Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-04-06 Hearing Transcript - PD Initiated Meeting FacilitiesWINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT APRIL 6, 2017 A regularly advertised hearing on the Planning Director Initiated request for an amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning), Hawaii County Code 1983 (2016 Edition, as amended) relating to meeting facilities and community buildings was called to order at 9:41 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Gregory Henkel presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Joseph Clarkson, Donn Dela Cruz, Gregory Henkel, Donald Ikeda, and Myles Miyasato. ALSO PRESENT: Michael Yee (Planning Director), Malia Ho (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Maija Jackson (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner), Shancy Watanabe (Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And 4 members from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR An ordinance amending Chapter 25 (Zoning), Hawaii County Code 1983 (2016 Edition, as amended), Articles 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 relating to meeting facilities and community buildings. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to incorporate the definitions of meeting facilities and community buildings into a single, comprehensive definition by maintaining and expanding upon the definition of meeting facilities. Additionally, the amendments will identify what zoning districts will require a Special Permit or a Use Permit to allow for a meeting facility. HENKEL: Number three, are we good to go on that? DARROW: Sure. HENKEL: This is also initiated by the Planning Director. An ordinance amending Chapter 25 Hawaii County Code 1983 2016 Edition, as amended, Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 relating to meeting facilities and community buildings. Please proceed. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, members of the Planning Commission. If I can direct your attention to our next presentation. The Planning Director has initiated amendments, as mentioned, to Chapter 25, the Zoning Code, Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 of the Hawaii County Code relating to meeting facilities and community buildings. The reasons for the amendments is that the references within the Zoning Code for meeting facilities and community buildings are very similar in definition and in use. The Planning Director is proposing to combine these two uses and definitions into a single, comprehensive 10V1111.11 1.1 definition by maintaining and expanding upon the definition of meeting facilities and to remove all references to community buildings. Over many years, there has been confusion regarding the meaning and definition of meeting facilities versus community buildings and vice versa. Given the similarities, this bill attempts to simplify things through a single definition with a single set of applicable requirements. The current definition for community building means, "a public or privately owned building for civic, social, educational, cultural, and recreational activities which is not operated primarily for financial gain." The current definition for meeting facility means, "a permanent facility for non- profit, recreational, social, and multiple [sic -multi] purpose use which has no overnight accommodations and which may be for organizations operating on a membership basis for the promotion of members' mutual interest or may be primarily intended for community purposes. Typical uses include private clubs, union halls, community centers, and student centers." So, you can see the similarities between the two definitions. The proposed change—we are proposing to remove the definition of community building, and our change to meeting facility will be as follows. A "meeting facility means a public or privately owned facility which is not operated primarily for financial gain that is used for recreational, social, civic, cultural, or multi-purpose functions, and which has no overnight accommodations. The facility may be used for organizations operating on a membership basis for the promotion of members' mutual interests or for community purposes. Typical uses may include private clubs, union halls, community and association centers, but not educational facilities, such as schools." There's also a change that we're proposing. In the past, we've had situations where these meeting facilities have been operated in residential zoning areas and it, it appears to have impacts to the surrounding properties. So, what we're proposing is some changes in the residential zoned areas where it would require a Use Permit. Also, in particular, Agricultural zoned areas, we would require, we've currently been requiring Special Permits, but if they are also located within the State Land Use Urban versus the Agricultural, we would require a Use Permit, and we'll go through that. So, the changes in the permitted uses section of the RS, which is Single -Family Residential; Double -Family, which is RD; and Multiple -Family, which is RM zoning districts, reflect the Planning Director's initiated removal of references to community buildings and changing meeting facilities from being a permitted use to requiring the issuance of a Use Permit within these zoning districts. These changes in the Zoning Code in the permitted uses section of the RA, which is Residential [and] Agricultural; FA, which is Family Agricultural; and Agricultural zoning districts will delete meeting facilities within subsection (c) of each section, and place them within subsection (d). Subsection (c) requires a Special Permit if located within the State Land Use Rural District for RA or if located within the State Land Use Agricultural District for FA and Ag. Meeting facilities will be placed within subsection (d) which will still require a Special Permit if located within the State Land Use Rural for the RA zoning or if located within the State Land Use Agricultural District for FA or Ag, it will still requireI'm sorry, that should be it will still require a Special Permit if in the State Land Use Agricultural, but it will also require a Use EXHIBIT B 2 Permit if it's outside of the Agricultural District and within the State Land Use Urban District. So, I know that's a little complicated, but. We are also since these changes have been distributed to the Commissioners, there are several minor changes we'd like to include. One of them is the actual edition, and in fact, we actually noticed it with the correct edition. The edition from the 2005 edition has changed, and now it is 2016 edition. So, we just want to make that, update that change on the ordinance to send up, if approved, up to Council. In discussions with staff, including our new staff member, Shancy, there was a request to add in the allowance of a kitchen within the definition of a meeting facility, and that's on the yellow piece of paper that was handed out. Just so that there's no problems later when they come in and they want to have a kitchen `cause normally these do have a kitchen or a certified kitchen as part of their facility. And, lastly, the Planning Director is requesting that you send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council. This will also go to the Leeward Planning Commission for review and vote so this won't be sent up until after our meeting on the 10th, where we will also have our joint meeting. With that, that concludes our presentation. If there are any questions, I'm available to answer. HENKEL: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? I have a couple. Are we going to vote on this item now or are we waiting until Monday when we're at the joint meeting? DARROW: This, this item would be today HENKEL: Okay DARROW: before the Windward Planning Commission. HENKEL: The, the question I have—that was a lot for me to absorb—the, if a subdivision has, a private subdivision has a meeting place is this going to create more obstacles for them as far as how they use it? Are they going to have get Special Use Permits for certain things that they, certain events or anything they host? DARROW: We would, there are particular, this was a question that came up in formulating this. There's a difference between a subdivision that has its own facility that's used primarily just for the, for the subdivision, and then there's a difference between a meeting facility that may be located within a subdivision that is rented out. And, I think that's what the concern is, is that the actual case in question that happened several years ago was in a subdivision. It was a meeting facility, but it was starting to be renting out, and it was having lots of parties, late night gatherings, lots of noise, parking, and it just created all kinds of problems. So, that's the kind of thing that it will give an opportunity to have a public hearing, set some restrictions as far as hours of operation, amount of events, those kinds of things. EXHIBIT B 3 HENKEL: Okay, I think I know the subdivision you're talking about. One more question. I noticed on the definition, you said that, well, my question is, can a school can be a meeting place, but the meeting cannot be used for education or school is what? DARROW: A school is a school, and so that would go through its own Use Permit. A school being operated in a meeting facility—you see, before, I mean, it's really, if a school wanted to use a meeting facility to operate, they would come in for a Use Permit. If—that would be that. If a meeting facility was in a residential zoning, they wanted to operate as a meeting facility, they'd require a Use Permit. So, it's, it's a matter of semantics, but we like to separate it. If it's a school, it's a school. If it's church, it's a church. If the church wants to use the meeting facility or the school wants to use the meeting facility, we would still require a Special Permit for that activity. HENKEL: So, if a school were going to have a weekend or a one -day art fair at their meeting facility on a weekend, they would have to get a Special Use Permit for that? DARROW: The meeting fac—are you referring to a meeting facility within a school complex? HENKEL: Yes. DARROW: That would be HENKEL: —Most schools have an DARROW: Yes. HENKEL: auditorium. DARROW: Yes, that would be covered under the school. HENKEL: Okay, thank you. DARROW: Yeah, so that's part of their permit. HENKEL: Are there any other questions of staff? DARROW: That's a good question. That actually came out in an application for a school that they made clear that they would be having these extra -curricular functions as part of their operation. HENKEL: Thank you, Jeffrey. Iwe have no one signed, signed up to testify. Did you have something to say, Mr. Clarkson? CLARKSON: Yeah, II have a, going back to your original question about existing meeting facilities in areas where they've been used as meeting facilities for a long time, will all of those now have to come in for a use permit to be continued to be used as a meeting facility? EXHIBIT B 4 DARROW: They would be grandfathered in at this point. As long as the meeting facility is, is operating as of this point or when it is, if it is approved by Council, then they would be grandfathered in. CLARKSON: Thank you. HENKEL: Thank you. Any other questions? Nobody signed up to testify, so I would look for a motion to close public testimony. DARROW: If I could HENKEL: Go ahead. DARROW: Commissioner Clarkson, you had some concerns earlier about possible wording or CLARKSON: Well, I did but I, it, can you actually show me DARROW: Sure CLARKSON: —the definition, yeah, proposed change to definition. DARROW: You did raise a good point in regards toI see your concern now in regards to a publicly owned facility. So, I guess there's a differentiation between when we look at page four in the middle of the page on paragraph 3, where it says reasons for change, and it refers to community buildings in the public buildings section, and it says public, it defines these public uses as public use, public building, or public structure. So, if it was publicly owned, it, the question would be, would it be a public building? I mean, that would be the question. I think what this is, is maybe because this is actually coming straight out of the community buildings definition; that it would be a public owned or a privately owned community building. So, we were again incorporating the two definitions, but I would think that if it was a public building as defined in the Code, where it defines it as being owned or managed by the Federal Government, State of Hawaii, or the County to fulfill a government function, activity, or service for public benefit in accordance with public policy. If it was clear that that's what the, the facility was, we would define it as a public use or a public building. But, if they were coming in and it was a public owned building to do these types of functions or other types of functions that wouldn't necessarily be a governmental function. I would see that maybe that would apply. CLARKSON: Well, that's, that's why DARROW: —The question CLARKSON: we discussed, I or I thought about adding "or governmental function" after the word "gain"—"which is not operated primarily for financial gain or government[al] function." EXHIBIT B 5 DARROW: That would be an excellent suggestion, and that CLARKSON: —And then only other thing I had was a substitution of the word "by" for "for." DARROW: Okay. CLARKSON: The facility may be used by organizations operating on a membership basis for the promotion rather than for organizations. DARROW: So, again, to the first change, which is not operated for financial gain or governmental function primarily. CLARKSON: Right. DARROW: Okay, governmental function. And, then the facility may be used by instead of for. CLARKSON: Correct. DARROW: Okay, thank you. HENKEL: One more. I'mI'm concerned about the last sentence there where typical uses may include private clubs, union halls, and so forth, but not educational facilities such as schools, and the reason that I'm concerned is, is the school that employs me, a charter school, HAAS, they have satellite facilities that are located in, like in a church or in a private building. Is—are they going to be grandfathered in is what you said or DARROW: —Well, they would have received a Use Permit or a Special Permit to operate there. HENKEL: Okay, so they've already DARROW: So that's— HENKEL: they've gone through the—okay. DARROW: Yeah, and this is not saying that, I mean, just for clarification, this is not saying you couldn't use this for this type, type HENKEL: without a Special DARROW: Right HENKEL: Use Permit— DARROW: Right EXHIBIT B 6 HENKEL: Okay DARROW: —you'd have to get a Use Permit for that particular use. HENKEL: Thanks, Jeffrey, for clearing that up. Any other questions? Now, can we have, there's no public testimony. Can we have a motion to close public testimony? MIYASATO: I guess before I make that motion, Director, do you have any comment on those amendments? YEE: No. MIYASATO: Okay, no opposition to that? YEE: [Shakes head side to side indicating no.] MIYASATO: Okay, I make a motion to close public testimony. DELA CRUZ: Second. HENKEL: It's been moved and seconded to close public testimony. All in favor, say aye? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. HENKEL: Opposed? Public testimony is closed. Now, could we have discussion and a motion for action? MIYASATO: Chair, I'll make a motion. I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the ordinance amendment Chapter 25, Zoning Code, Article 1, 2, 4, and 5 relating to the zoning district regulations for meeting facilities and community buildings based on the Planning Director's recommendations and findings along with the amendments by Commissioner Clarkson which shall be adopted. DELA CRUZ: Second. HENKEL: It's been moved by Commissioner Miyasato; seconded by Commissioner Dela Cruz CLARKSON: I have some—excuse my nitpicking, but the motion only mentioned Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7. I mean 1, 2, 4, and 5. But, I think 7 is also to be included so I would ask the maker to amend his motion to approve. MIYASATO: I'll amend my motion to include Article 7. HENKEL: Okay, the motion is to approve, amended to include Article 7. Do we need to re -read the motion? Okay. Would you do a roll call vote? EXHIBIT B 7 DARROW: Sure, if I could request clarification. Sorry, Myles. This would also include our proposed amendments as well? We had the simple MIYASATO: Yes. DARROW: Thank you. MIYASATO: Yes, along with that. DARROW: Okay, with that, we'll take the roll call. Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Clarkson? CLARKSON: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Aye. DARROW: And, Mr. Chairman. HENKEL: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes five to zero. The discussion ended at 10:01 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission EXHIBIT B 8