Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-04-10 Leeward Exh B (Amend Zoning Code re Meeting Facilities and Community Buildings) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT April 10, 2017 A regularly advertised hearing on the PLANNING DIRECTOR INITIATED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25 OF THE HAWAI‘I COUNTY CODE, RELATING TO MEETING FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY BUILDINGS was called to order at 10:07 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Keith F. Unger presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Keith F. Unger, Nancy Carr Smith, Scott Church, Collin Kaholo, Perry Kealoha, Barbara Nobriga and Sonny Shimaoka ALSO PRESENT: Malia Ho (Counsel for the Commission), Michael Yee (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Deputy Planning Director), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Maija Jackson (Planner), Shancy Watanabe (Planner), Sarah Hata-Finley (Windward Planning Commission Secretary) and Noriko Sauer (Leeward Planning Commission Secretary) And four people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR An ordinance amending Chapter 25 (Zoning), Hawai‘i 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. UNGER: Second item on the agenda, Initiator Planning Director, an ordinance amending Chapter 25, Zoning, Hawai‘i 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 a meeting facility. Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I can direct your attention to our next presentation. As mentioned, this is an amendment to the Zoning Code and to several Articles. We also want to state that the main reason why this came up is because over the years we’ve had conflicts between these, the definition of community building and meeting facility. So if you can keep that in mind as to the reason why we are changing this. Also, just to note that as we go through these Code changes, you’ll notice that we are going to start incorporating more Code changes and Rule changes into our activities in the Planning Department to bring them before you; we are trying to in a sense clean house. Our goal eventually is to do a comprehensive change of the entire Code, but in the meantime we are trying to do some simple fixes. And you’ll see that sometimes these Code changes are not as easy as you would think they are; the more people we get involved in the 1 EXHIBIT B process, the more we seem to change as we go along. So even in this particular item there’s been several amendments that have happened up to this point, and we’ll bring those to your attention as we go. Before I start, just to let you know, you should have received a yellow copy as well as a green copy. Hopefully, you have both of those. The Planning Director is initiating amendments to Chapter 25, the Zoning Code, Articles 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the Hawai‘i County Code 1983, the 2016 Edition, as amended, relating to meeting facilities and community buildings. The reason for the amendments is that the references within the Zoning Code for “meeting facilities” and “community buildings” are very similar in definition and use. The Planning Director is proposing to combine these two uses and definitions into a single, comprehensive definition by maintaining and expanding upon the definition of “meeting facilities” and to remove all references to “community buildings.” Over the many years there has been confusion regarding the meaning and definition of “meeting facilities” versus “community building” 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 reads as follows: “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; “Meeting facility” means a permanent facility for nonprofit recreational, social or 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 interests or may be primarily intended for community purposes. Typical uses include private clubs, union halls, community centers, and student centers. The proposed change to the definition would take, would combine the two – and to keep in mind this has changed already, so, and that is what’s on your yellow and your green forms: “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. We’ve also, from past experiences, have initiated the requirement for a Use Permit mainly in Residential zonings. So in the RS, RD, RM zoning, to do a meeting facility would require a Use Permit, which allows the surrounding property owners to be able to comment on the particular facility and be able to request conditions such as hours of operation, amounts of events, those types of restrictions. Additionally, there would be a requirement, which currently actually is required to require Special Permits in the State Land Use Agricultural District for RA, FA, and Agricultural zonings. But further on we’ve added in the section that if it’s located within the County Agricultural zoning, or the RA or FA zoning, but within the State Land Use Urban District, it would require a Use Permit. So that’s the additional change. 2 EXHIBIT B There are several minor revisions that we added at the Windward Planning Commission. These included a simple change: Instead of referring to the 2005 Edition when this change was originally initiated, we were bringing it up to the current Edition, which is 2016; additionally, we are adding in the allowance of a kitchen within the definition of meeting facility. So that’s been added on your yellow sheet. And the reason for that is most of these meeting facilities do have a kitchen facility as part of them whether it be a certified kitchen or just a regular kitchen. Typically, they have events where they need a kitchen, so it seems, rather than trying to guess whether or not, it’s permitted, we just made it part of the definition. Now, the green sheet that’s been passed out incorporates some changes that were requested in the Windward Planning Commission, which is in italics. Basically, there were several minor changes: One is that the term “or governmental functions” was included, and a simple change taking out “for” and substituting it “by.” The reason for the “governmental functions” was again to keep a meeting facility separate from a public use. The Planning Department in kind of understanding the direction of the Windward Planning Commission, even incorporated further changes where we took out the reference to public and privately-owned, as well as whether or not it was operated primarily for financial gain. If these meeting facilities are approved, they can be rented out. Most times they are rented out for financial purposes. We also, instead of referring to “educational facilities,” we did put the term “educational” back into the type of use that can be used in these because they may be using, the illustration is that someone may rent a facility to do a training on how to do woodworking or to do hula or whatever it is; so we just clarify that by saying that a meeting facility cannot be used as a school. A school requires its own Use Permit and needs to go through the process. So that is what is Number 2 there, further defined. So what the Planning Department is asking for today is the request, and again this is up to the Commission, but we are, the Planning Department is bringing forth Number 2 to try to incorporate all the changes into that one particular definition. We feel that that would take care of both the kitchen, allowing the kitchen, as well as the issue that came up at the Windward Planning Commission. If approved today, we would take this back to the Windward Planning Commission to have them vote on that particular change as well. With that, that concludes our presentation. Thank you. I’d better say that the Planning Director’s recommendation is favorable. UNGER: Thank you, Mr. Darrow. Commissioners, any questions? NOBRIGA: Yeah, I have a question. Say, if I from the general public wanted to hold a function here in this room, I would be able to do that and use that kitchen? DARROW: Noriko? Do they rent this out here to the public? SAUER: I’m not quite sure. DARROW: I’m not sure about that as well. I’m not sure about this particular facility. I know that it is rented out, I mean that other organizations use it, but I don’t know if they rent it out for financial means. I think it’s mainly a community building, so it’s used for community purposes. But I’m not sure if it’s actually rented out for financial money. 3 EXHIBIT B NOBRIGA: Thank you. UNGER: Commissioner Church. CHURCH: Just, probably really more of a statement, you know, in looking at your, at the prior and current definitions of the meeting facilities and community buildings, it’s almost humorous; they are different words, but they must mean the same thing. So I think that the initiative to start cleaning up the Code to be, to clarify it and to be more specific is a great idea. And the suggestions that were made by the Windward Planning Commission seem to be really outstanding in coordination with you all. So I think that this is really very supportable initiative. UNGER: Commissioner Carr Smith. CARR SMITH: Just a little bit confused here. So in Number 1 the Windward Planning Commission’s suggestions they added “or governmental functions,” then when I heard that, I assumed that we were talking about buildings such as this, County buildings, is that true? DARROW: This particular building, and buildings, is a public use building. So we have a separate section in the Code that the community buildings were fallen under; they were fallen under the public uses building. And so that’s where there was confusion happening, because somebody would come in and want to do a community building, and yet it’s fallen under a public use building, yet the definition says that it was, could be a public or privately owned building. And so there wasn’t that distinct difference between a public use and a private use. And so we wanted to make that clear that public uses are for public uses, although that can include, like in this particular situation, if it’s for the community, it can be used. But there are particular facilities that are meant to be, like, a good example, I don’t know if you are familiar with Sanga Hall in Hilo, but it’s a, it’s a facility that’s rented out on a regular basis to all types of organizations and groups, specifically just to have a place to hold a function, and that’s kind of what we are trying to achieve by separating public uses and meeting facilities. So there is no longer a term “community building”; it’s actually fallen, this “meeting facility” covers community type of, they can use it for any type of community event. But normally that’s for a fee, so you would be renting it from somebody. Now, in this particular case, some public uses offer facilities as long as it’s for a public use, I mean a community type of use, not for, I don’t think they would allow it to be a commercial type use. CARR SMITH: So has the Leeward, has the Windward Planning Commission already heard this? DARROW: Yes. CARR SMITH: And that’s why they made these recommendations? DARROW: The first change. CARR SMITH: But then subsequently the Planning Department decided that they would rather not have the public or private, and they did not, you folks did not accept the concept of the governmental functions, is that right? 4 EXHIBIT B DARROW: We can add that back in into this definition, but we felt like by taking out the public aspect of that, that there was no question that this was not to be used as a public use structure; that would fall under a separate section in the Code. But, again, that’s something that can be added in, if it’s, if you’d like to keep it in. CARR SMITH: Thank you. DARROW: Thank you. KEALOHA: I’m still a little confused. An example of a gym and annex attached to a gym that does hold community, that would not be considered governmental function? DARROW: Normally, that is a, falls under Department of Parks and Recreation, so it is a public function. KEALOHA: So it would be to that extent public, not governmental. DARROW: Yes, right. KEALOHA: Okay. DARROW: Well, it’s, it is in a sense it’s a County building. KEALOHA: That’s why I’m questioning. DARROW: Right, yeah, so it’s normally permitted as a public use, yeah. But, again, these types of facilities are, you’ll find them more, normally you’ll see them in subdivisions where they are having an association or community center, and normally they hold, they rent it out not only for members in their subdivision but they rent it out to others as well. And in the past we’ve had complaints regarding that; they’ve had parties, they’ve had music events where there is loud music, and so people felt like I really never had any say on, you know, this particular use in my neighborhood. So we felt like it was an appropriate step to in certain neighborhoods to, or in certain zonings, to allow for the Use Permit process. See, this is exactly what I was talking about earlier; it’s not a simple thing to make changes, you know, you are always, there’s always, it’s always evolving. So the more we talk about it, the more we find something new that comes up. UNGER: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Darrow. The hearing is now open for public testimony, if any members of the public are here to testify on this item. Seeing none, I need a motion from a commissioner to close the public hearing portion of the meeting. KAHOLO: So move. CHURCH: Second. UNGER: We have a motion by Commissioner Kaholo, second by Church. All in favor? 5 EXHIBIT B COMMISSIONERS: Aye. UNGER: Opposed? \[None.\] Public hearing is closed. Commissioners, I need a motion on the agenda item. Commissioner Carr Smith. CARR SMITH: I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the ordinance amending Chapter 25, Zoning Code, Articles 1, 2, 4 and 5 relating to zoning district regulations for meeting facilities and community buildings based on the Planning Director’s recommendation and findings, which shall be adopted. KEALOHA: I’ll second that — NOBRIGA: Second — UNGER: We have a motion by Commissioner – Commissioner Nobriga, did you have a question? NOBRIGA: No. UNGER: No. We have a motion on the table by Commissioner Carr Smith, second by Commissioner Kealoha, and the floor is open for discussion. HO: Sorry, just one question, actually for Jeff. Is it “and Article 7?” DARROW: Correct. HO: Because it wasn’t on the slide, either, but, so just to amend your motion, sorry, just have to say, Article, and 7. CARR SMITH: I’ll amend my motion to include Article 7. HO: Yeah. DARROW: Thank you. UNGER: As amended, great, thank you. CARR SMITH: Yeah, I support this after your explanation. Thank you. DARROW: Thank you. UNGER: I support the motion also. I think we have the benefit of the Windward Planning Commission hearing this and having their first run at it. So for the Windward Committee \[sic\] members here, thank you. And for the Planning Department we are going to defer to you. With your experience, obviously, this has been an issue for you, and so I want to support you in this effort. 6 EXHIBIT B DARROW: Thank you. As mentioned, we will bring this back before the Windward Planning Commission as well just to get their vote on the matter. UNGER: If there are no other comments, roll call. Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Carr Smith? CARR SMITH: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Kealoha? KEALOHA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Church? CHURCH: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Kaholo? KAHOLO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Nobriga? NOBRIGA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Shimaoka? SHIMAOKA: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chair? UNGER: Aye. DARROW: The pass-, excuse me, the motion passes seven to zero. The discussion ended at 10:26 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 7 EXHIBIT B