REP PC 056 2020/10/06 2018-2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PC-56 Page 3 October 6, 2020 Committee Member Karen Eoff expressed concern because the Planning Commission, which “understands the issues far more than the Council,” voted unanimously to transfer a negative recommendation to the Council, which does not happen often. She expressed a desire to see both sides work towards a solution, but was hesitant to add more traffic to the already inundated area. She wants to honor the CDP, acknowledging that there is only a finite amount of land to develop and takes seriously her role to make the right decision for the community to address the housing need as well as development, and understands that things change over time. Committee Member Maile David asked Mr. Van Bergen if Spring Capital could do the original proposal. Mr. Van Bergen could not say definitively, but noted Spring Capital liked the location and wanted to extend the commercial neighborhood zoning that was approved 10 years ago. Ms. David asked if Spring Capital could purchase the property and negotiate with the Planning Department as the landowner. He agreed that is generally how things are done, but that Spring Capital would not purchase land without entitlements. Ms. David acknowledged that the additional entitlements were what the body was trying to decide upon. She noted that so much time had passed and that this body usually sees developers asking for amendments and time extensions on projects that are further along. However, in this case, an administrative extension was missed and now further extensions were being asked for. She urged that the advising committee and department who are planners need to be heard in this. Mr. Van Bergen posed a question to the County Council, asking how much they want to see development in Kona “because this is a real project, with real players.” The developers hands are tied, he explained, because they do not own the property. Committee Vice-Chair Sue Lee Loy raised concerns over the Planning Department’s position and noted understanding how uncertain the applicant felt about what was being asked of them. She said that in reviewing the larger development plan this was in the development corridor and requested Director Yee help create conditions of approval that are acceptable to the applicant. Director Yee addressed Ms. David’s question of intention of the developer explaining that if the developer had the intention to create what was proposed the developer would have come in and accepted all of the conditions, but instead the developer is asking for relief from other issues. He provided further context to Vice Chair Lee Loy’s concerns explaining how the application process played out. Mr. Fuke expressed frustration with the process, noting the Planning Department wanted a Master Plan from the developer now. And the developer says they will produce it after the extensions are granted, which is allowed. Council Chair Chung asked Mr. Fuke to clarify what the two amendments were and what was taken off the table. Mr. Fuke said the amendments were related to affordable housing commitment and time extension.