Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-09-22 tpuna PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAIÒI HEARING TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of PUNA SUGAR MILL, LLC (SLU 03-001/REZ 03-001) was called to order at 9:16 a.m. in the Count Councilroom-Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, HawaiÒi, with Chairperson Fred Galdones presiding. PRESENT:Fred GaldonesABSENT & EXCUSED:Earl Fujikawa Bill GrahamJeffrey McCall Florence KubotaHannah Springer Aurelio C. Mina, Jr. Francis Smith Bill P. Thibadeau Patricia OÓToole, Deputy Corporation Counsel Chris Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 11 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: PUNA SUGAR MILL, LLC (SLU 03-001/REZ 03-001) Continued hearing on the following applications: a.State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban for 14.901 acres of land. b.Change of Zone from Agricultural 20 acres (A-20a) to Limited Industrial 20,000 square feet (ML-20) for 14.901 acres of land and Agricultural 5 acres (A-5a) for 8.724 acres of land. The property is the former Puna Sugar Company Mill site situated Milo Street extension, and bordering the McCully's MCX Subdivision, Keaau, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-6-3:99 GALDONES:Commissioners, the first agenda item before us is Unfinished Business. The Applicant is Puna Sugar Mill, LLC (SLU 03-001/REZ 03-001). This is a continued hearing on the following applications: a. State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban for approximately 14.901 acres of land; and, b. Change of Zone from Agricultural 20 acres (A-20a) to Limited Industrial 20,000 square feet (ML-20) for 14.901 acres of land and Agricultural 5 acres (A-5a) for 8.724 acres of land. Norman? EXHIBIT A HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may direct you to the presentation map. First of all, IÓll go to the location map. The subject property is indicated in red, this red dot. This is the Hawaii Belt Highway going towards Mt. View, and this would be in the Hilo direction. The Shipman Industrial Park is indicated here in this location in red and is zoned for Industrial use. Also, this particular property is the Shipman Mixed Commercial property that was rezoned a number of years ago. The Keaau-Pahoa Bypass Road, or the Keaau Bypass Road is in this configuration going towards Pahoa. Keaau Village is indicated in this specific location and is zoned for Village Commercial. The McCully property that was rezoned two or three years ago is situated at the corner of the Milo Street extension and the Keaau Bypass Road. The colors on the map indicate the various zoning districts. As I indicated earlier, these gray areas are Industrial-zoned lands. We also have Mixed Commercial zoning here and here. The green, dark green is on lands that were designated Agricultural-20 acres. We also have some other Agricultural-5 acres here and Residential lands indicated in yellow. Again, going toward the, to the site map that was presented by the Applicant, the subject property consists of 23 acres or 23-plus acres and is located off of the Milo Street extension. Again, this would be Keaau Bypass Road located on the makai side of this map. The Applicant is requesting that the 14.9 acre property be reclassified from the State Land Use Agriculture to the Urban District. At the same time, theyÓre also requesting that that land, the 14.9 acres, be rezoned from Agricultural-20 acres to Limited Industrial- 20,000 square feet or ML-20. The remaining 8. acres of the property would be rezoned from Agricultural-20 acres to Agricultural-5 acre zoned district. Surrounding land uses include the HELCO power plant, which is this gray shaded area. You have some uses that were granted Special Permits for. And it would be the Green House Specialist facility at this location; we also have the Christian Liberty School that was granted by a Special Permit, also, in the immediate area would be the, have that Tropical Products or papaya processing facility. Milo Street, this section of Milo Street from the Keaau Bypass Highway to the subject property, fronting the subject property, is owned by W. Shipman, Limited. W. H. Shipman, Limited has provided or granted an easement to the Applicant for this particular rezoning. The Planning Director is recommending approval of this, of the State Land Use Boundary Amendment, as well as the rezoning from Agricultural-20 acre and 20,000 square feet and Agricultural-20-acre to Agricultural-5 acre zoned district, with conditions attached to the rezoning. Are there any questions at this time? 2 GALDONES:Commissioners, any questions of Norman? KUBOTA:I have one. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Norm, the reason for the original continuance was to come agreement on the use of the easement, wasnÓt it? HAYASHI:ThatÓs correct. KUBOTA:And that seems to have been settled? HAYASHI:Yes. The reason we requested a continuance at that time was to allow the Applicant to obtain an easement from W. H. Shipman. KUBOTA:Which has been successful? HAYASHI:That is correct. KUBOTA:Thank you. HAYASHI:A letter is, the ShipmanÓs letter is included as part of your documents. KUBOTA:Included, yeah. Okay, I saw that. The other question I wanted to ask was, you know, we permitted some quarrying to be, you know that rock-crushing, I think it was Kuwaye Brothers or -. HAYASHI:It -. KUBOTA:Was it in that vicinity? HAYASHI:Are you referring to the Puna Rock? I know thereÓs a Puna Rock facility located in this general area, I believe. KUBOTA:Oh, itÓs in that area? HAYASHI:Yes. KUBOTA:Okay. Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Norman, just quickly. Is this currently like one single TMK parcel of 23 acres thatÓs going to be split into two parcels? Is that correct or -? 3 HAYASHI:Basically, itÓs going to be split into three parcels. ThereÓll be two Industrial lots and the remaining Agricultural-5 acre zoned land, if itÓs granted. GRAHAM:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions of Norman? Hearing none, if the Applicant or his representative is present, please come forward? Go ahead, Mr. Fuke. Raise your right hand. Now, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? FUKE:Yes, I do. GALDONES:Please state your name and your resident address and you may begin your testimony. FUKE:Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Sidney Fuke. IÓm a planning consultant. My address is 1358-C Mele Manu St. in Hilo. With me today is also the applicant, Mr. Jere Henderson, representing Puna Sugar Mill, LLC. Mr. Henderson has had a chance to review the staffÓs Background Report and the proposed Recommendations. Generally, the, well, we appreciate the favorable recommendation and the background report is accurate. The conditions are generally acceptable. However, weÓd like to just kind of note for the record that there appears to be two conditions that might be somewhat unorthodox. I guess, maybe, this might be a question both of the Director and your counsel. But, again, you know, these conditions do not really have any material impact to the applicantÓs project because he wants to do exactly what is represented in the application. Nonetheless, if I could kind of, for the record, note that there was a Condition D which calls for including within the deed covenant a provision that there be no reclassification within five years, you know, of the remaining 7- or 8-acre parcel. Again, just for the record, the applicant has no objections to that but I just kind of wanted to just hear from your staff, your legal or your Planning Director, so far as the appropriateness of that condition. Largely because itÓs more a question of, the applicant doesnÓt want to have the zoning that might, you know, might at some point in time have provisions that may be deemed legal or, excuse me not legal, but illegal. So we just kind of wanted to make certain that it does not invalidate the applicantÓs requested zo And the other one was, of course, like Condition E which talks about like no home improvement centers. And, again, from a technical standpoint, t objection because he does not have any intention of having the potential tenants or the buyers to put in a home improvement center in that area. But it guess, I guess of whether the, this is going to be Ðlike a standard practiceÑ on the part of 4 the staff or the Department in coming forth with a provision that would exclude certain uses that the, otherwise are generally allowed in the zone change. And, again, from a substantive standpoint, you know, the Applica either one of those two. But, for the record, I wanted to get some clarification. Aside from that, the staffÓs Background Report and the responses to the questions raised by various Commissioners, IÓll be happy to answer them, or be more than happy to respond to other questions that the Commissioners may have. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Norman, would you like to respond Mr. FukeÓs concern regarding Condition D and Condition E. YouÓll yield to the Chair, the Director? HAYASHI:Yes. GALDONES:Okay. Mr. Yuen? YUEN:First, on the limitation, the remaining 8 acres, we got a letter from the State Land Use Commission Executive Director who talked about the concern they had about the project being segmented. This is a concern that theyÓve expressed in a number of cases. And the reason for their concern is that the law says that you can take up to 15 acres on the County level, and take it from Agriculture to Urban. You cannot take, if you go beyond 15 acres, you canÓt go, you must go to th Commission. So their concern is that when you have a parcel that is say 20 or 30 acres and somebody comes in with an application to take only 15 acres of that into the Urban District without, on the County level without going to the Land Use Commission, that leaves open the possibility that they will come in next year, couple of years later, for the remaining 8 acres, 10 acres, 15 acres. This would be an end-run around the State Land Use law. ItÓs not something, itÓs something that has been seen before, letÓs put it that way. So itÓs actually a rather mild way of meeting with this concern. We want to put in a clause that says that you canÓt reclassify the remaining portion of the property for five years to avoid this idea of segmenting the property, and going 15 acres now and for the remainder at a later time. I should mention that, in looking over the material today, we really should have made, this is Condition D of the rezoning. We really should have made this in, it should have been, the condition should have been put in the State Land Use Boundary ordinance Òcause it really relates to that more than the rezoning. And it should be reworded slightly; and since weÓre talking about it, I think this is a good time to put in the, say the rewording. It now starts out saying, ÐThe applicant shall include a restrictive covenant in the deed which states that,Ñ and take out up to Ðstates,Ñ and then Ðstates that,Ñ the sentence should begin with, ÐThe approximately 8-acre portion of the property in the State Land Use Agricultural District shall not be reclassified in the Urban District for 5 5 years unless the State Land Use law is amended to change the r more than 15 acres must approved by the Land Use Commission,Ñ fu say, ÐThe Applicant shall include a restrictive covenant in the deed which states that.Ñ On the second question, the reason for having the limitation for no-home improvement centers, the Department can generally support Light Industrial uses in this location. ItÓs a right place for it. The Zoning Code was amended several years ago though to allow home improvement centers in ML zones, generally. A home improvement center is a much larger type of operation that could be a major traffic generator and is really a major type of urban retail use. On a selective basis when the site is not right for that use, the Department, in approving an ML zone, would knock out that as a use. We also have been, weÓve been approving rezoning. So the Department has been recommending that the Council and the Planning Commission approve rezonings that may limit some of the uses that are normally allowed in the zone. This is specificall Code that says that the Council can put conditions on a Change of Zone, including conditions that affect the use of the property. I wrote a memo to Corporation Counsel on this subject and I believe the Chair of the Council Planning Commission. IÓm not sure if I sent a copy of t Commission. But if any of the Commissioners want it, IÓd be happy to send the Commission members a copy of this memo that explains the sources of the CountyÓs power to do this. Sometimes, and this is an import-, this comes up because very often you see people who will come in for a Change of Zone and they have a specific proje to do. The project itself may be fairly limited in scale and it looks fine to do that project. But if youÓre looking at all the potential ranges of things that they could do with the zoning, then as a consequence of that -. If you just rezone the property and you allow that full-range of uses, you might say, have to say, no, to begin with, if itÓs a all-or- nothing kind of situation where you had to say, you could do all these, if you rezone this property and do all these things, that then you would have a lot of hesitation about doing it. If we had, for example, if Home Depot were coming in to rezone this property, as an Applicant in order to put a Home Depot in there, we would not, I mean, I would not favor this location. Because if you, and this goes back to the -. If you look at the Department of TransportationÓs comments on the McCully rezoning, because of the problems that you would have in -. YouÓre creating cross-bypass traffic, youÓre creating a major traffic generator that forces people to cross a bypass highway and, really, it hurts the function of the bypass highway as a means to move people through the communi So, in this case, we, the Department is supporting a Light, a true Light Industrial-type use or rezoning of the property but limiting the possibilities of what can be, limiting this particular possibility that exists under the zoning. 6 GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:The communication is available to the Commissioners you say. So may I request a copy of that communication which gives the County jurisdiction to do that? YUEN:Yes, IÓd be happy to send that. KUBOTA:Thank you. GALDONES:Mr. Fuke? FUKE:ItÓs my understanding that based on what the Director has indicated that as far as providing the proposed restriction on, you know, not coming in for subsquent boundary amendments for the remaining area, and as well as putting in use restrictions which may, you know, as well as putting in use rest kind of like Ða practiceÑ on the part of the staff. And it would not necessarily be unique to the applicant or this application? YUEN:It has been done on other applications. The one that I can think of is True Value rezoning in Volcano where we did not allow some of the uses that would normally be, that would normally go along with the zoning; and that was, it was passed in that manner by the Council, as you may recall, in fact. FUKE:I just have to put things on the record. And that would also now apply to the Land Use Commission restriction? YUEN:That condition would only be in the Urban, would only be part of the Urban, of the rezoning. ItÓs not part of the LUC. FUKE:If an applicant were to come in with generally the similar circumstance, maybe about a 20-acre area, and come in for maybe a 13 or 14-acre urban reclassification, would that person then be saddled with the same type of Land Use Commission restriction, LUC restriction, on the application? YUEN:I think if it looked like there was a potential that this w thatÓs being segmented, I donÓt know that we can always say that we would do that, but itÓs, in similar circumstances we elect similarly. ItÓs not something that your Applicant is being singled out for. FUKE:I see. GALDONES:Any further questions? Commissioners, any further questions? Hearing none -. 7 KUBOTA:Yes, Mr. Chair, while weÓre on the subject of the segmentation, before I forget, I would like to request that since segmentation seems to have come to the fore regarding the, well, it has been in the fore, letÓs leave it at that. I would like for us to schedule some discussion amongst the Commissioners and the Planning Director on how we are going to best handle all of these requests that are coming through that may seem like segmentation, who is to determine whether these kinds of restrictions be included. I would like to have a discussion on all of the ramifications of the segmentation process and how the County plans, in the future, to handle such requests that are coming through. GALDONES:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I would like to support Commissioner Kubota in her concern. It does feel like weÓre getting continual comments from the Land Use Commission regarding this issue. And when somebody gives you a continual c something about your behavior, you tend to want to take it seriously rather than pro forma or anything, not that thatÓs all weÓre doing here. And, also, just for the public, you know, we donÓt really have discussions informally or anything about this, so either we kind of use our time during a public hearing which is really probably not appropriate to discuss it or else we have to come up with something special, like Ms. Kubota was saying. Also, in regard to this, it seems to me that when I read the let Commission, it wasnÓt just talking about segmentation in a time sense; and Planning Director Yuen sort of said that his mild way of addressing it with the restriction on the 8-acre parcel seem to me that sort of addresses the time segment, the time issue about, you know, segmentation doing it now for this and later for somet like the letter from the Land Use Commission was looking at the very idea where you have a 23-acre parcel and you only recategorize, reclassify a portion of it, you know, what are the reasons why youÓre not reclassifying the whole thing, are there really reasons there on the ground, or is this sort of a way to avoid. So, anyway, I think it really merits our further discussion at some point; and I donÓt know that we need to continue with this application, but I agree with Ms. Kubota. GALDONES:Commissioners, letÓs do this, and since we have this subject matter here before us right now, and although the subject matter being discussed right now has some pertinence to continuing in our work as Commissioners, letÓs dispose of this subject matter before us. Then, after that, weÓll entertain a motion, if youÓd like to, Ms. Kubota, put that into a motion, and letÓs have a discussion and act upon it before I take the next agenda item. KUBOTA:Thank you. GALDONES:Okay. Commissioners, any further discussion on the subject matter before us? Hearing none, Commissioners, the State Land Use Boundary Amendment comes with a recommendation, a favorable recommendatio Department. What is the wishes of the Commission? 8 HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, before you do that, thereÓs one more change that weÓd like to, a minor change that weÓd like to make to the proposed conditions. And that would be to have proposed condition, and this is for the Change of Zone, and that would be to proposed Condition I. If you look at the top of page 2, it says, ÐPublic Works Construction R-34 (revised),Ñ we would like to add the words, after Ð(revised),Ñ Ð- top illustration of page.Ñ In other words, thereÓs two illustrations on page, on this page, that references the R-34 Construction. So we want them to utilize the top illustration of that page. YUEN:Just to, a little further explanation. There are two illustrations, one being the top of page, which shows a roadway section that has, that does not have a sidewalk. It has a paved swale and shoulder. The bottom of the page has a sidewalk. Being that the adjoining property owner, the McCully MCX rezoning did not require a sidewalk, we are not requiring a sidewalk on the Milo Street frontage. We would be requiring a paved shoulder and swale as shown in that standard detail. GALDONES:Okay. Thank you. Norman, any other amendments? HAYASHI:Just for clarification purposes, again, perhaps this is directed to the Planning Director, on proposed Condition D, is your intent to delete that from the rezoning, but transferring that to the State Land Use? YUEN:Yes. GALDONES:Mr. Fuke, having heard the amendments made to Condition Approval Item I, do you have any remarks? FUKE:No. I think that thatÓs a very good clarifying comment. I didnÓt realize that there had been two illustrations on that. The applicant always understood that itÓs not going to be a curb, gutter, sidewalk section. So the DirectorÓs proposal is right on point. And, likewise, on Condition B, to have it transferred to the State Land Use Commission, I think thatÓs, you know, with the comments noted earlier, I understand that. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further question of Mr. Fuke? If none, is there anyone from the public here to testify on this subject matter? Seeing none, then Commissioners, weÓll take the State Land Use Boundary Amendment first. It comes with a favorable recommendation. WhatÓs the wishes of the Commissioners? Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman, I move that this Commission send a favorabl recommendation on SLU 03-001 to the County Council, and I think I understood that there is to be a condition added to that. HAYASHI:ThatÓs correct. The condition -. 9 KUBOTA:Condition as revised in D? HAYASHI:Correct. So that would be condition, any, of the State-. KUBOTA:Of the -. Okay, okay. And, as revised. Do you have the revision, I donÓt have to read that? HAYASHI:Yes, we do. KUBOTA:Thank you. MINA:Second. GALDONES:It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded b Commissioner Mina that Puna Sugar Mill, LLC, State Land Use Boundary Amendment application, SLU 03-001, be given a favorable recommendation and forwarded to the Council with the amendment. KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman? Oh, we have to vote, yeah. GALDONES:Discussion? Hearing none, Norman? HAYASHI:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Mina? MINA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Chairman Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. 10 HAYASHI:Chair, motion passes. GALDONES:Thank you, Norman. Commissioners, on Change of Zone fr Agricultural-20 acres (A-20a) to Limited Industrial-20,000 square feet (ML-20)? KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman, I move that Change of Zone application (REZ 03-001) be given a favorable recommendation and forwarded to County Council with an amendment to the conditions by deletion of Condition D, and the conditions being renumbered accordingly, and, also, a change in Condition I by addition, and I didnÓt catch the phrase that you wanted to add on. HAYASHI:Just that Ð- top of page.Ñ KUBOTA:ItÓs Ð- top of page,Ñ after the parenthesis R-34 (revised). HAYASHI:That would be within the parenthesis (revised). KUBOTA:ÐTop of page.Ñ Okay, (revised-top of page.)Ñ MINA:Second. GALDONES:It has moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded by Commissioner Mina that Puna Sugar Mill, LLC, Change of Zone application (REZ 03-001) be given a favorable recommendation and forwarded to the County Council, as amended as stated by Commissioner Kubota. Commissioners, discussion? Hearing none, Norman? HAYASHI:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Mina? MINA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. 11 HAYASHI:Chair Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Again, Mr. Chair, motion carries, six to zero. GALDONES:Thank you. Mr. Fuke, youÓll be informed in writing of actions. FUKE:Thank you. GALDONES:YouÓre welcome. The discussion ended at 9:47 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 12