Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-03-03 Hearing Transcript - Milo Street Ventures SLU 15-045 REZ 15-197 WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT MARCH 3, 2016 MILO STREET VENTURES A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of (SLU 15-045/REZ 15-197) was called to order at 9:02 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i with Chairman Charles Heaukulani presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Charles Heaukulani, Donn Dela Cruz, Gregory Henkel, Donald Ikeda, Myles Miyasato, and Raylene Moses. ALSO PRESENT: Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), Danny Patel (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Christian Kay (Staff Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And approximately 7 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: MILO STREET VENTURES INC. (SLU-15-045/REZ-15-197) Applications for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from the Agricultural to the Urban District and a Change of Zone from an Agricultural-20 acres (A-20a) to a Limited Industrial- 20,000 square feet (ML-20) zoning district for approximately 2.082 acres of land. The property is located at 16-685 Milo Street, which is on the south side of Milo Street approximately 400 feet east of the Kea‘au Bypass Road and Milo Street intersection, Keaʻau, Puna, Hawaiʻi, TMK: 1-6- 152:020. HEAUKULANI: At this time, I’d like to go to number one on our agenda and, Jeff, ask if you could bring us up to speed, please. DARROW: Sure, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Members of the Planning Commission and Mr. Chairman. If I can direct your attention to our first presentation as mentioned. Our first applicant is Milo Street Ventures, Inc. They’re requesting a State Land Use Boundary Amendment as well as a Change of Zone. For reference, the subject property is located within the Puna District of Hawaiʽi. More specifically, we’re looking in the Keaʽau area, and the subject property is identified with a black outline. For reference, we have Volcano Highway running through the middle of the map in a north-south direction, and then we have the Pāhoa Bypass Road, and the subject application would be located on the Milo Street area. This is a closer view showing the County zoning of the area. The different colors represent the different types of County zonings that we have. The subject property is identified with a black 1 EXHIBIT A outline that is on the south side of Milo Street. For reference, again, we have the Keaʽau-Pāhoa Bypass Road on the left side of the map running in a north-south direction. The colors on the map—the dark green represents Agricultural – 20 acres which the subject property is currently zoned. The purple represents Commercial Industrial Mixed \[sic\] or MCX zoning. The light gray represents Limited Industrial. We have two properties that are Limited Industrial in the area. In fact, three properties. And, the lighter green represents Agricultural – 5 acres. This is our State Land Use Boundary Map. The green represents Agricultural, and the pink represents Urban. And, this is our General Plan. Just recently, you might recall that the General Plan was amended in this particular area. More specifically, the orange area, which is identified as Medium Density Urban, was switched from Low Density Urban to Medium Density. The gray represents Industrial. The interpretation up to this point has been to bring the Industrial up to the highway as represented, represented with the previous rezones in the area. This is an aerial photo. Again, for reference, we have the Keaʽau-Pāhoa Bypass Road. Milo Street, the subject property, is identified in a red outline. Currently, there is a warehouse that is constructed on the subject property. Prior—back in 1988—the Applicants did receive a Special Permit, Special Permit No. 671, which was to allow the processing and packing facility for anthuriums and other flowers and foliage. The Applicant is requesting a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to an Urban District and a Change of Zone from Agricultural – 20 acres to a Limited Industrial – 20,000 square feet, ML-20, zoning district for approximately 2.082 acres of land. The objective is that the owners believe that there is a much broader demand for other non- agricultural uses of the facility that may include service-type Light Industrial service or uses such as self-storage facilities, contractor baseyards, small business storage and warehousing, and among others. This is the Applicant’s site plan that was submitted. For reference, we have Milo Street running in an east-west direction, and the subject property identified in this general location. These are some site photos. This is on Keaʽau-Pāhoa Bypass looking towards Keaʽau Town Center which would be in this location. Milo Street is on your right. This is a channelized intersection. This is at the intersection looking towards down Milo Street. Just for reference, on the left side would be the credit union that was built previously, and we have Greenhouse Specialists on the right side. 2 EXHIBIT A This is a little further down. The subject property would be on the right, and this, which includes the fenced area identifying their property boundary, and this is a little further down with, again, the subject property on the right side with the fencing. The Planning Director is recommending to send favorable recommendations to the County Council for both the State Land Use Boundary Amendment and the Change of Zone which is accompanied by conditions. That concludes our presentation. Thank you. HEAUKULANI: Thank you, Jeff. Commissioners, any questions for staff? MIYASATO: Jeff, I just have a question on this. You know, it’s a State Land Use Boundary Amendment over 15 acres, and why isn’t it a Land Use Commission matter? DARROW: For this particular matter? MIYASATO: Yes. DARROW: The subject property is two acres. MIYASATO: The amendment is for two acres, but if the total acreage is 20, then it, it only pertains to the acreage that’s being— DARROW: —Proposed. MIYASATO: Proposed. Okay. DARROW: Yeah, so the total property is two acres. Is it—is there something that says 20 acres? MIYASATO: It says Change of Zone from Ag – 20 acres. DARROW: Oh no, that’s the zoning. The current zoning is Ag-20. So, we’re going from Ag-20 to Limited Industrial – 20,000 square feet, but the actual property itself is two acres. MIYASATO: Okay, thank you. DARROW: Thank you. HEAUKULANI: Commissioners, any other questions for Jeff? DARROW: Thank you. 3 EXHIBIT A HEAUKULANI: Will the Applicant or their representative please come forward? Good morning, sir. NISHIMURA: Good morning. HEAUKULANI: Could I get you to raise your right hand, please? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Planning Commission? NISHIMURA: Yes, I do. HEAUKULANI: Thank you. Please state your name, the area you reside in, and then you can let us know what’s on your mind. NISHIMURA: Brian Nishimura. I reside at 1174 Awiki Place in Hilo. HEAUKULANI: Good morning, sir. NISHIMURA: Good morning. We’d like to thank the Planning Department for their favorable recommendation. We appreciate that very much. The Applicant has reviewed the proposed conditions and is able to comply with all of them except for the proposed Condition G which requires, or it’s a roadway condition requiring paved shoulders and swale improvements consisting but not limited to pavement widening with paved shoulder and swale improvements, drainage improvements, and required utility relocation. We believe that this condition should not be imposed for the following reasons. Number one, this section of Milo Street serving the subject property is in very good condition. Along the subject property’s frontage, the pavement width ranges from 32 feet to 24 feet wide. This pavement width is comparable to pavement widths serving other industrial properties including the Kanoelehua Industrial Area here in Hilo. The Applicant is not proposing any new use at this time. The anthurium packing facility will continue to operate as it has for the past 25 years. When the facility was first opened in 1991, Milo Street was a gravel road, so it has been vastly improved over the years, and as I indicated, is now a minimum of 24-foot wide pavement within a 40-foot right-of-way. The draft ordinance states that the conditions are necessary to fulfill needs directly emanating from the land use proposed and also to prevent circumstances which may be adverse to public health, safety, and welfare. The anthurium packing facility has not caused any public health, safety, or welfare issues during the years of operation. The major asset on the property is a 17,000-square foot warehouse structure. Any new use of the property is likely to have less impact then the existing operation which has 26 employees working six days a week and generating approximately 35 trips per day. The private, paved section of Milo Street is only approximately 2,000 feet long, serving five parcels along Milo Street. There is a gate at the end of the paved section, and that controls 4 EXHIBIT A access to W. H. Shipman’s makai agricultural parcels. Shipman has indicated that they do not have any commercial plans for properties along the road. The Planning Department’s objective in including this roadway condition appears to be intended to result in having a County standard roadway to serve the Industrial zoned parcels on Milo Street. However, it is highly unlikely that this will ever happen because each parcel is not subject to the same conditions. For example, there is no requirement for future road widening for, of Milo Street, of the Milo Street right-of-way for the Christian Liberty parcel, Tax Map Key No. 1-6-3, parcel 17 or the Hawaiian Rainforest Water Company parcel, parcels 1-6-3:18 and 23. Moreover, the improvement requirements for the Hawaiian Rainforest Water Company are triggered prior to the dedication of the roadway indicating that improvements would not be required if the road is not dedicated. Similarly, the condition imposed on Tax Map Key: 1-6-152:23 across the street and to the north of the subject property has a condition which triggers improvements to dedicable standards prior to dedication. It should be noted that the Planning Department’s Recommendation states and I quote, “At this time, there are no plans for the County to request Milo Street to be improved and dedicated to the County as this is a private road.” Without a coordinated effort to plan, design, build, and dedicate the roadway improvements to the County involving all of the affected landowners, there will be an inequitable burden placed on landowners that will be required to make their improvements in advance of the others. In addition, the existing pavement is not situated in the middle of the existing 40-foot road right-of- way. So, the widths of the shoulders and swales will not be consistent. Piecemeal construction of the improvements will result in inefficiencies in addressing drainage and utility issues. Moreover, liability issues will be a concern for both the private owner of the roadway as well as the individual property owners because the improvements will overlap the property line without a clear delineation of ownership and responsibility. For these reasons, the Applicant feels that the limited resource, their limited resources, would be better spent through participation in a roadway improvement and maintenance program as described in Condition H of the proposed conditions and which they are willingly able to participate. Thank you. HEAUKULANI: Thank you, sir. So, just so I’m clear and the record’s clear, you’ve received and reviewed the entire Background Report and Recommendation Reports from the Planning Director? NISHIMURA: That’s correct. HEAUKULANI: And, are you or your clients in agreement with everything except for Condition of Approval G. 5 EXHIBIT A NISHIMURA: That’s correct. HEAUKULANI: Can I get staff to I guess give us the position of the Department in your basis for Condition of Approval G, Jeff? DARROW: Sure, thank you, Mr. Chairman. When an applicant comes before the Planning Commission and the Council to request a Change of Zone to a higher density type zoning, we take into consideration infrastructure improvements that would be needed that would be able to handle the additional high density of that particular zoning. There are standards, roadway standards, for Industrial zoning. We’re just simply reflecting those. If I can defer, refer you to our memorandum received from the Department of Public Works which is our Exhibit No. 4, they’re asking for the properties’ frontage to be improved with pavement widening with curb, gutter, and sidewalk and drainage improvements, so they wanted actually a higher standard for this particular application. And, not only this one, but others as well on Milo Street. In the past, understanding this unique situation of the privately owned road by Shipman and the circumstances that it puts on the applicants to improve to these standards, we’ve, we’ve actually recommended that it be brought down to a lesser standard which is the paved swales, and that would be in our Exhibit No. 3. It kind of gives you an indication of the two different standards that we look at. Industrial zoning does call for a 60-foot wide right-of-way, which at this time, as mentioned, it’s approximately 40 feet. So, as well as the applicant across the street which came in, in 2004, they were required to do a future road widening setback and improvement similar to this application of ten feet. And, so we’re just asking for the same thing. In talking with the County, you know, the process is for the County to accept the roadway for dedication, the road has to be built to dedicable standards. Unless the County builds it, they’re not going to come in and build it and then, and then take it over. It has to be built to dedicable standards. So, it doesn’t seem very likely that in the near future, or far future actually, that this road is going to be built to dedicable standards by any other than either Shipman, the landowner of the private roadway, and/or the applicants that own properties along the roadway. So, again, with—with the request of the higher use, there comes infrastructure considerations that have to be met. HEAUKULANI: Thank you, Jeff. Commissioners, any questions for—I’ll leave it open—for either the Applicant or for staff on this matter? IKEDA: Mr. Chairman? HEAUKULANI: Commissioner Ikeda. 6 EXHIBIT A IKEDA: Jeff, can I ask you a question? Maybe I’m misreading this thing, but Condition H says if the owner of the private road, which I believe is Shipman, fronting the subject property initiates the roadway improvement and maintenance program for improvement and maintenance of Milo Streets, so if he initiates the program, then the Applicant shall be required to pay a fair share of the road, road owner for the program. So, I figure if Shipman does make a requirement to improve the roads, I believe all the owners in the front has to pay their fair share. Am I misreading this or—? DARROW: No, that’s correct. It was our hope that Shipman would initiate such a program, but at this time, they have not. IKEDA: No, but if the condition is in there, wouldn’t it help in the future because it’s a—it’s not for now, but it’s for the future. DARROW: It actually was reflective of a condition that was placed in a similar application in this general area for the school. There was a condition for the Christian Liberty School that they contribute to a main, to the maintenance of the private roads leading to the subject parcel and the walkway fronting the subject property as agreed upon with W. H. Shipman. Such agreement in the form of restrictive covenants in the deed shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director during Final Plan Approval. In speaking with Shipman, apparently this particular maintenance program and improvement program did not get off the ground. IKEDA: Yes, but if the condition is in, if Shipman should initiate the program, then— DARROW: —Right— IKEDA: —all these people have to pay a fair share which— DARROW: —Correct— IKEDA: —I think is kind of, it’s fair. DARROW: Right. IKEDA: Okay, thank you. DARROW: And, we’re looking at two different things here. We’re looking at the right-of-way owned by Shipman, and we’re looking at the future road widening setback area that we’re asking for to widen the road to these industrial standards. HEAUKULANI: Commissioner Henkel. HENKEL: You know, looking at the site photo that’s being projected there and noting the location of the utility poles, you know, as pointed out that the road doesn’t go down the center of 7 EXHIBIT A the right-of-way, and on the left side of the street there, there’s probably 20 feet between the roadway edge and the utility pole. And, if you look further, at the next pole on the right side of the street, it’s right on the roadway edge, so I mean it seems to me that the improvements should be made on the other side of the street then the side that Mr. Nishimura is occupying. DARROW: What you’re looking at in this photo is the current Milo Street pavement, the property boundary of the Applicants which is identified by the placement of the fence. So, the requested 10-feet future road widening setback would be from where that fence is going onto the property and those improvements being made. There is a similar condition for the applicant across the street, did that have to do similar improvements. So, the hope is that when both are improved, you will have a 60-foot right-of-way with the improvements with the paved swales. KANUHA: Mr. Chairman? HEAUKULANI: Yes, Director Kanuha. KANUHA: If I could direct the Commissioners to pages 4 and 5 of the County’s Recommendation. Pages 4 and 5 of the Recommendation—both of those pages have rather extensive discussion of the roadway situations within this area, so if you take a quick glance at that, you can see the difficulty we have in different requirements that have been imposed on individual projects within there. What this condition, what Condition G basically is, it’s a departure from the Department of Public Works’ requirements because their requirements for this kind of road basically says there’s a need, a requirement for curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. What we have done, given the situation along Milo Street, which is, you know kind of chop suey. Some guys gotta do this; other guys gotta do that. That’s how we—we came up with a compromise condition which we’re suggesting that the Commission consider the improvements to be done for the purposes of advancing this rezoning request, is mainly to, to additional pavement with swales to take care of, you know, minimal drainage issues. And, if down the road, Shipman decides to coordinate the necessary improvements to have Milo Street dedicated to the County, then the, this Applicant would be required to participate in whatever it would, their pro rata share, to get Milo Street to those standards where the County would take it. HEAUKULANI: Commissioners, any other questions for Applicant, staff, Director Kanuha? Thank you, sir. You can be seated. We don’t have anyone signed up to testify. Is there anyone here that wants to testify on this matter? Seeing none, Commissioners, I’d like a motion to close public testimony, please. IKEDA: Move to close public testimony. 8 EXHIBIT A DELA CRUZ: Second. HEAUKULANI: Thank you. We have a motion to close public testimony by Commissioner Ikeda and a second by Commissioner Miyasato \[sic\]. Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. HEAUKULANI: Opposed? Hearing none, the motion to close public testimony carries. Commissioners, is there a motion for action on this matter? MIYASATO: Chair, I’ll make a motion. HEAUKULANI: Commissioner Miyasato. MIYASATO: I move that a favorable recommendation—recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for the State Land Use Boundary Amendment, Docket No. SLU 15-045 based on the Planning Director’s findings and recommendations which shall be adopted. IKEDA: Second. HEAUKULANI: I believe that was Commissioner Ikeda. We have a—it’s been moved by Commissioner Miyasato; seconded by Commissioner Ikeda. Is there any discussion? Commissioner Henkel. HENKEL: I—I kind of feel that it’s Shipman’s kuleana, and that they should work out any improvements with their leaseholders. Would you consider amending your motion to exclude provision G, Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: I would—I would agree with the Department’s standpoint of a condition that’s being imposed consistently for the application. If the motion fails, we can welcome your, another motion to be made. HENKEL: Okay. HEAUKULANI: Any further discussion? Jeff, I’d ask that you take a roll call after restating the motion, please. DARROW: Sure, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council— IKEDA: —Excuse me, Mr. Chair?— DARROW: —for the State Land Use— 9 EXHIBIT A IKEDA: —I didn’t hear a second. DARROW: —boundary amendment— HEAUKULANI: —Excuse me, just a second, Jeff. I’m sorry? IKEDA: I didn’t hear the second on the amendment. HEAUKULANI: I don’t think there was—I apologize— HENKEL: I didn’t make a motion. I just asked him if he would consider revising his motion. HEAUKULANI: There wasn’t a motion on the table. DARROW: Just for clarification, we’re just working with the State Land Use Boundary Amendment at this time, and then we’ll go to the Change of Zone. PATEL: Just to follow up on that, Jeff, real briefly. So, the condition would apply to the Change of Zone application, not—and the current motion is on the SLU. DARROW: So, with that, we’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman. HEAUKULANI: Aye. 10 EXHIBIT A DARROW: The motion passes six to zero. HEAUKULANI: Thank you. You’ll be notified of the Commission’s decision in writing. DARROW: Oh, Change of Zone. HEAUKULANI: My apologies, go ahead. And, Commissioners, I would entertain a motion on the Change of Zone. IKEDA: Mr. Chairman, I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application of Change of Zone, Docket No. REZ 15-197 based on the Planning Director’s findings, recommendations, and proposed conditions which shall be adopted. HEAUKULANI: Thank you, Commissioner Ikeda. MIYASATO: Second. HEAUKULANI: A second by Commissioner Miyasato. Commissioners, any discussion? Jeff, again, please roll call vote, and restate the motion. DARROW: Sure. The motion before us is to send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaiʽi County Council for Change of Zone No. 15-197. With that, we’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman. HEAUKULANI: Aye. 11 EXHIBIT A DARROW: The motion passes six to zero. HEAUKULANI: And, you’ll be notified of the Commission’s decision in writing. Thank you. The discussion ended at 9:31 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 12 EXHIBIT A