Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-08-31 TCOUNCIL-PARKING PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 31, 2007 A regularly advertised hearing on the COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) RELATING TO OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING was called to order at 1:37 p.m. at the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman William Graham presiding. PRESENT: C. Kimo Alameda ABSENT & EXCUSED: Takashi Domingo William Graham Shelly Ogata Andrew Iwashita Rene’ Siracusa Alvin Rho Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 18 people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL Continuation of a Public Hearing on an amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), as amended, relating to off-street parking and loading. The proposed amendment (Bill No. 79 Draft 2) would increase the number of public parking spaces for various establishments. GRAHAM: Will the meeting of the Hawaii County Planning Commission come back to order, please? Our agenda begins with No. 6 on our list here, which is a public hearing on an amendment to Chapter 25 of the Zoning Code relating to off-street parking and loading. The proposed amendment which was initiated by the County Council would increase the number of public parking spaces for various establishments. The presentations on 6, 7 and 8 coming up here now, I think our Planning Director, Mr. Yuen, will make to the Commission. So Chris, whenever you are ready to start, we are ready to go. I also might say on this Item No. 6, I don’t have any public testifiers yet, but if anybody wants to testify from the public, please go up to the end of the table there and sign in for that. YUEN: This agenda item concerns a Council initiated change to the Zoning Code, the parking requirements. Now normally the Commission deals with changes of zone. But the Zoning Code also has a lot of development standards; and one of the development standards is number of required off-street parking places for different types of development. So the way this works is that when plans are brought in to the Planning Department for plan approval, the Department checks the number of required parking stalls against the Zoning Code. EXHIBIT E 1 So there will be a certain number of parking stalls required, for example, for a multi-family building. The County Council-initiated amendments to the Zoning Code would increase the number of required off-street parking stalls for various categories; and that’s Bill 79 that’s in front of you. And in some respects these very greatly increase the number of stalls that are required. The Department took a look at this, and agrees to some extent that some of the off- street parking requirements in the current Zoning Code are too little, but disagrees with some of the changes as far as the extent of those changes. To talk about the points of disagreement for the moment, under the current parking requirements for a retail commercial building, you need one stall per 300 square feet of gross retail floor space. The Council bill would require one per 100 square feet of retail space, which is about the tripling of the current requirements. To give a ballpark idea, many of the big box establishments like the Hilo Wal-Mart have one to 200, if you have an idea of that. And many commercial establishments in recent years have put in more parking than is required by the Zoning Code, simply because of their own analysis of their needs. So the Council bill would, for example, require, say the Hilo Wal-Mart parking lot to be roughly twice the size that it is. What the Planning Department’s bill suggests is that the requirement for restaurants be increased to one to 100 square feet. There have been some problems with restaurants, and if you look at the – we refer to national parking standards that do have more parking requirements for restaurants because of higher turnover – and if you think about the seating in a typical restaurant versus the density of people in a typical retail establishment, you have a lot more people per square foot typically. So we are proposing one to 100 square feet for the category of restaurants. Multi-family buildings, the current Code requires 1¼ parking stalls per unit for a multi-family building. We agree that this is unrealistic in today’s world. Many of the buildings that have been built in the last few years have provided more. We think that a good number would be 2 plus 10 percent for other guests and loading-type spaces. The Council bill is 2½. There are also changes that both bills propose for hotels. This was heard a couple of weeks ago. We looked at it, and made a couple of slight changes that for duplexes that there be two per unit with 10 percent additional guest parking, rather than 2.5. This would be the same as our recommendation for multi-family units, leaving the requirement for rooming and lodging houses at one per two beds, rather than one per one which is in our last draft. And then there had been a provision included in our recommendation at the last meeting that was not actually put in our version of the ordinance; and that recommendation was a way to handle nonconforming buildings. This becomes an important issue with something like parking because if you increase the number of required parking spaces, say an existing apartment building, for example, that had the minimum number of spaces or less than the new requirement becomes a nonconforming building. This is fine as long as the building is there. But if the building burns down or is destroyed in a hurricane or something, then it has to be built to the new standards. This can cause problems for things like the insurability and for insurance payments on a building. And our recommendation to avoid hardship is simply to say that a building that’s made nonconforming because of changes in the parking requirements can still be rebuilt to the same footprint that was before. EXHIBIT E 2 We have a statement in our recommendation about why we disagree with very large parking requirements. And basically what happens is if you have excessive parking requirements, you create this huge parking lot.You end up with a sea of cars; you end up with a lot of impervious surfaces that increase drainage problems; and you create something that is basically a very unattractive environment. So in many cases the businesses can be left to decide. The parking standards should be a minimum. If the businesses want to put in more, they are always allowed to do that. But we don’t want to mandate excessive parking requirements. So that’s the presentation. If there are any questions -? WOODWARD: Mr. Yuen. GRAHAM: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Where do these numbers come from? I mean, are there some standards for, other than just somebody thought these numbers up? YUEN: There are national standards. This is something, of course, that communities throughout the country deal with. And in the recommendation we do have an example of some of the national standards. Our standards for a commercial at one per 300 square feet are in the general range that you find throughout the country. You’ll find some places that employ more of a use by use control on parking. That’s another approach where you have one requirement for a retail store, another requirement for an office building. And we have some of that in our Code, but you’ll find some places where it’s much more specific than that. And then it does require a lot more administrative control over changes of use within a building. But what we’ve presented is based on national standards. And the national standards have a range; and what we’ve presented is within that range. GRAHAM: A follow-up? WOODWARD: Yeah, if I might follow up. I’ve spent a little time looking over some of the letters that we’ve gotten in opposition; and admittedly most of these people are from industry, so they have a little bit of an ax to grind. But several of their points I have to bring up because I kind of agree with them. One of them was, you know, “take paradise and put up a parking lot;” and the other one is “build it and they will come.” You know, the more parking spaces you build, the more you encourage people to use cars for transportation. You end up using up green space; and there is one article in here from an architect who specializes in greenhouse emissions that says that these new regulations would end up causing a 19 percent increase in greenhouse gas emissions, add to the amount of green land that would be required to compensate for that. So there are some realistic objections to this, and that’s why I asked you where the numbers came from. You know, if there is a rational basis for this, we’ll say, okay, you know, we’ve done this study and this is how many spots you have to have. Well, that’s one thing. But there are some realistic objections to it, and I think they are worth noting. YUEN: The objections that were made by, I think there were about three or four architects who wrote in.Generally I agree with those objections that there are big problems created with having too many parking spaces. And there is a lot of planning literature that says EXHIBIT E 3 the same thing. So we aren’t proposing any changes to the commercial level except for, as I said, for restaurants. And I believe we are on somewhat the lower end of the scale even for restaurants as far as parking requirements. The changes that we are proposing for multi-family 1¼ to, the Council’s bill proposes 2½, we propose 2, up from 1¼. One and a quarter is a little unrealistic in today’s world; most households do have two or more cars. And actually the most of the multi-family buildings that we’ve seen have had two cars voluntarily recently. The Code for hotels is also currently unrealistic. This hasn’t actually proven to be much of a problem, but it says that a hotel without a kitchen requires one stall for three hotel rooms. It may have been written with the idea that most visitors were coming and going on buses. That’s probably not true now, so we have an increase in hotel rooms. But I do agree with the thrust of what you just said and those letters from the architects that you don’t want to mandate excessive parking. And particularly, you know, this one stall per 100 square feet of retail is really excessive. GRAHAM: Other questions or comments from Commissioners? WATANABE: Just -. GRAHAM: Yes, Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: Mr. Yuen, just for clarification. With regard to the restaurant, that includes square footage of the kitchen, everything, not just the dining area? YUEN: Let me make sure of that. It would include everything, yes. One to 100 square feet of gross floor area, not just the dining area. WATANABE: Okay. GRAHAM: Any other questions from the Commissioners? I don’t have anyone signed up from the public to testify. If anyone would like to testify, come forward, please. Chris, as far as where we go next, do we take a vote and pass this on today, or are we going to keep it open? YUEN: Yes, actually our request would be that the Planning Commission send a favorable recommendation on the Director’s version of Bill 79. That would be our specific request. GRAHAM: All right. So I’ll close the public hearing part of the process, and we can go forward. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I’ll make a motion. I’ll move that a favorable recommendation be sent to the County Council for amendment to Chapter 25 as revised by the Planning Director. ALAMEDA: Second. GRAHAM: Thank you. Seconded by Commissioner Alameda. Chris, will we need to take any separate vote on the bill as presented to us by the Council? EXHIBIT E 4 YUEN: I think for the sake of clarity that would be a good idea. GRAHAM: Okay. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yeah, just for the record, I’m pretty much looking at this letter from Dr. Foulk, this Parthenon Group stationery, and I guess my interpretation of it is that, or what I get out of it is that he’s saying, you know, don’t, don’t increase it at all. So I’m looking at this. And my perspective is that, you know, we should be doing other things like the Dr. talks about in this letter in terms of making changes that concentrate the development for multi-family and lessening for cars, and not focus on the car part of, you know, which is basically what our laws do. It’s like, you know, every development is driven around this whole parking space issue and, you know, getting people in their cars to get to where they want to go. So I’m inclined to not favor either proposal. GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe, do you have anything further? WATANABE: No, I don’t think so. I think I’ll reserve comment -. GRAHAM: Mr. Yuen, would you volunteer any response to what Commissioner Iwashita said? I think he’s referring to a situation where maybe if you have a sort of node of development where people live near where they shop and all, you don’t need so much parking space as -? YUEN: There are provisions in the Code where the Director can reduce the number of parking spaces. It can be done, for example, by a variance. So the opportunity is there. It can be done; I wouldn’t say it’s a normal thing, but it can be done. GRAHAM: Thank you. Any -? YUEN: A Planned Unit Development is another option, for example, if the developer can show circumstances where the parking requirements can be reduced. And I think that there is also a catch-all provision in the Code which would enable the Director to do that under circumstance where they show that they do not have, they don’t generate the parking needs that are otherwise required. GRAHAM: Thank you. Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: I would agree with Commissioner Iwashita. And you know, I’ve had a lot of problems with traffic in Hawaii, but parking has never been one of them. And I think we are maybe addressing an issue that is really not a problem, and I think we are wasting our time. And we are creating regulations that would require a variance for people who live in places that are not densely inhabited, that would put undue hardship on them, and they have to seek a variance to get around it. And so I am not really in favor of either bill, for that matter. GRAHAM: Thank you. Any further commentary? Mr. Torigoe, if we wind up having an indecisive vote today, can we still pass this on to the Council with that vote, as opposed to carrying it forward again? EXHIBIT E 5 TORIGOE: Well, it depends on your timeframe because there is a 120-day timeframe on these Council-initiated issues. So I think in the past we’ve basically interpreted your rules and the Code to require a good faith effort within the time that you are given. So, you know, that’s what I think we should look at. If you can’t get a vote today and if you are still within the 120 days, you should probably try again. And I don’t know if staff can tell us where we are. GRAHAM: All right, thank you. Anything further before we go for a vote? Go ahead, Jeff. DARROW: Just for clarification purposes, the motion before us is to send a favorable recommendation for the Planning Director’s proposed redraft and an unfavorable recommendation of the County Council’s proposed amendment. Is that correct? WATANABE: Yes. Or do you want to keep that separate? GRAHAM: I think we wanted to keep it separate. WATANABE: Okay, okay. Then it will be just a favorable then, just a favorable for the Planning Director’s, with the Planning Director’s proposed changes. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Yes, Commissioner Woodward. WOODWARD: Yeah, I think it really needs to be separate because if one of us is against the Director’s proposal, and we are also against the other one; if we vote no, then we are saying no to the Director’s proposal and yes to the other one. So there needs to be separate votes. WATANABE: Yeah, it has been separated. WOODWARD: Okay. GRAHAM: All right, Jeff, do you want to take the roll? DARROW: Sure. The motion before us is to send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council for the Planning Director’s proposed redraft of the parking requirements. With that, I’ll take the vote. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? EXHIBIT E 6 IWASHITA: No. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: No. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Aye. DARROW: The motion does not pass, four to two. GRAHAM: I might also, after conferring with Mr. Torigoe a little bit here, if I didn’t misunderstand him, suggest if anyone on the Commission would like to make a motion that we directly pass this up to the Council, informing them of our vote but with the understanding that not having a majority means effectively a negative recommendation, I think we could do that. Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE: Well, basically I think we’ve been advising that if you have time in which you can consider it again, you should do so.The other option is if someone wants to float a different motion, for instance a motion to just send a negative recommendation on the bill that’s before you, then that’s another option, if you can get the votes. HAYASHI: Mr. Chair? GRAHAM: Yes, Norman. th HAYASHI: Just to let you know, the 120-days runs out on September 8. Our th next meeting is on September 7. However, by law we are required to agendize the item six days prior to, and we won’t be able to meet that deadline. TORIGOE: Okay, so -. GRAHAM: Okay. So the question is moot, essentially. Thank you. So we move forward to the second item which is the Council’s initiated Zoning change. WATANABE: You don’t want to vote on that -? GRAHAM: Excuse me? WATANABE: This was two separate, right? EXHIBIT E 7 GRAHAM: Right. And now we are looking at the one where the Council initiated the one -. WATANABE: So you want a motion on the Council’s one. GRAHAM: Yes, I would. WATANABE: Okay. I’ll move to send an unfavorable recommendation for the Council initiated amendments to Chapter 25. ALAMEDA: Second. GRAHAM: Okay. Moved by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Alameda, to send an unfavorable recommendation on the Council’s original suggested ordinance. Any comments from the Commissioners? Jeff? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council initiated amendment to Chapter 25 for off-street parking and loading. With that, I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, six to zero. WATANABE: I have a question. GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe? EXHIBIT E 8 WATANABE: It sounds to me like, yes, we do have time within the 120 days but we wouldn’t be able to agendize it, so we would be outside the 120 days; therefore, it may be appropriate to send it directly up to the Council from this point, especially since we’ve already decided on sending a negative recommendation on their proposal. Is that reasonable? TORIGOE: It’s going up. GRAHAM: My understanding is that’s what’s going to happen automatically. Jeff, if you think we need to take any affirmative action in that regard, or are you aware of our need to do that? DARROW: I don’t think so. GRAHAM: No. Thank you. The discussion ended at 2:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT E 9