighborhood Commercial (CN), Limited Industrial (ML) and General Industrial (MG) zoning districts and relating to major outdoor amusement and recreation facilities in the Single - Family Residential (RS), Double -Family Residential (RD), Multiple -Family Residential (RM) and Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zoning districts. CLARKSON: We're going to proceed with Item No. 4 on the agenda, and will someone from staff explain what Item 4 is all about? DARROW: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission. The next agenda item is a Planning Director Initiated amendment to the Zoning Code; more specifically, Articles 2 and 5 relating to Use Permits and zoning district regulations for amusement and recreational facilities, indoor and major outdoor. The Planning Director is initiating the following three amendments to the Zoning Code relating to amusement and recreational facilities, indoor and major outdoor: (1) To remove the option for obtaining a Use Permit for major outdoor amusement and recreational facilities in the Single - Family Residential, Double -Family Residential, and Multiple -Family Residential zoning districts; (2) Just a housecleaning amendment to add the requirement of a Use Permit for a major outdoor amusement, recreational—and recreational facilities in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district so it will be consistent with the Use Permit section which already lists it as an EXHIBIT C option. Lastly, we are going to add indoor amusement and recreational facility as a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial, Limited Industrial, and General Industrial zoning districts. So, we'll begin with amendment number 1. This is relating to Use Permits, and again, this is to take out the Single -Family, Double -Family, and Multiple -Family option to get a Use Permit for a major outdoor amusement and recreational facility. It's defined in the Zoning Code as a permanent facility providing outdoor amusement and entertainment including theme and other types of amusement parks, stadiums, skateboard parks, go-cart and automobile race tracks, miniature golf, and drive-in theaters. The next section 25-2-61 just identifies this simple change that the Director is doing to this section to be able to make this change. The purpose of the amendment will, is to remove the option for allowing the major outdoor amusement and recreational facilities in the RS, RD, and RM zonings with the approval of a Use Permit. The reason for the change is that from the time the Zoning Code was amended, which the last amendment was over 20 years ago in December of 1996, until the present day, it doesn't appear that there has been any approval for a Use Permit to allow major outdoor amusement and recreational facilities within these residential zoning districts. Upon further review of these options, the Planning Director is recommending that these options be removed as they are not compatible with the residential zoning districts. Additionally, the Planning Director feels that there are other more compatible zoning districts that would continue to allow a major outdoor amusement and recreational facility with a Use Permit, including RCX, which is Residential – Commercial, Commercial – Neighborhood, General Commercial, Village Commercial, Commercial Industrial Mix, Limited Industrial, General Industrial, and Open Districts. Amendment number 2—let me go back. Chairman, did you have a question? CLARKSON: I did. I'm just curious about the—let's just say, for example, two skate parks. One was constructed in the Waimea Park Complex, and one was just recently constructed in the Honoka`a Park Complex. DARROW: Correct. CLARKSON: What, do you know what those were zoned? DARROW: I believe both of the—well, the Waimea one, I believe, is in the Open zoning district, and it was part of a park. So, those kind of situations, that would be an accessory use to the park. The one in Honoka`a, I believe, is connected to the school. Again, it's kind of part of, isn't there a school right there next door to it? CLARKSON: Well, no, the school is a quarter of a mile away. EXHIBIT C 2 DARROW: Okay. CLARKSON: And, there is a County park and gym complex between— DARROW: Between, yeah— CLARKSON: the skate park and the pool, and the school. DARROW: I would have to look at that, but I don't believe that they came in for a Use Permit as a major outdoor amusement recreational facility for that skate park. They look at certain—if they're connected to a park or a school, they look at it as an accessory use to the overall permitted use or the use that may have required a Use Permit overall. So, a school in a residential zoning district would be, would require a Use Permit, and they would include all the amenities including the, whatever is going along with it. As far as a park, a park is permitted in the Open zoning, and part of the park could include ballfields, skate parks, these kind of things. I think when they are speaking about these types of skate parks, they are more commercial in nature, and they'd be more a private, like for charge type of operation. CLARKSON: And, just one more question then, that we recently approved a rezone up in Waiakea Houselot or Waiakea—now, I can't remember exactly which district it was—and there was a park nearby, and there was concern about access to that park. Now, was that a park in a residential zone— DARROW: Correct CLARKSON: or was that zoned— DARROW: —But, it was, it was zoned Open. CLARKSON: It was zoned Open. DARROW: Yeah, and again, that, that's kind of a smaller type of park that its limited on what you can really do there. Something like Waimea has such a large area that it allows for different types of accessory uses as part of it. CLARKSON: But, there's no ballfields, like there is a new park in Kukuihaele built, and I thought that was zoned Residential where that was built. DARROW: I'd have to look at that. It could be, and I just have to look at that. I didn't—maybe after that, we can look and see if parks are actually permitted in the Residential zoning, but again, it would be the park as being the overall primary use. CLARKSON: But, a park isn't a major recreational facility? EXHIBIT C 3 DARROW: No, it's a separate permitted use. CLARKSON: Well, then, can you just go through for me then, clarify in my mind what the difference between a recreational facility, a major recreational facility is. DARROW: I would compare it to a commercial theme park. Obviously something like Disneyland or a smaller -type theme park. Miniature golf, automobile race tracks, stadiums, these types of larger facilities. CLARKSON: Well, then, why are skateboard parks— DARROW: Part of that? Again CLARKSON: Part of that, especially if they are not commercial skateboard parks. DARROW: Iagain, I think these skateboard parks being under this type of permitted zoning would be a commercial skateboard park. There are uses that would be permitted under other zoning areas as accessory uses, and they would be for the community. It's like a community benefit type thing. Let's move on to the second one. Okay, so No. 2, this is the one we mentioned that is a simple housecleaning. Currently, under the Use Permit section, there is, it's identified that major outdoor amusement recreational facilities can be approved with a Use Permit under the Use Permit section. Yet, it wasn't identified under the commercial neighborhood section. So, all this is doing is bringing that uniformity, so we're adding in that addition No. I where we placed this under the permitted uses in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning to allow a major outdoor amusement and recreational facility with a Use Permit. And, again, clearly a housekeeping measure. Our last amendment is relating to indoor amusement and recreational facilities and, more specifically, in the Neighborhood Commercial, Limited Industrial, and General Industrial zoning districts. For definition purposes an indoor amusement and recreational facility is defined as an establishment providing indoor amusement or recreational—typical uses include martial arts studios, billiard and pool halls, electronic and coin operated game rooms, bowling alleys, skating rinks, health and fitness establishments, indoor tennis, handball and racquetball courts, auditoriums, theatres, and indoor archery and shooting ranges. So, these are currently permitted in all the other commercial and industrial zoning districts. They are also permitted in other zoning districts that I'll identify shortly. Reason for the amendment is major outdoor amusement or recreational facilities such as race tracks or drive-in theaters can be considered for a Use Permit in these zoning districts. Yet, indoor amusement and recreational facilities which would have smaller apparent impacts given the use's location within a building are prohibited in these same zoning districts. The proposed amendments would simply allow these uses in these additional districts that are considered appropriate in other permitted commercial and industrial zoning districts. EXHIBIT C 4 They are currently permitted in the Resort, in the General Commercial, in the Village Commercial, in the Commercial Industrial [Industrial -Commercial] and in the Commercial Downtown Hilo zoning district. They are considered permitted uses. They don't require a Use Permit. The primary reason for this proposed amendment is to allow indoor amusement and recreational facilities in the remaining commercial and industrial uses where they are not currently permitted. In the last 10+ years, the Planning Department has seen an increase of requests for health and wellness facilities such as CrossFit, weight training gyms, cardio gyms as well as martial arts studios in commercial and industrial zoning districts. The Planning Director is proposing to expand the options for indoor amusement and recreational facilities by increasing the number of zoning districts in which they can be permitted. With the limited number of zoning districts currently available for these types of facilities, they have started operating in residential and/or agricultural areas where they are not permitted. This actually kind of came to a head I would say maybe 5+ years ago where we had a violation in an agricultural zoning district of one of these larger health and wellness facilities, and they tried to apply for a Special Permit, and it wasn't looking like it was going to be approved. The neighbors were in opposition and things like that. And, so, they looked elsewhere in the area around there, and the zoning districts that we're trying to change were the ones available, and they couldn't go in there. And, so even at that time, we decided, you know, it makes sense to allow these in these types of areas. On top of that, currently in Kona and in Hilo, and I'm sure in other zoning areas around the Island, there are a number of these operating in these zoning districts currently. What happens is in the Neighborhood Commercial, Limited Industrial, General Industrial, as well as the other zoning districts, they build a large warehouse type of facilities with a number of bays, and then they rent out the bays. Well, these are perfect locations for all types of uses, but they've really also attracted health and wellness facilities, body building gyms, as well as martial arts studios. So, you will notice a number of them in these areas. So, again, we haven't had any complaints other than the one that I mentioned in the Agricultural zoning district. I'm also aware of one in a Residential zoning district, but they've moved to a permitted zoning district. So, again, a simple change to the Code to be able to provide more options. The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council for these three amendments. Any more questions? CLARKSON: Any questions from the Commission? DARROW: Thank you. CLARKSON: My only comment is to make sure that outdoor recreational facilities that are not commercial are distinguished between the ones that are commercial. DARROW: Thank you. CLARKSON: Ballfields, State parks. EXHIBIT C 5 DARROW: We'll definitely look at that—sorry. [Grabbing microphone.] I will definitely look at that prior to our next hearing with the Leeward Planning Commission. CLARKSON: Okay, at this time, there is—would the Applicant or the Director like to make any comments? YEE: No comments. CLARKSON: At this time, we'll take public testimony on this item on the agenda. We have Mr. Dwight Vicente who has asked to testify. Please introduce yourself, and I'm assuming that you will not be sworn in. VICENTE: That's correct. CLARKSON: So, you may proceed unsworn. VICENTE: Good morning, my name is Dwight Vicente representing the Hawaiian Kingdom. The State of Hawaii is limited to 1,750,000 acres. The County Charter says the whole island is the County but yet I hear people saying, oh the County Council and others claiming that there's private individuals that own these lands that were formerly leased out that they ended in 1915. So, this, there's a discrepancy in the Charter where it states that the whole island is the County when it's not true. By usage, they treat different Hawaiian Home Lands from the so-called agricultural lands which were the leased lands that was not ceded in 1898 by the banana Republic of Hawaii. So, the amendments you're making and all of your abilities whether it be the County, the State, State Land Use, the State Historic Preservation, which by the way is holding `Iolani Palace hostage as a museum. `Iolani Palace was not ceded in 1898. It still belongs to the Hawaiian Kingdom. The jurisdiction of this County and this Commission right here like with the other agencies that the State has is limited to the Hawaiian Homes only. Where this meeting is held right now is on Kingdom land. In other words, this Commission is being held in the Hawaiian Kingdom, so the decisions that you make is questionable. You'd be better off going to Prince Kuhio Plaza to make your, have your hearings and make your decision there. I'd be the appropriate place, because these lands are still under the jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom. So, the political question over these lands and the other lands you speak of whether it be Crown or Government lands that was leased out under King Kalakaua for 25 years, it's still Hawaiian Kingdom. And, that's based on law. You got a Corporation Counsel sitting there that can answer the riddles, and the riddles are many. I hope you guys takes advantage of her. She's available, and I'm pretty sure she's knowledgeable. With this, I'll end with the reservation of the rights of this Kingdom under the Queen's Protest of January 17, 1893, against U.S. Minister Stevens. It has yet to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, original but limited jurisdiction. The other one is the 1898 Joint Resolution where the banana Republic of Hawaii without authority ceded 1,750,000 acres to the U.S., and was illegally incorporated under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, no amendment, EXHIBIT C 6 Marbury vs. Madison. The other one is the 1875 Reciprocity Treaty. King Kalakaua and the U.S. President did not sign, and going all the way back to 1820, President Monroe without constitutional authority appointed John C. Jones as an agent for the U.S. and sent over the missionary families, the U.S. Navy. And, they were under the colonial schemes. No amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Marbury vs. Madison. Thank you. CLARKSON: Thank you, Mr. Vicente. Is there any question for this testifier? Are there any other people wishing to testify on this item on the agenda today? If not, I'll ask for a motion that public testimony be closed. DELA CRUZ: Move that public testimony be closed. REPLOGLE: Second. CLARKSON: All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CLARKSON: Opposed? Public testimony is closed. At this time, I'd like a motion for action on this item. REPLOGLE: I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the ordinance amending Hawaii County Code Chapter 25 based on the Planning Director's recommendation which shall be adopted. DELA CRUZ: Second. CLARKSON: It's been moved and seconded that this, the recommendation be adopted, that the Director's recommendation be adopted. Any further discussion? Questions? If not, please poll the Commission for a vote. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, we'll take the roll call. Commissioner Replogle? REPLOGLE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Au? AU: Aye. DARROW: And, Mr. Chairman. EXHIBIT C 7 CLARKSON: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes four to zero. Thank you. The discussion ended at 10:43 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission EXHIBIT C