HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0093.000 2012-2014 MZY Oi p
' '' �' , Walter K.M.Lau
pp Managing Director
:I•:lll� �'• i•'
William P.Kenoi
Mayor Randall M.Kurohara
•tea�.;?:��`� Deputy Managing Director
•�TF OF•NT'� -
County of Hawai`i
Office of the Mayor
25 Aupuni Street,Suite 2603 • Hilo,Hawai`i 96720 • (808)961-8211 • Fax(808)961-6553
KONA: 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy.,Bldg.C • Kailua-Kona,Hawai`i 96740
(808)323-4444 • Fax(808)323-4440
January 17, 2013
J Yoshimoto, Council Chair
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawai`i
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Members:
County Council Initiated
Bill No. 291 Relating to Planned Unit Development
As required by Chapter 7, Sec. 6-7.5 (a), Hawaii County Charter, transmitted herewith for the
County Council's consideration and action are the Windward and Leeward Planning
Commissions' letters and enclosures regarding the above-referenced matter.
S' ely,
b(r1-- William P. Kenoi
Mayor
Enclosures
cc: Planning Department
Comm.No 93
Ref.To:
Ref.Dote
County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.
01:4 OF
. 7TE OF•NF'�'
County of Hawaii
WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
JAN 7 2013 Aupuni Center •• 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 • Hilo,Hawai`i 96720
Phone(808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742
J Yoshimoto, Council Chair
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawai
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Council Members:
County Council Initiated
Bill No. 291 Relating to Planned Unit Development
At its January 10, 2013 meeting, the Windward Planning Commission was formally presented
with the Planning Director's Background and Recommendation regarding Bill No. 291, and also
regarding her proposed bill relating to PUDs. The Planning Director recommended:
(1) An unfavorable recommendation on Bill 291; and
(2) A favorable recommendation of the Planning Director's proposed bill relating to
PUDs.
The Windward Planning Commission voted to send to the County Council:
(1) An unfavorable recommendation on Bill 291; and
(2) A favorable recommendation on the Planning Director's proposed bill relating to
PUDs.
With this unfavorable recommendation of Bill No. 291, we are also enclosing for your
information a copy of the Planning Director's Background and Recommendation which
addresses both Bill No. 291 and her proposed bill.
The Leeward Planning Commission will hear the Planning Director's proposed bill relating to
PUDs at its February 2013 meeting. Therefore, we request that the County Council hold action
on Bill 291 until the Leeward Planning Commission has had an opportunity to act on the
Planning Director's proposed bill. At that time, we will also formally forward the Windward
Planning Commission's favorable recommendation on the Planning Director's proposed bill
along with the transcripts for both hearings, so that the Council may consider action on both
these related bills, along with recommendations of both Planning Commissions.
Hawai`i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
J Yoshimoto, Council Chair
and Members of the County Council
Page 2
If you have questions regarding this matter,please contact Daryn Arai of the Planning
Department at 961-8142.
Sincerely,
Dean Au, Chairman Pro Tern
Windward Planning Commission
cc: Planning Department—Kona
Ivan Torigoe, Esq.
Lbi11291pudOwlpc
.J�tY Oi M,,,
40•
3"E 6;''N►.''
County of Hawaii
LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
fit,} 1 7 2013 Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 • Hilo,Hawaii 96720
Phone(808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742
J Yoshimoto, Council Chair
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Council Members:
County Council Initiated
Bill No. 291 Relating to Planned Unit Development
At its December 13, 2012 meeting, the Leeward Planning Commission was formally presented with the
Planning Director's Background and Recommendation regarding Bill No. 291 where she offered an
unfavorable recommendation of Bill 291 and a favorable recommendation of her proposed bill relating to
PUD's. However, the Leeward Planning Commission only considered and issued an unfavorable
recommendation on Bill 291 because the Planning Director's proposed bill was not properly included on
the agenda and,therefore, could not be considered.
The Planning Director, in response to Bill 291,has introduced a proposed bill relating to PUD's for
consideration by both the Leeward and Windward Planning Commissions and would like to ask the
County Council to hold action on Bill 291 until both Planning Commissions have had an opportunity to
act on the Planning Director's proposed bill, which we anticipate will occur in the months of January and
February 2013.
In the meanwhile, we have enclosed a copy of the Planning Director's Background and Recommendation
regarding Bill No.291 and a copy of the Leeward Planning Commission hearing transcript for your
information.
If you have questions regarding this matter,please contact Daryn Arai of the Planning Department at
961-8142.
cerely,
Geraldine Giffin, Chai_rm.1lp
Leeward Planning Commission
cc: Planning Department—Kona
Ivan Torigoe, Esq.
Lbill291pud01lpc Hawai`i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
i
LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAI`I
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
DECEMBER 13,2012
A regularly advertised hearing on the COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED BILL NO.291
REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE RELATING TO PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT(P.U.D.) was called to order at 10:06 a.m. in the West Hawaii Civic Center,
Community Center,Building G,74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with
Chair Geraldine Giffin presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Geraldine Giffin,Brandi Beaudet,Lani Bowman,
Thomas Hickcox,Richard Nelson, III and Thomas Whittemore
ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Wayne Iokepa
ALSO PRESENT: Ivan Torigoe(Deputy Corporation Counsel),BJ Leithead Todd(Planning
Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager),Phyllis Fujimoto(Planner),Jeff Darrow
(Planner),Maija Cottle(Planner)and Noriko Sauer(Commission Secretary)
And approximately 25 people from the public in attendance.
INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL(Bill No.291)
Bill No.291 regarding a proposed amendment to Chapter 25,Article 6, Division 1 of the Hawaii
County Code 1983(2005 Edition,as amended),relating to Planned Unit Development(P.U.D.).
The purpose of Bill No. 291 is to clarify procedural guidelines,define the requirements of a P.U.D.
permit,and to add the Planning Commission(s)and the County Council to the review and approval
process for a P.U.D permit. Initiates amendments to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code),Article 6,Division
I,relating to P.U.D: Amends Section 25-6-1 relating to Purpose. Deletes Section 25-6-2 relating to
Minimum land area required. Amends Section 25-6-3 relating to application for P.U.D.permit.
Amends 25-6-4 relating to Notice of action on a P.U.D.application. Deletes Section 25-6-5 relating
to Procedure for processing P.U.D. application when use not permitted in district. Amends Section
25-6-6 relating to Actions by director on P.U.D. permit applications and replaces it with Procedure
for processing P.U.D. application,adds Section 25-6-7 relating to Conditions imposed on P.U.D.,
and Section 25-6-8 relating to Review and approval of final site plans. Deletes Section 25-6-10
relating to Criteria for granting a P.U.D. permit. Replaces Section 25-6-11 relating to Height
exceptions authorized with Construction in conformity with approved final site plans,and Section
25-6-12 relating to Approval of variances,use permits and plan approvals issued under P.U.D.
permit with Plan approval issued by approval of final site plans. Amends Section 25-6-13 relating
to Effect of P.U.D. permit on other zoning provisions. Amends Section 25-6-14 relating to Time
extension and amendments. Amends Section 25-6-15 relating Appeals to Appeal of director's
actions on P.U.D. final site plans.
GIFFIN: Commissioners,in your folder you should have gotten the hardcopy of Agenda Item
No.2. The initiator is the County Council,Bill No. 291. So if you,like me,Commissioners,need
the time to review Agenda Item No. 2-. And if there is no need, we can move right along. Initially,
when I was reviewing this agenda item, I was working off of the agenda itself,and it seemed kind
1
of convoluted. But if with the new hard material that you've got in your folder,you are clear and
you don't need to, need time to review,that's great. Maija?
COTTLE: Thank you,Madam Chair. Good morning,everyone.
COMMISSIONERS: Good morning.
COTTLE: The next agenda item is a County Council initiated amendment to the Zoning Code
relating to Planned Unit Development. And hold on just a second,I lost my clicker. All right. So
the County Council initiated Bill 291, which proposes several amendments to the Zoning Code
relating to Planned Unit Development. The purpose of Bill 291 is to add the Planning Commissions
and the County Council to the review and approval process for a P.U.D. permit, as well as clarify
procedural guidelines and define the requirements of the P.U.D.permit. Currently,Planned Unit
Development permits are issued administratively by the Planning Director.
And this is a diagram that shows the current and proposed process for P.U.D. approval. The current
process involves an applicant submitting an application to the Department, and notice of the
application is put in a newspaper,and a sign is posted on the property by the applicant—you've
probably seen those signs around the island—and then the applicant also mails notice of the
application to surrounding property owners and lessees; if the property is on Urban land,
surrounding neighbors are notified within 300 feet,and if the property is on Agricultural land,then
surrounding property owners within 500 feet are notified. And then after a period of time,
obviously, the public and surrounding neighbors can write letters in to the Planning Director,and
she considers those letters,any concerns that the community has,and then makes a decision
whether to approve or deny the P.U.D. permit,as well as what conditions to include. Bill 291 on
the other hand proposes to include the Planning Commissions and the County Council in the review
and approval process;so again,the same opportunity for community and public involvement would
apply here,and then instead of the Director making a decision,the Director would make a
recommendation to the Planning Commissions,and the Planning Commissions would hold a public
hearing and make a recommendation on the P.U.D.permit to the County Council for a final
decision. So the process proposed in Bill 291 is similar to the rezoning process that currently exists.
LEITHEAD TODD: Maija, I think we-.
COTTLE: Yes.
LEITHEAD TODD: Can you go back?
COTTLE: Sure.
LEITHEAD TODD: I want to make sure that we avoid any confusion here. The process proposed
in Bill 291 still does include notice of application being mailed to the surrounding property owners
and lessees;it is not eliminated in Bill 291. Just from the diagram, I thought it kind of gave the
impression,so I want to clarify that it is not deleted in Bill 291.
COTTLE: Thank you. So what is a P.U.D.permit? A P.U.D. permit essentially allows a
comprehensive set of variances from the Zoning and Subdivision Codes that are related to building
site standards,such as lot width and lot size,building height,yards and open space, and road
standards.
2
The Director has a few concerns with Bill 291. The primary concern that she has is changing the
approval process from an administrative decision made by the Director to the County Council may
be in conflict with the County Charter,because,as you can see,the County Charter states that the
Planning Director shall render decisions on proposed variances. Since a P.U.D. is a set of
variances,it may be that the authority to approve a P.U.D.cannot be shifted to the Council without
first amending the County Charter.
So the Planning Department obviously reviewed Bill 291,and tried to understand the intent of the
bill,which was to provide greater community involvement and design P.U.D.'s that are in context
with a surrounding community. At the same time with the concerns that the Director had,we also,
the Director felt it would be prudent to initiate a different bill that would implement the intent of
Bill 291 but also address some of the concerns.
So,before I go too far into this,we should have on the agenda included the County Council initiated
bill,and then also included as an agenda item the Planning Director's initiated bill that you have as
Exhibit 3. We did not do that;so we didn't agendize this correctly. So as far as our
recommendation, we'll just be focusing on Bill 291 today,and then at your January 24`h meeting we
will include the Director's proposed bill on that agenda and we can discuss her initiated bill. And
we apologize for the oversight.
LEITHEAD TODD: I should also mention just informationally there are two other bills that are
currently being drafted by staff,which I'm not sure if they will make,probably more like February.
Those would be bills that are taking those provisions of the Kona CDP that were in attempt to
amend Chapters 23 and 25,and making proposed ordinances to amend the County Code to conform
to the intent of the Kona CDP. So those will also be coming along. And some of that will also
address the P.U.D. application process.
GIFFIN: Good.
COTTLE: Okay,so I'm just generally going to go over what the Director's bill is proposing,and
then we can take up action on that at your next meeting. The alternative bill would propose that
applicants conduct a community meeting prior to submitting a P.U.D. application,and that P.U.D.
developments be consistent with the intent of the recently adopted Community Development Plans.
Holding a community meeting prior to submittal of a P.U.D. application,we feel,is beneficial to the
applicant,as well as the community,because it allows areas of community concern to be identified
early on in the process so that the applicant can modify their development plans as needed before
submitting the application. And this just generally describes the P.U.D. approval process under the
Director's proposed bill. The applicant would conduct a community meeting to solicit concerns
from the community,and again the same notification requirements that currently exist,notification
of the application in a newspaper, the sign posted on the property,and notification to surrounding
property owners,and then the Planning Director would consider all those comments and concerns
and make a decision.
So,as I mentioned before,at this time the Director would request that the Commission send an
unfavorable recommendation to Bill 291 in its current form to the County Council,and then we will
be initiating an alternative bill at your next meeting. Are there any questions?
GIFFIN: Commissioners,any questions of Maija? Lani.
3
BOWMAN: I have a question,and I don't know if I can ask the question on the Planning
Director's alternative bill. May I?
COTTLE: Let's check with Ivan.
TORIGOE: Really I would discourage any detail discussion regarding the Planning Director's bill
because it's not agendized at this point.
BOWMAN: Right. Okay, I'll wait till next time. Thank you.
GIFFIN: Any other questions of Maija,Commissioners?
BOWMAN: Oh-.
GIFFIN: Lani.
BOWMAN: I do. Just out of curiosity,how many P.U.D. permits,about, are reviewed during a
year?
COTTLE: They are fairly rare; I would say two to three a year.
LEITHEAD TODD: Well, I think this past year we probably,either that were,they might have
originated in previous years,but I think we had about four or five that we've been,either approved
or are in the pipe there—two that are currently in the office,one is Waiki`i and the other is Puak0.
And at the request of the Action Committees,we changed notification processes in our office so that
when we send letters out to agencies for comment, like Department of Health or DPW,at the same
time that letter goes out to the Action Committees with a brief description of what the application is,
and then they can determine if they want to have it agendized and a presentation. So most recently
we had a presentation on Puako 1010 to the South Kohala Action Committee,and we have to do a
presentation,which is scheduled,on the Waiki`i P.U.D. Unfortunately,for the South Kohala
presentation,we didn't have a quorum from the Action Committee;but the Sunshine Law allows
you to go ahead with the presentation for the members of the public that were there. And at the
request of the Department,the applicant also met with the PuakO Community Association to address
their concerns. And so there have been certain things that have been tweaked in the Puakb because
their basic concerns there had to do with sight distance and setback from the highway and also
whether there would be a future road connection consistent with the CDP,which the applicant is
agreeing to dedicate to the County once somebody decides where the alignment is. So what we've
done is we've tweaked the process to try and involve the Action Committees a little bit more. The
basic problem was that when we mailed notices out to agencies,by the time we were getting down
to doing our,you know,semi-monthly notice to the Action Committees, the time to comment had
really,you know,kind of evaporated; so we are doing it upfront.
The basic concern I had is that previously there had been a bill that the Council had wanted to take
all subdivision approvals and have those go to the County Council rather than through the
Department;they would have come to the Planning Commission, they would have then gone to the
County Council. And the problem was that the County Charter was amended, I guess,back in the
1960's where it specifically set out that the subdivision approvals were within the Department. And
there is also language that says variances are within the Department. And at the time the
4
subdivision bill was being discussed,corporation counsel opined that it could not go to the Council
as part of their function unless the Charter was amended first because the Charter set up which were
administrative matters and which were matters that went to the County Council. So that was the
basic concern I had with Bill 291,that you need to go,you know,it was my opinion and,you know,
we've discussed with corporation counsel that represents the Department,and the concern was that
in order to enact Bill 291 in its current form,you probably need to go and amend the County
Charter because it specifically says that variances decisions are rendered by the Planning Director.
And so,you know,if the Council wants to initiate an amendment to the Charter,then,you know,
they could go do that,and then they could enact Bill 291. But I think,obviously, we are going to
have, you know,some disagreements,and I'm sure that there are some people who will argue that
maybe the Charter isn't as exclusive as it appears to be,but we had this discussion before. And I
did talk to a prior planning director and he said that they had specifically gone in and amended the
Charter with the purpose of moving things,some things administratively,and it was in response to
the fact that the concern is that to take all of those things to the Planning Commissions was just
eating up a lot of time and was very difficult to administer that way. So the change was made in an
earlier Charter, so we are probably going to have to go back,dig up the minutes of the Charter, and
look at,you know,what the rationale was for those changes. And so, you know,as this bill goes up
to the Council,we'll have to go dig a little more in their records and see,you know,what was the
intent of the language,what was stated, you know, what was the measure as proposed, to really
determine if in fact that was the intent of the Charter amendments and whether it impacts Bill 291.
So it's going to require some more research.
GIFFIN: Lani.
BOWMAN: Thank you. I think,for the benefit of the public,and I'm sure you know, that the
Action Committees,or the CDP Action Committees in each community,and the meetings like are
held in PuakO and in Waiki`i,which I guess brings me back to the long process of the CDP's in the
various communities and how,to me,as members of the public,these Action Committees have
worked very,very hard,and are to me the, I don't know,the frontline of community response. And
I guess to get around my question was a lot of times I know people have told me,you know,
community meetings are held but they are held in Kona for some project in Kohala. And I'm
hoping,well,not hoping but I understand,through the process that you have now,that they are held
in the communities,and I would hope,if 291 goes through,that these community meetings would
be held in the specific communities where a P.U.D. is being planned.
LEITHEAD TODD: Some of that is a function of which Action Committee it is. The Kona CDP
Action Committee typically holds its meetings here in the West Hawaii Civic Center,and they
have not routinely moved meetings around. South Kohala tends to move their meetings;they hold
meetings in Kawaihae,we've held meetings down in Puako,they hold meetings in Waikoloa,and
then they hold meetings in Waimea. And they try to tweak their agendas so that when we are in
Waikoloa,it's Waikoloa issues; when we are in PuakO, it's more PuakO issues; Kawaihae,it's more
Kawaihae. North Kohala has not moved around as much. And Puna has moved back and forth a
little bit, we've,mainly between Pahoa and Kea`au Town— I don't recall that we've gone
elsewhere, I don't think we've done Volcano—but it's mainly been Kea`au and Pahoa. Some of
that is also a function of having meeting facilities that can accommodate the public and that are
ADA compliant. But,you know, we do make that attempt. And then sometimes on the Council
when they have stuff. But the goal is to try and eventually move to a system where before an
application comes to us,that it has to be held in the community. And I think there is some more
flexibility with that because you can use different,you can use someone's house for that, if it's not a
5
County meeting. If it's a County-held meeting,we've got ADA,we've got other requirements; if
it's a community meeting,their community facilities that aren't necessarily ADA compliant but that
people can go to. And the goal is to try and get stuff closer to people.
BOWMAN: Are you saying—I'm sorry—that if it's a CDP Action Committee meeting,it can be
held-?
LEITHEAD TODD: No,if it's an Action Committee meeting,because it's a government meeting,
we have to have ADA compliance,we have to have an agenda,it has to be posted. And to the great
dismay of many members of the Committees, you can only discuss what's on the agenda. And I
think that's been the biggest problem for a lot of them is because between the time you posted an
agenda and the meeting comes up,something has popped up and they want to discuss it,but you
can't amend the agenda without the public notice. So,you know,we are trying to give them notice
earlier so that if they want it on an agenda,we can get it on the agenda.
GIFFIN: Commissioners,any other questions of either Maija or the Planning Director? Thank you,
Maija. There are three people who have signed up to give testimony on this agenda item,and -.
Jeff, we only have two chairs and two mikes,could we have one more chair brought up so that the
three people can go ahead and testify? Oh,okay,maybe we'll do two and two; I didn't realize that
there was going to be another request. Thank you. At this point then,will Mac McInnis and
Tom Madson please come forward. And Mr. Fiala,we'll have you come up later with the second
person, I mean,the fourth person who is requesting to testify. Mr.McInnis,okay,and Madson.
Thank you very much. Will you please raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth on this matter now before the Leeward Hawaii County Planning Commission?
TESTIFIERS: I do.
GIFFIN: Thank you. Starting with you,sir,would you please state your name.
MCINNIS: My name is Mac McInnis. Aloha and good morning.
GIFFIN: Good morning. Your microphone,please.
LEITHEAD TODD: We are recording and we keep,you know,minutes and stuff,so for our
secretary we need to have the mikes running.
MCINNIS: Thank you.
GIFFIN: Thank you. Please state your name, and you may begin your testimony.
MCINNIS: My name is Mac McInnis. Aloha and good morning,Madam Chairwoman,ladies and
gentlemen. My wife and I reside in Kona Orchard Subdivision. We are fortunate to be year-around
residents of Kailua-Kona. I'm in favor of the proposed bill. It would give the transparency to their
approval process of the final site plan, which the citizens are entitled to. It will also ensure any
concerns are taken into consideration along with the prudent development on our lovely island. We
have quite a few people here today, and instead of taking the committee's time for everyone to
testify,I would like for all those that are in favor of Bill 291 to please stand. (Approximately ten
people in the audience stood up.)
6
GIFFIN: Thank you.
MCINNIS: Mahalo.
GIFFIN: Commissioners,any questions of Mr. McInnis? Seeing none,thank you very-.
BOWMAN: I do.
GIFFIN: I'm sorry. Lani.
BOWMAN: I'm just curious. Do you represent the people who are standing,who stood?
MCINNIS: Define"represent,"please. I'm not an attorney representing them-.
BOWMAN: No,I understand,but they all are associated with you and approve your testimony?
I'm just curious. Are you all live in the same subdivision? No?
MCINNIS: We live in different subdivisions,and I've spoken individually to everyone who just
stood.
BOWMAN: You've spoken individually.
MCINNIS: Yes,ma'am.
BOWMAN: Okay. Thank you.
GIFFIN: Any other questions?
BEAUDET: I have a question.
GIFFIN: Brandi.
BEAUDET: You mentioned that Bill 291 would improve transparency. Could you just expand on
the statement?
MCINNIS: Well,right now a PDU(sic)goes before the Planning Director,and the Planning
Director,he or she, has the final approval,and a very little input,if any,is taken into consideration
by the public.
GIFFIN: Any other questions?
BEAUDET: Well, I just have further comment on that.
GIFFIN: Brandi.
BEAUDET: You know, the standard notification regulations with the current P.U.D.application is
for notification of surrounding,the surrounding community. I don't know what the radius of that is,
if it's 500 yards or 1,000-.
7
LEITHEAD TODD: Feet.
GIFFIN: Feet.
BEAUDET: Feet. But I think, I would question that,doesn't that provide the immediately
impacted residents of the area due notice and the ability to comment on their support or
non-support? I just don't see where there is a lack of transparency and how Bill 291 will improve
on that,given just basically providing another forum for the community to come forward.
GIFFIN: Sir?
MCINNIS: I was not speaking of the notices,per se,sir. We do get notices,if we lived in a certain
radius. But then when the P.U.D. goes in for final approval,they,concerns of the citizens, their
objections or speaking in favor of it,are not,they are subject to change with the direction of the
Planning Director;that's written into the zoning ordinance. The Planning Director herself has the
leeway to change whatever.
GIFFIN: Lani.
BOWMAN: Maija,can you go back to the, the two different-.
COTTLE: Flow chart?
BOWMAN: Yeah, the flow charts. When-. We talked about community meetings,and you were
talking about the two P.U.D.'s that are on the books now with Waiki`i and Puako.
LEITHEAD TODD: Yes.
BOWMAN: And I'm just wondering, and I'm sure you are familiar with the Action Committees
and the Community Development Plans,you know,I thought I heard that there are community
meetings being held for,when these come up.
GIFFIN: Director?
LEITHEAD TODD: We recently met with representatives of the Action Committees—this is
within the past six months—and they asked for earlier notice of applications. It's not just P.U.D.'s,
it's basically any type of application that requires notice to surrounding property owners,we are
giving to them at the same time that we mail notice out to agencies,because typically we give
agencies 30 days to comment. And so they get it at the same time,they can then put it on their
agenda. And since we amended our process,the two P.U.D.'s that have come through have been
Waiki`i and PuakO. The other P.U.D.'s,previously,by the time they got notice of it,it would be too
late to put on their agendas. So they've put it on their agendas. Actually,Waiki'i,the first P.U.D.
was withdrawn. We had six letters in opposition, two from surrounding property owners,and,you
know,met with the applicant, and as a result of those they withdrew their application, the first
application. The objection was that all the property owners,the smallest lot size was ten acres,and
the P.U.D. was proposing some five-acre lots. So that one got withdrawn. They submitted a new
P.U.D., which is the one that's going to be at the next Action Committee,and that one,the smallest
lots are ten acres. With PuakO they met with the Action Committee in a public forum where people
8
could come,but they also met separately with the Puako Community Association because they were
the most vocal and concerned,and so they are tweaking their plan in response to that.
I think people's concern basically is that you get more than one bite at the apple,if you go through a
different process;if you go through a process that goes to both the Planning Commission, as well as
the County Council,you've got a bite of the apple at the Planning Commission and at the County
Council. If it goes through as an ordinance there,you've got a bite of the apple at the Planning
Committee,you've got two readings at the County Council,so you basically have four
opportunities for the public to participate, whereas the current process, there is no public hearing
unless it's held by the Action Committees,and the decision making is done within the Department
as opposed to being done at a public meeting. And that's the basic difference between the current
process and what's proposed in Bill 291. I don't specifically have an objection to Bill 291;my
biggest objection—you know,to the intent—my biggest concern is that I think the County Charter
does not allow a bill that is a violation of the Charter and how the Charter has set up. And then if
you want to do Bill 291,I believe you need to amend the Charter. I think the discussion will be had
at the Council-. Can you go to the Charter slide? And this is a specific provision of the Charter
that it says you render decisions on proposed variances. And a P.U.D. is basically a set of
variances;so if you switch from the Planning Department to the County Council,you run a foul of
that provision. But,you know,we are just basing it on the language in the Charter. I think we have
to go back and do further research as to when that amendment was made and whether there was any
discussion at the Charter Commission or when the people proposed that as to why that amendment
was made,because it actually was amended to take variances away from the Planning Commissions
and to take it and put it administratively was the understanding that I had in discussions with a prior
planning director. So,you know,you need,the problems are that if there is something that your
Charter sets up a certain process,you need to amend the Charter. And so that's the biggest concern
I have about Bill 291 is that it may require that.
GIFFIN: Thank you. Any other questions of either Maija or the Planning Director? Mr.McInnis,
thank you very much. Mr.Madson, would you like to please begin your public testimony. And
could we have lights on,please.
MADSON: Yes,my name is Tom Madson. I live at Hualiilai Colony in Kona. My feelings are
about the same as Mr. McInnis's. The only thing I might add is if this could be passed contingent
upon changing the rulings for the county plans,or whatever it is,and then if you feel this is not
legal,will you have another hearing that would include changing plans?
GIFFIN: Mr. Madson,my understanding is that our vote today will be on what Maija presented in
her opening remarks whether to approve or disapprove this particular agenda item,and it's a
recommendation really to the County Council in the current form of Bill 291. If I understood the
staff and the Planning Director correctly,and she can correct me if I'm wrong,then there will be
subsequent bills that will be introduced and be placed before us in future meetings where again we
will have public input. Director?
LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah, the intent was that,as we looked at Bill 291,and you run up against
what the organization of the Charter is,was how can we currently without, because in order to
amend the Charter that's two years from now,is there a way to currently amend the County Code to
provide the public hearing to provide greater input without running a foul or having to go and
change the Charter two years from now. So the staff has come up with the bill,which would then
come to the Planning Commission, would then go to the County Council, and the County Council
9
can add further amendments to it,including requiring perhaps that the Planning Director hold a
public hearing on a P.U.D. after its submittal and held the meeting in the community. And that,you
can do within,the way I see,the current law,and it's not running a foul of the Charter; you can
provide for that. Otherwise,if you go just the route of Bill 291, you really need to wait two years
because you've got to go amend the Charter in order to,at least,you know,this is my read of the
Charter. And so we were looking for a way that you could amend the County Code to provide the
public hearings and public meetings and do that now legally within the confines of the Charter,as
opposed to just saying Bill 291 is not legally permissible. So we are coming up with another bill
that we think will address most of the community concerns about having a process to provide input
and which can be amended to add additional hearings to it;but it has,we are trying to do one that is
consistent with the Charter provisions,so you don't have to wait two years to amend it.
MCINNIS: I have a question, if I may-.
GIFFIN: Hang on just one minute. Commissioners,any other questions or comments?
Mr. Madson,are you through with your testimony?
MADSON: Yes,I am. Thank you.
GIFFIN: All right. Then let's go back to Mr. McInnis.
MCINNIS: Are those recommendations available to the public at this time?
LEITHEAD TODD: We can provide a draft of the bill that we are working on;we may tweak it
some more but,yeah,we can email you,if you provide your email to our staff, we can email a copy
of the proposed bill that we are working on that will be on next month's agenda. And you can
provide comments and recommendations and testimony on whether that bill needs to be amended.
But we are just trying to find a track that tries to do what Councilmember Hoffmann was trying to
do,but do it consistent with what the current language of the Charter is.
MCINNIS: Thank you.
GIFFIN: You're welcome. Any other comments? Then,sirs,will you please step back. And there
were two other people who've signed up to give public testimony. Steve Fiala and also Roger
Harris,please come forward. Good morning.
FIALA: Good morning.
GIFFIN: Will you please raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this
matter now before the Leeward Hawaii County Planning Commission?
TESTIFIERS: I do.
GIFFIN: Thanks. Starting with you -. Am I saying your name correctly?
FIALA: Yes,correct.
GIFFIN: Mr. Fiala.
10
FIALA: Yes,good morning,Chair and Commissioners. For almost 20 years I worked in California
as a trails development program director for East Bay Regional Park District,which is actually one
of the largest special districts in the United States,and got to sit in and observe P.U.D.processes for
the 32 cities, two counties and ten special districts that we served,2.5 million people. They can
work very well. And they can also be very unscrupulous approach for giving development when
there is strong opposition from the community,because they can circumvent public involvement.
Commissioner Beaudet,to speak to your transparency comment, you are notified as a bordering
property owner up to 500 feet,that would be about two houses into our 50-unit subdivision;so if
you are one of these two houses, you might know about the issue,other than that you would not.
Bordering subdivisions all in the vicinity would have no opportunity to have any input or
knowledge about many of these meetings or decisions. And when we ask for transparency,the
reason having the Planning Commissions and the County Councils involved,first of all, you have
much broader dissemination of information,not just from attendance at the meetings but from
newspaper coverage,from people talking to their friends,from others. It is very,very important for
those of us that live in these communities to have some input on these P.U.D.'s. Now,some of the
experiences I had,some of these P.U.D.'s were basically utilized,as I said,to circumvent,because
rather than have a public meeting, they could go directly to a planning director or a city manager or
whatever and get a decision rendered, and basically avoid the larger public review process. For us
that live here on this island,our quality of life and what the homes should look like and what the
development should look like near us is very important. They shouldn't be high-density something
crammed into an area where residences are on a half acre or a quarter acre lots,and those things can
happen with P.U.D.'s because there is very little input often times in the process. I think the bill
that's being proposed is a very good effort, and I think that it should be tweaked a little bit rather
than coming up with a full new approach to a bill,and maybe it provides that the County Council
makes a recommendation to the Planning Director who then implements and still adheres to the
decision process that currently is in place. The other thing I have to say,if something hasn't,the
Charter hasn't been changed since 1961,you might want to look at it. That's a long time and a lot
of things have changed; in 1961 there was probably one stop light in Kona,and so—you know,
maybe not. Either way,it's very important to our community and to all the communities, I think, in
the Kona area that there be a very transparent,a very inclusive and a very comprehensive way for
the public to have input into this decision making process. And I appreciate your consideration of
that.
GIFFIN: Thank you. Director.
LEITHEAD TODD: Just for informational purposes,every ten years a comprehensive review of
the Charter and amendments are proposed. But I think at every election that we've had in the last
ten years,there have been Charter amendments on the ballot,because the County Council can
initiate amendments,which are then put on the next regularly scheduled election for voting;so it's
been regularly and routinely updated. I believe it was amended around 1969 to do this division.
And the current County Council, if they wanted to,could initiate an amendment. The problem is is
that the system that we have is that amendment would not show up until the next regularly
scheduled election, which would be in 2014,and,you know, that is just the way we do because we
don't do special elections just for Charter amendments.
FIALA: I appreciate that. I just think that there may be a way to utilize a well-written bill that
seems to be on the right track to find a way to make it work rather than start over.
GIFFIN: Director?
11
LEITHEAD TODD: The problem that I had in trying to work with the bill that Councilmember
Hoffmann produced is that generally you cannot amend the bill to change the original purpose of
the bill. And so if the original purpose of the bill was to take the process and move it to the
Planning Commission and to the County Council,I can't take the language out of the bill because
then it substantially changes the bill,and then I still have the problem that it runs foul of the
Charter,which is why we are doing an entirely different bill because, if the purpose of the bill is just
to basically tweak and provide more public input and amend the current process,that's doable,but I
couldn't take Mr. Hoffmann's bill and take the Planning Commission out and take the Council out,
because the basic intent of the bill was to change the process of approval. And so because there is
another Charter provision that says you can't change the original intent, that's why I couldn't work
with this bill.
GIFFIN: Any other comments,Commissioners? Hearing none,thank you,Mr. Fiala. Roger?
HARRIS: Members of the Commission,members of the public,Planning Director,Madam
Chairman, I'm going to speak on the other side of this. I am a city planner. I've been in the
business in Hawaii all my life, I mean,my working life,which is now 43 years of planning and
zoning and P.U.D.'s. And I'd just like to say this: P.U.D.provision in the Code is a really good
provision. It has worked terrifically well. It was put in,the Sierra Club,Bonnie Goodell,
everybody,everybody in the Green Communities supported both the P.U.D. and the Project District
provisions the last time the Code was amended,and those of us who worked with it know how good
it is. It could be that you could have more public meetings or something like that,but you've got to
realize it allows for flexibility and really more green and environmentally correct planning. It is not
an upzoning. The P.U.D. is,you can't,if you have a half-acre lots,the guy next door,and his zone
the same thing,he doesn't get to do more than a half-acre lots. He is allowed-. That would be a
rezoning,and a rezoning would go to the Commission and the Council. What Mr. Hoffmann is
asking with this bill is that we turn the P.U.D.,which is no density change,no density bonus,into a
rezoning,okay? And I think that is a bad idea. I think the property owner has rights,and this gives
his team a really good flexible tool to come up with a good plan. And there are many examples of
this. For instance, if you had a 21-acre lot and right now zoned five-acre and you split it in the five
equal lots,that's what you get; if you are using the P.U.D.provision,you can split it into five lots,
no density increase at all,but you can get three two-acre lots,let's say,and one remainder lot.
That's what the P.U.D. allows,and if you are a property owner,I think you should be able to do
that,subject to all kinds of conditions,which are typical. It's like a subdivision process,and I think
it works good. The system is not broken. The street I live on,nobody knows,but it's a P.U.D.,it's
a P.U.D. subdivision. I'm quite sure Hualalai Colony is, if it's not a P.U.D.subdivision,it's a
variance subdivision. These things are done all the time. The Kona Community Development Plan
calls for a clustering of densities in South Kona and other places in all of Kona,and the P.U.D.
provision allows that to happen. If it was an upzoning,it has to go to Council;but it's not an
upzoning. A lot of P.U.D.provisions around the world and wherever are bonus, they have a bonus
in there; you get a reward,you get two extra lots or something. But here, it's just straight
development like a subdivision. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
GIFFIN: Thank you. Director.
LEITHEAD TODD: I think the most contentious P.U.D. recently,for background information,was
Ag-5 zoning and the proposal was going to create a series of two-acre lots with one large remainder
lot. Based on the existing zoning,you would have been able to have 14 lots;based on the P.U.D.,
12
they ended up with 14 lots,but 13 of them were basically two-acre lots with one very large lot left.
And the neighboring subdivisions who are on five-acre lots had some objection to that because they
felt that it was increasing density in the area by going to the two-acre lots;however, you know,and
I don't want to debate that,but I'm saying that for some people,when they see the smaller lots next
door,they do view it as increasing the density even though the total number of lots remains the
same,because they want five-acre,they see two-acre next door, that they feel the guys have gotten
around the zoning and haven't had to rezone and got that. I think the biggest issue for a lot of
people is transparency and whether they get notice,whether they get an opportunity to provide
input. And most P.U.D.'s have not been contentious in all honesty;they have not been a huge
problem for the community. So it's just only one recently that that was an issue,and it had to do
with five-acre two-acre,but it also had to do with whether the guy developing had rights to access
the existing roads,whether there were other factors in the CDP;so it had a number of different
issues. And I think that that had a lot to do with the impetus for Mr. Hoffmann's bill was the
particular P.U.D. where there was public outcry over the way it was handled. We had another
P.U.D.where there was opposition to it,but the problem was that the opposition wasn't to the
P.U.D.or the layout; it was the neighboring community wanted a side agreement to get water from
the developer,which had nothing to do with the P.U.D.,but,you know,it came up in the context.
So different issues get triggered in different areas. What we are trying to ultimately move to,I
think,is a process where there is more public input,public opportunity, and whether it's Bill 291 or
an alternative bill that we subsequently propose,I think that that is the general direction that we are
hearing from the public that they want an opportunity. And sometimes it's that the lack of an
opportunity bleats fear about what's going to go on next door,and I think having those community
meetings would probably be able to take care of a lot of the community's concern. I think a lot of
people,just that they don't get their questions answered,so they don't know what's going on. And
I think that we've evolved to a point where people want more opportunity,and I think that's
ultimately the direction that we're going to end up going whether it's this bill or another bill.
GIFFIN: Thank you. Commissioners,any questions of Roger Harris or of the Planning Director?
Thank you. Thank you very much,both of you. Commissioners,I'd like to direct your attention to
Page 3 of the background report that was passed out to you,in the last paragraph is the
recommendation. And I know that all of us have heard enough reasons why,but I would like to
either have some discussion on this recommendation or-. Director.
LEITHEAD TODD: Madam Chair,just one other thing. Maija,can you go back to the-. Just
because we've got members of the public here,I want to explain something. You know where you
had Ka`iminani and you had the zoning—it actually was a prior,there was the Kalaoa one,and not
this one. Because I think people might have been wondering what was going on,and I'm sorry,it
really should have been brought up then;but I wanted to explain something to people because
people were probably wondering how could that happen. Go back. There. You'll notice that you
have all that Ag-5 zoning,but you've basically got 10,000-square foot or 20,000-square foot lots;
that goes back to a period of time when agriculturally zoned land in the State of Hawaii could be
subdivided for residential lots without having to do rezoning,which is why -. I live on a
10,000-square foot lot in Hilo that's zoned Ag-20 acres. And these are all like 1960's and 70's
subdivisions. So I just wanted to make sure that,you know,that was not a P.U.D.,that was not
some type of action of the Planning Department;this was,previously,they allowed this to occur,
and so we have many subdivisions-. This is Ka`iminani,and you'll notice there is nobody that has
a five-acre lot there,which is,it was approved that it was done because there was so much ag land
and the State allowed this to occur. That's no longer possible; you have to go and rezone the
property,which is why you see RS 10 for the Kalaoa property even though everybody else is Ag-5,
13
but the lot sizes are very similar,because the law changed,and you now have to go through a
rezoning process to do it.
GIFFIN: Commissioner Bowman.
BOWMAN: I'm just curious. So the Council,or the powers that be,can't suggest a rezoning so
they all be RS 10? Wouldn't that increase the tax base?
LEITHEAD TODD: It wouldn't change the tax base because they tax it on the use,and you can't
get an ag exemption because you are not doing ag. And most of these subdivisions were created
with CC&R's that preclude,like my CC&R's, I can't have a chicken, I can't have a goat, the
CC&R's preclude me from doing most agricultural activities even though the zoning is
Agricultural,because it was created as a residential subdivision. You can no longer do this;if it's
Ag-5,you have to do a five-acre subdivision unless you do a P.U.D., which allows you to kind of
make some smaller lots in exchange for having one bigger lot where you create more open space.
But you can no longer take land that has that type of zoning and create residential lots on it any
Ionger.
BOWMAN: Thank you.
GIFFIN: Any other questions? And,Commissioners,Mr.Torigoe just pointed out to me that, I
know you are aware,that at the bottom of the recommendation the last sentence is not on the table
today,and that in fact we are simply looking at Bill 291 in its current form.
BOWMAN: I just want to thank the public for being here because I think it's very important for us
to hear your testimony and, you know, your request for transparency. I do know that the very
diligent work of the County with the CDP's and the Action Committees is something that I think
affords more transparency for our communities. I understand that,I believe I understand, that the
Director's request is not against the intent of the bill but, I guess,the legality of it. So I,with this
being said, I would like to make a motion. But if there's other conversations, then please do.
GIFFIN: Any other conversations,as Commissioner Bowman mentioned? Hearing none,
Commissioner Bowman.
BOWMAN: I would like to recommend that the Planning Commission send an unfavorable
recommendation to the County Council regarding Bill No.291 in its current form.
GIFFIN: Thank you. Do I hear a second?
HICKCOX: Second.
GIFFIN: It's been moved by Commissioner Bowman and seconded by Commissioner Hickcox that
we send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council regarding Bill 291 in its current
form. Any discussion? Hearing none, Maija.
COTTLE: Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Bowman?
BOWMAN: Aye.
14
COTTLE: Commissioner Nelson?
NELSON: Aye.
COTTLE: Commissioner Beaudet?
BEAUDET: Aye.
COTTLE: Commissioner Hickcox?
HICKCOX: Aye.
COTTLE: Commissioner Whittemore?
WHITTEMORE: Aye.
COTTLE: And Madam Chair?
GIFFIN: Aye.
COTTLE: Okay,the motion to send an unfavorable recommendation passes, six-zero.
GIFFIN: Thank you very much. And thank you very much, members of the public.
LEITHEAD TODD: For those members of the public that are here and interested in this, and if you
want to send me recommendations on what a P.U.D. amendment bill should be after you get the
version we have,please try and get those in to me within the next two weeks,so after you get the
email version. I'd appreciate that. Then I can look at whether I can incorporate it into my proposed
bill.
GIFFIN: And then it can appear on next month's agenda.
LEITHEAD TODD: Sure.
The discussion ended at 10:06 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nori Sauer,Secre °—'
Leeward Planning Commission
IS
BRPUDBill291.doc 12/10/12
COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND AND RECOMMENDATION
COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE),ARTICLE 6,DIVISION 1
OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION,AS AMENDED),
RELATING TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
The County Council has initiated an amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code),
Article 6, Division 1 of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended),
relating to planned unit development.
BACKGROUND
The County Council is proposing amendments to the Zoning Code as described
within Bill No. 291 (Planning Department Exhibit 1).
In summary, Bill No. 291 attempts to amend the Zoning Code in order to
accomplish the following:
• Add the Planning Commissions and the County Council to the review and
approval process for a planned unit development(P.U.D.).
• Define the requirements of a P.U.D. project and clarify procedural guidelines.
ANALYSIS
As described in the American Planning Association's QuickNotes, Understanding
Planned Unit Development, (P.D.Exhibit 2), P.U.D. is a form of development that can
be used to advance a number of important smart growth and sustainability objectives.
In other jurisdictions,planned unit developments can take many forms,ranging from the
granting of variances in order to create clustered residential subdivisions or mixed-use
master planned communities. In Hawai`i County, mixed-use master planned
communities are typically developed by approval of the County Council through the
Project District zoning process and the P.U.D. process is primarily used to develop
residential or agricultural developments where housing units are clustered on smaller lots
than the zoning district allows in exchange for the protection of open spaces. For
example, under conventional zoning a 100 acre agricultural property that is zoned
Agricultural-10 acres (A-1 0a) could be subdivided to create a maximum of ten 10-acre
-1-
lots. The minimum lot size allowed with A-10a zoning is 10 acres. The P.U.D.process
permits the granting of variances from the minimum lot size in the zoning code so that
the same property could be developed with nine 5-acre lots clustered into one area and
one 55-acre lot of open space. The total number of lots cannot exceed 10, which is the
maximum number allowed with A-10a zoning for a 100-acre property but the minimum
lot size can be reduced below what is permitted with conventional zoning. This allows
for land to be developed with consideration for topography and any natural, historic or
cultural resources.
Under current zoning code requirements, there are three ways the public and
surrounding community is notified of a P.U.D. application. The Planning Department
publishes notice of the filing of a P.U.D. application in two newspapers, the applicant
posts a sign on the property, and the applicant mails notice of the filing of a P.U.D.
application to surrounding property owners and lessees of record within 300 or 500 feet
as required by the zoning code. These notification methods afford the public the
opportunity to provide their suggestions and concerns regarding a proposed P.U.D.
application in writing to the Planning Department. The Director considers these
suggestions and concerns in making a decision to approve or deny the applicant's P.U.D.
application and in determining what, if any, conditions should be included in the
approval.
Bill 291 proposes to change the P.U.D. approval process from an administrative
decision made by the Planning Director to a legislative decision made by the County
Council, in order to provide greater opportunity for community input through public
hearings held by the Planning Commission(s) and County Council. The Planning
Director is concerned that changing approval of planned unit developments,which are
essentially a comprehensive set of variances, to the County Council will be inconsistent
with the approval process for stand-alone variances that are currently approved by the
Planning Director pursuant to Sections 25-2-50 and 23-14 of the zoning and subdivision
codes, respectively, and may be in violation of the County Charter. Pursuant to the
County Charter, Chapter 7, Section 6-7.2(b)(6) the Planning Director renders decisions
on proposed subdivision plans and Section 6-7.2(b)(8)provides that the Planning
Director render decisions on proposed variances. Since a P.U.D. is basically an
2-
application proposing subdivision of land and seeks variances from Hawai`i County Code
Chapter 23 and Chapter 25, it may be that the authority to approve a P.U.D. cannot be
shifted to the County Council without first amending the County Charter. At the same
time, the Director understands that communities should have more opportunities to
participate in the P.U.D. approval process,particularly with the recent adoption of the
island's four community development plans.
Planning Department staff met with the author of Bill 291, Councilperson
Hoffman, and his staff to understand the intent of Bill 291 and find ways to improve the
P.U.D. approval process so that greater consideration is given to approving P.U.D.
developments that are designed in context with the surrounding community.
As an alternative to Bill 291, the Director is proposing a bill (P.D. Exhibit 3)that
would require applicants to conduct a community meeting prior to submittal of a P.U.D.
application rather than changing the approval process for P.U.D. decisions. Holding a
community meeting prior to submittal of a P.U.D. application is both beneficial to the
applicant and community because it allows areas of community concern to be identified
early on in the process so that the applicant can modify development plans as needed
prior to submitting an application. The Director's proposed bill also requires that the
P.U.D. development be consistent with the intent of any applicable community
development plan for the area. Other changes are also proposed to clarify the purpose,
application guidelines, approval process and amendment process for planned unit
development.
Bill 291 also proposes changes, such as the deletion of Section 25-6-5, that have
the effect of making the P.U.D. and Project District zoning process almost the same. The
Planning Director believes these two development processes should be kept separate.
The deletion of Section 25-6-5 circumvents the zoning code's concurrency requirements
by allowing applicants to apply for a P.U.D. rather than Project District zoning, which is
the more appropriate regulatory process for approving comprehensive mixed-use
developments.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons detailed above, the Planning Director recommends that the
Planning Commissions send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council
.3.
regarding Bill No. 291 in its current form. Instead the Planning Director requests
that a favorable recommendation for the Director's proposed bill be made to the
County Council.
.4.
r) , ...
,,,,„. ,
Pete Hoffmann
Council Member +1�°•"!! Phone No. Hilo: (808)961-8027
District 9-North and South Kohala '' ' Phone No. Waimea: (808) 887-2043
;; � ...,,Lo
,. �a Fax No.: (808)887-2072
• -� - E-Mail:phoffmann @co.hawaii.hi.us
HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL
County of Hawai`i
Hawai'i County Building
25 Aupuni Street Holomua Center
Hilo,Hawaii 9672() 64-1067 Mamalahoa Highway, Suite C-5
Waimea, Hawaii 96V
:
TO: Dominic Yagong, Chair ' •
and Members of the Hawaii County Council
FROM: ,-' Pete Hoffmann, Council Member
Date: August 29, 2012 U'
Subject: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 25, Article 6, Division lof the Hawai`i County
Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as Amended), Relating to Planned Unit Development
Attached is a bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 25, Article 6, Division 1 of the Hawai`i
County Code, relating to planned unit development.
Please place this on the appropriate agenda for the next Committee meetings scheduled for
September 18, 2012.
Thank you.
PH1dh
att
( g1IVII)
Planning Dept.
Exhibit
Comm.No Q 2
Ref. To:
Ref
Serving the Interests of the People of Our Island ' dote l
Hawaii County Is An Equal Opportunity Provider And Employer
,MAY O!
COUNTY OF HAWAII �.,'� i��:
.:{ i : STATE OF HAWAI`I
•Of•N'� '
BILL NO. 291
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25,ARTICLE 6, DIVISION 1 OF THE
HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1. Findings and Purpose. The Hawaii County Council finds that:
• A Planned Unit Development(P.U.D.) is both a type of building development and a
regulatory process.
• A P.U.D. is a designed grouping of varied and compatible land uses, such as housing,
recreation,commercial centers, and industrial parks, all within one contained
development or subdivision and may include provisions to encourage clustering of
buildings, designation of common open space, and incorporation of a variety of building
types and mixed land uses.
• A P.U.D. is planned and built as a unit thus fixing the type and location of uses and
buildings over the entire project. Potential benefits of a P.U.D. include more efficient site
design, preservation of amenities such as open space, lower costs for street construction
and utility extension for the developer and lower maintenance costs for the County.
• The area for redevelopment is planned all at once so land uses complement each other.
While a P.U.D. allows for flexible project design and for innovative uses of spaces and
structures to achieve planning goals, standards are needed to protect public health and
safety and to assure design quality and conformance to an overall plan.
The Council recognizes that the P.U.D. process must clearly spell out the review process,
opportunities for Council and public involvement, and procedural guidelines.
The purpose of this ordinance is to amend the Hawai`i County Code to clarify procedural
guidelines, define the requirements of a P.U.D. project, and to add the Planning Commission(s)
and the County Council to the review and approval process for a P.U.D.
?fin.
SECTION 2. Chapter 25, article 6, division 1 of the Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005
Edition, as amended)is amended to read as follows:
"Division 1. Planned Unit Development(P.U.D.).
Section 25-6-1. Purpose.
The purpose of planned unit development (P.U.D.) is to encourage comprehensive site
planning that is compatible with the surrounding community and that adapts the design of
development to the land, by allowing diversification in the relationships of various uses,
buildings, structures, open spaces and yards, building heights, and lot sizes in planned building
groups, while still insuring that the intent of this chapter is observed. The P.U.D. requires a high
standard for the protection and preservation of environmentally sensitive lands, well planned
living, working and shopping environments and the timely provision of essential utilities and
streets.
Section 25-6-2. [Minim a ' ] Reserved.
Section 25-6-3. Application for P.U.D. [permit]; requirements.
An application for a P.U.D. [pest] may be filed by a property owner or any other person
with the property owner's consent, shall be on a form prescribed for this purpose by the director,
and shall be accompanied by:
(1) A filing fee of$500.
(2) A written description of the proposed project, including the following information:
(A) A description of the property in sufficient detail to determine the precise location
of the property involved[;] including a metes and bounds description of the
property prepared by a surveyor;
(B) A statement of objectives and reasons for the requested P.U.D. [permit, inc g
(C) A list of all requested deviations or variances from the requirements of chapter
23 (subdivisions)and chapter 25 (zoning), Hawaii County Code;
(D) A preliminary schedule for the timetable of the proposed development; [and]
(E) An analysis of the relationship of the proposed development to the general
plan[.] ; and
el A preliminary site plan of the P.U.D., showing:
(1) Property boundaries;
(2) Proposed land uses, densities, and acreage of land involved:
(3) Proposed land uses, size, gross square footage, character and disposition
of buildings and structures on the site;
Natural, historic, and cultural features;
(5) Approximate location of all roadways and access drives proposed within
the P.U.D.;
( ) Location of all adjacent streets, thoroughfares, and public utilities;
(7) The proposed P.U.D. in relation to surrounding streets and property
located within six hundred feet in all directions of the development site;
2
0_1 The location, height, and land use of all existing buildings and structures
immediately adjacent to the development site; and
c9) A description of each of the open space areas proposed for the P.U.D. for
cultural and environmental purposes, including those open space areas
preserved because of natural hazards such as floodways.
- _ --_
g
(D) Parking areas; ._ - - • - - - . .. -. __
(E) Public areas and uses; and
[(`y • - _ -•. .. .-. . .1
. _ - - , . -_ _ . • , -
[E-5-)](3) A list of the names, addresses and tax map key numbers of all surrounding owners
and lessees of property interests in property within the boundaries established by
section 25-2-4.
[fO]D Any other information or plans required by rules adopted by the director in
accordance with chapter 91, Hawai`i Revised Statutes.
Section 25-6-4. Notice of action on P.U.D. application.
[faajUpon acceptance of a P.U.D. application, the director shall fix a date for the director's
action on the application. Within ten days after receiving notice of such date, the applicant
shall serve notice of the application on surrounding owners and lessees of record, as
provided by section 25-2-4. The applicant shall also serve notice on owners and lessees of
record of interests in other properties which the director may find to be directly affected by
the P.U.D. [permit] sought. The applicant shall also post a sign for public notification on
the property as provided by section 25-2-12.
Eleeisiend
Section 25-6-5. [ ' , • . . . • . • : . . . • • . . . - • • , , • • •]•Reserved.
3
At,
•
•
414a,
Section 25-6-6. [• • — : • • • : : - • -- : '• : *: - .1 Procedure for
processing P.U.D application.
I • : •
[ -: -:•;: - •-- :: : - - . •: - •:
---• ' - - , , : ; :-:,
- , - . -: - - - - • • - : -- " .• -: .
:.-: : - -
- :• -• •-• -:;
•: - •-- : : : -:• . •: -;
(6) Utilities to be furnished; and
- : -: •--•.. • -- - • t:.1•[(c) The director may, within the sixty day period after acceptance of a P.U.D. permit
• •: •, :• •.* : ' •., • : . : - - : : .
:t- - . : •••• • : -• • " • •:*•• • . : -, • C :,
": : ;; ; " 1 ": •. : :; : ;" •
• .:: : .: " ; ; :;:
[(d) When plans and drawings are submitted after a partial approval of a P.U.D. permit
• : : : . • : : : , - •- : . •-: •:• -• • : : - :
- •- • - • : : "•:, . - , • ..- : • -:
1.! ---• : : : - • •: - : •- : - • -*
subseetien4
[ : : . :: • . ' - '
P.U.D. permit
01 Within one hundred twenty days after a P.U.D. application has been accepted by the
director, the director shall forward the application to the commission, which shall include
the following:
(1) The director's recommendation on the proposed
L2..) A proposed P.U.D. ordinance which establishes the P.U.D. and provides P.U.D.
standards and conditions, including permitted land uses, accessory uses, densities,
heights, setbacks, and variances from the requirements of this chapter, and from
chapter 23 (subdivision control), if applicable;
Lal The preliminary site plan for the
(4) An analysis of the relationship of the proposed development to the general plan, the
local community development plan, and any other regional plans; and
4
•
. A schedule for the timetable of the proposed development.
0) The commission shall review any P.U.D. application and shall forward its recommendation
on the application to the council through the mayor for the council's consideration and
action.
a) In reviewing the application, the commission shall hold at least one public hearing in
the district in which the proposed P.U.D. is located. The commission shall provide
reasonable notice of the date of the hearing to the applicant. The commission shall also
publish notice of the hearing,as provided in this chapter.
Z) Within ten days after receiving notice of the date of the public hearing, the applicant
shall serve notice of the hearing on surrounding owners and lessees of record as
provided by section 25-2-4. The applicant shall also serve notice on owners and lessees
of record of interests in other properties which the commission may find to be directly
affected by the proposed P.U.D.
(3) Within ninety days after receipt of the application from the director, unless a longer
period is agreed to by the applicant, the commission shall transmit the proposed P.U.D.
ordinance together with its recommendation thereon through the mayor to the council.
The commission shall recommend approval in whole or in part, with or without
modifications, or rejection of such proposal. In the event that the commission fails to
act on the application within the ninety-day period, such inaction shall be considered
an unfavorable recommendation by the commission, and the application shall be
transmitted through the mayor to the council with such recommendation.
Section 25-6-7. [Resented,' Conditions imposed on P.U.D.
The council may impose conditions on the use of the property subject to the P.U.D.,
provided the council finds that the conditions are:
.) Necessary to prevent circumstances which may be adverse to the public health, safety,
and welfare;
(2) Reasonably conceived to fulfill needs directly emanating from the land uses proposed
with respect to protection of the public from the potentially deleterious effects of the
proposed uses, or fulfillment of the need for public service demands created by the
proposed uses;
a) Necessary to assure consistency with the general plan, community development plan,
or any other regional plan in effect for the area;and
a) Necessary to protect natural, historic, or cultural resources located on the subject
property.
( In addition to the conditions described in subsection(a), the council shall review the P.U.D.
ordinance in order to ensure the following requirements are included:
a. A description of each of the uses proposed in the P.U.D.;
(2) The overall densities and uses of structures established in the P.U.D.;
(3) Any infrastructure requirements for the P.U.D.;
(4) Any open space requirements for the P.U.D.; and
LS) The proposed uses are consistent with the underlying zoning.
5
Section 25-6-8. [Reserved:] Review and approval of final site plans.
(a) After adoption of a P.U.D. ordinance,the applicant shall submit to the director detailed final
site plans for the P.U.D. The final site plans shall conform to the P.U.D. ordinance and shall
include the following:
(1) Uses,dimensions, and locations of proposed structures;
(2) Widths, alignments, and improvements of proposed streets and pedestrian and drainage
ways;
(3) Any proposed subdivision of property for individual parcel sale:
(4) Parking areas;
f5,). Public areas and uses;
�), Architectural drawings for all buildings other than singe-family dwellings
demonstrating the design and character of the proposed buildings and uses;
(7) All items required for a plan approval application, as provided by section 25-2-72.
Plans for required infrastructure improvements;
f9) A list of all requested deviations or variances from the requirements of chapter 23
(subdivisions)and chapter 25 (zoning), Hawai`i County Code; and
(10) Any other information required by rules adopted by the director in accordance with
chapter 91, Hawai`i Revised Statutes.
(b) In reviewing final site plans for a P.U.D., the director shall consider the proposed
development and uses in relation to the surrounding properties, improvements, streets,
traffic, community characteristics, and natural features. The director may approve the final
site plans subject to conditions, or the director may approve the final site plans subject to
certain changes when, in the director's opinion, such conditions or changes are necessary to
carry out the purposes of the P.U.D. ordinance, this chapter and the considerations
contained in this section. The conditions imposed by the director shall be justifiable based
on their consistency with the P.U.D. ordinance.
(c) The director may require conditions or changes to assure:
(1) Adequate light and air, proper sitting and arrangements of all structures and
improvements are provided;
(2) Existing and prospective traffic movements will not be hindered;
(3) Proper landscaping that is commensurate with the development or use and its
surroundings;
(4) Unsightly areas are properly screened or eliminated;
(5) Adequate off-street parking is provided to serve the development or use;
(6) Access to the parking areas will not create potential accident hazards; and
(7) Within reasonable limits, any natural, historic, cultural, and man-made features of
community value are preserved.
(d) The director may also require changes or conditions related to the following requirements:
(1) Commencement and completion time frame for the project;
(2) Boundary and density changes approved in the project;
( ) Uses that are prohibited or limited;
(4) Specifications for the minimum development standards;
11) Specifications for street improvement and dedication;
(6) Infrastructure and utilities to be furnished; and
(7.) The extent and limitations upon the variances permitted.
6
(e) Within sixty days after acceptance of the final site plans, the director shall either deny or
approve the final site plans. If the director fails to render a decision on the site plans within
the prescribed period, the site plans shall be considered approved without further
certification by the director.
in The director may approve final site plans for a P.U.D. only if the applicant has complied
with all of the conditions contained in the P.U.D. ordinance and the final site plans conform
to the standards contained in the P.U.D. ordinance. The director may approve the site plans
subject to conditions, or the director may approve the site plans subject to certain changes
when, in the director's opinion, such conditions or changes are necessary to carry out the
purposes of the P.U.D. ordinance, this chapter, and the considerations contained in this
section.
Section 25-6-9. Reserved.
Section 25-6-10.[ ' • •• ' ] Reserved. •[h7 • - . ..- - . - : - -• - -• • ] -•
wider the distri s 1
vsurl ti cl
esrlvs-
7
Section 25-6-11. [N..os..t +• t ] Construction in conformity with approved
final site plans.
Every structure, development, and use contained in final site plans for a P.U.D. approved by
the director shall be constructed and developed in accordance with the terms, specifications, and
conditions of approval for those site plans.
Section 25-6-12. [ • : : . •; . . . ; . ., • , , • , ••, - .- - ' 't] Plan approval issued by approval of final site plans.
{(
cllaPter-J
Plan approval shall be considered issued when final site plans for a P.U.D. are approved by
the director, as provided by section 25-6-8, and no further action is required for the issuance of
plan approval under this chapter.
Section 25-6-13. Effect of P.U.D. [permit] approval on other zoning provisions.
Any P.U.D. [permit] approval issued shall be subject to all of the conditions imposed in the
[permit] approval and shall be exempted from other provisions of this chapter only to the extent
specified in the [quit] approval.
Section 25-6-14. Time extensions and amendments.
(a) Any request for a time extension or an amendment to a P.U.D. [permit or to the so„ditielis
of a P.U.D. permit] approval may be granted by the director upon finding that no change has
occurred in relation to the property since the P.U.D. [ ] final site plan was
approved or that the approval is still valid with respect to any changed conditions.
(b) The director shall act on any request for a time extension or amendment within forty-five
days after the receipt of the request. [ - _ : •-_ . . _ - -. •_ . - -- -
. . :-: : - - ..-- - -- -.• - • .J If the
director fails to render a decision within the forty-five days after the receipt of the request,
the request shall be considered denied without further certification by the director.
I Any amendment to the conditions and standards contained in a P.U.D. ordinance shall be
processed in the same manner as the original P.U.D. ordinance. A request for any
amendment shall be submitted in writing to the director, in lieu of the application required
for a P.U.D.
8
(d) The request shall be accompanied by a filing fee of$500.
Section 25-6-15. [meals.] Appeal of director's actions on P.U.D. final site plans.
(a) If the director denies approval of a P.U.D. [pen:nit] final site plan., such decision is final
except that,within thirty days after the date of the written decision, the applicant may appeal
such action to the board of appeals, pursuant to the rules of practice and procedure of the
board of appeals.
(b) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the director in the [is anee] approval of a P.U.D.
{peffnit-eleeisionj final site plan may appeal the director's action to the board of appeals, in
accordance with this chapter, within thirty days after the date of the director's written
decision."
SECTION 3. Material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New material is
underscored. In printing this ordinance,the brackets, bracketed and stricken material, and
underscoring need not be included.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof
to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or
applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable.
SECTION 5.This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval.
INTDUCED BY:
(.•
• a j< ,wrrr L'[
COUN L I MBER, C• rVY OF 'AWAI`I
, Hawai`i
Date of Introduction:
Date of 1st Reading:
Date of 2nd Reading:
Effective Date:
REFERENCE Comm., 824
9
t".;
,Y
r..
Planning fundamentals
for public officials and ..
engaged citr►s . :''
,`.
rIP IIn eaipf}I� to1wX ��� �"r �s �
u 'r on 0
Understanding Planned Unit Development
A planned unit development(PUD)is a large,integrated development adhering to a comprehensive , ,
an and located on a single tract of land or on two or more tracts of land that may be separated only 4,'a
by a street of other right-of-way.PUD is a form of development that,although conceived decades ago,
can be used today to advance a number of important smart growth and fir'
has a number of distinct advantages over conventional lot-by--lot development P Properly written and PUD
administered,PUD can offer a degree of flexibility that allo NS creativity in land planning,s to design, lii
and the protection of environmentally sensitive lands not possible with conventional subdivision and
land development practices.Moreover,properly applied,PUD is capable of m:xin r
g residential and r '..
nonresidential land uses,providing broader housing choices,allowing more compact development, Showcasing
permanently preserv`rig common open space,reducing vehicle trips,and providing Shonacasing e a 11b;Lc e rk,ped;
bicycle facilities.In exchange for design flexibility,developers are better,sole to provide amenities s an d
infrastructure improvements,and find it easier to accommodate environmental and scenic attributes. Jrrw rr-puraosepr,�irt ;k,pecfesrr
an-/ann y desgn,and a 150G+a ft r"acre
PUD is particularly useful when applied to large developments approved in phases over a number of wet/andsys!em,rte5ud;vial*ern.rD
and the MuckNalter Pace urban cen-
years,such as master planned communites.PUDs are typically approved by tie local legislative
ter in SlJrrtoh,South Carolina pro-
years,
(city council,board of supervisors,county commissioners)after a comprehensive
recommenoation by the planning board or commission,Vin r e :pu review and
'e e m t1,0 csof"s o!`t_:r_n.; -;bie
Communities considering adoption of a PUD ordinance should be madful that ewhilelplanntngrng deve'anmen;.
boards and commissions are giver a good deal of discretionary power in acting on PUDs,
appropriate standards are essential.Moreover,a delicate balance must be found between the desire
to be flexible in order to take into account unique site characteristics and the need to spell out
concrete standards and criteria.
WHY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IS POPULAR
PUD has grown increasingly popular,in part because standard subdivision and zoning ordinances
have serious limitations.Many older vintage zoning ordinances prohibit mixed use.Single family,
multifamily,and nonresidential uses are often not allowed in the same zoning district.Older
convent oral ordinances also contain uniform site development standards that terd to produce
monotonous outcomes.Subdivision control ordinances deal with narrow concerns,such as street,
curb,and sidewalk standards and lot and block layout.The lack of meaningful amounts of well-
placed,accessible open space and recreational amenities Is another shortfall of conventional
development controls.
TYPES OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Planned uni'developments can take many forms,ranging from modest residential developments
there housing units are clustered goo ooen soa:e is provided,to mixed use master planned
ommur ties that.-..-tver thousands ofacres.
' :
Planning l i
l� �
Simple Residential Cluster r e !us' C 5 S it C l,: S C n-rr r ¢ 1:S�'n r r13r a'Cr- )a n a en r 're5? red J.-r` nJp3 r S PPCNw errs 7t l✓O:' S Exhibit z.+ ,1 f ✓ . �" _,- ' a r 8 ^t-:"— r. e: tt: -t;,a ! of features a...l ? st ea rns ton r-
ill£)n r,In es may either Ithn t the gross Jens 1 the try F
F.,t..,`, rr ..^,!" C)',v,a w rt'cp r r`a• a- 'C of 1:,. i he L� ra t e" J of
yF,:�.'. "S Gr ^ .. P Lr-—S fry � d r•- American Planning Association
wise be allowed.By allowing a bonus,the community can requite a greater percentage of the tract
as common open space.rheoret.cally,communities can choose to allow any residential type(or
combination,of types)on a parcel in the cluster plan—single-family houses,attached houses,town
houses,garden apartments,or high rises.As a practical matter,however,cluster subdivisions are
developed mostly for single-family homes on individual lots.
Mixed Uses.+ flu ids on the simple res dential duster idea by allowing nonresidential uses,often
at higher densities.Retail and service establishments,restaurants,schools,linrar E s,churches,
recreation facilities,offices,and even industrial uses car be included in PUDs.Downtown or village
center development with apartments above shops and live-work arrangements are also possitle.
The extreme case is the master planned commur:to;wh,,oh usually'involves substantial acreage and
combines employment,office,retail,and entertainment centers with associated self-contained
neighborhoods.This can include diverse housing types as well as retail,entertainment and
office centers.
WHICH ORDINANCE,WHICH AGENCY?
Individual state plannino statutes control how communities handle the deliberative process
lead"ng to a decision about a PUS.In most states a PUD provision can be made part of the zoning
ordinance or it may be written as a stand-alone ordinance.in either case,the decision to approve,
approve with corditions,or disapprove a PUD falls to the legislative branch of loco.government.
Some car?-munities permit a PUD)thecei h a discretonary relief''process,such as 3 conditions{m
special use permit, these permits car he approved by the legislative body,planning commission,
or board of adjustment,depending on the state enabling legislation and local policies.Some
communities provide for the administrative approval of ,-exec use deveiopments that normally
require a discretionary PUD process.
Tire zoning rc ar'ce!s.!e 'of aporJpr,ate ollcie to locate develop-nem ceigalations.
Basic legislative decstons on use and ders.;y are normally the responsrbility c`the lea slat ve body.
Street design and infrastructure could also oe resolved through PUD approval,though these
ccnsideratic-ns are nom,ally built into a unified development ordinance Decis ons about plan details
can be left to the planning board or comet ssion and planning staff
ZONING FOR PUD REFERENCES
Communities face a r:ember of questions when deciding how r,o,fit claimed unit de elopment
regulations into them zoning ordinances.Cane alternative is to provide for planned unit development 1,Published by American
as-et-right tinder this ouideline the ordinance would sDet if'.the requirements for a planned unit Planning Association
development,and d scretora-y•eeevrr and approval procedures would not he necessary.
t:4and.4k,1 Dann R rrtki.. 'tanner)tin
Stand-alone PUD odinances are now`ably common.Although there are variations,a t'<oica I n�c rne'is I'tan ertci t r','oty`xrvrr
ord.nance will include a purpose clause;a statement of the type or types or PUD that a'A_
Ram."rcz,` �Ctskaticx Arv'F r1C:an
authorized;zoning procedures;and standards for approval.The ordnance may contain def :ion>. rsnr'n`t ` r"'r
itavrttiiiker.Daniel R.200/liax)rx.d t nrr
i Ii'. ior3n)fe:ntr,and Maa,rtr Planned
CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN m runiiies Rewew and t'pp'o+et
Consistency with the comprehensive plan should be required,especiatly if tine°_'3 has a moor effect i''racr-s'Zanirxr Pracircp.March.
On crowd-and development in the community and on put!ic facilities.This will be true of master
plariet common yrrn t , !'Aar afu e s nee,'requre zpri ig'o tr conr,isr c t itl a Crimi.: hc2n5 ae
. ,. � ,Other Resources pia ar .. _ . 'for .F ec oe J) rt(�r3 .;F ti .F ' ro�. mar r•t_
ri,('' air!:=;5
FP '399-6H
..?t Yn`+:.;',c.,r
d
COUNTY OF HAWAII :+• *i •: STATE OF HAWAII
BILL NO.
(Planning Dept. )
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 6,DIVISION I OF THE
HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1. Findings and Purpose. The Hawai`i County Council finds that:
• A Planned Unit Development(P.U.D.) is a regulatory process that encourages
comprehensive site planning that adapts the design of development to the land,by
allowing diversification in the relationships of various uses, buildings, structures, open
spaces and yards, building heights, and lot sizes in planned building groups while still
ensuring that the intent of the zoning code is observed. The area for development is
planned all at once so land uses complement each other.
• A P.U.D. approval allows for a comprehensive set of deviations and variances from the
zoning and subdivision codes related to building site standards such as lot width and size,
building height, yards and open space, and road standards. These deviations and
variances provide flexibility in project design in order to encourage the protection of
important natural resources such as floodplains, woodlands and wildlife habitat, and
historic and cultural resources; the protection of important agricultural lands; the
provision of open space; and the provision of support infrastructure that is in harmony
with the character of the surrounding area while providing for an environment of
sustained desirability and stability.
• While a P.U.D. allows for flexible project design and for innovative uses of spaces and
structures to achieve planning goals, standards are needed to protect public health and
safety and to assure design quality and conformance to an overall plan.
• A P.U.D. approval does not change the zoning district of the lands upon which the
development is proposed. The proper regulatory process for establishing a
comprehensive development containing a mix of land uses is the Project District zoning
district which is enacted by ordinance by the County Council.
The Council recognizes that the P.U.D. ordinance has not been amended since adoption of the
Puna, Kona, North Kohala, and South Kohala Community Development Plans.
Planning Dept.
Exhibit 3
The Council also recognizes that the P.U.D. ordinance must clearly identify the purpose of a
P.U.D., spell out the application and review process and procedural guidelines, and provide
opportunities for public involvement in the P.U.D. approval process.
The purpose of this ordinance is to amend Chapter 25 of the Hawaii County Code to clarify the
purpose of a P.U.D., clarify procedural guidelines for submitting a P.U.D. application, define the
requirements of a P.U.D. project, and to provide an opportunity for greater community
involvement in the approval process for a P.U.D.
SECTION 2. Chapter 25, article 6, division 1 of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005
Edition, as amended) is amended to read as follows:
"Division 1. Planned Unit Development(P.U.D.).
Section 25-6-1. Purpose.
The purpose of planned unit development (P.U.D.) is to encourage comprehensive site
planning that is compatible with the surrounding community and that adapts the design of
development to the land, by allowing diversification in the relationships of [ ,]
buildings, structures, open spaces and yards, building heights, and lot sizes in planned building
groups, while still insuring that the intent of this chapter is observed. Approval of a P.U.D.
allows a comprehensive set of deviations and variances from the zoning and subdivision codes to
be applied to a development in order to encourage creativity in land planning, site design, and the
protection of environmentally sensitive lands not possible with conventional zoning and
subdivision standards. In return for greater flexibility in site design requirements, a P.U.D.
requires a high standard for the protection of environmentally sensitive and important
agricultural lands.
Section 25-6-2. Minimum land area required.
The minimum land area required for a P.U.D. shall be two acres.
Section 25-6-3. Application for P.U.D. [permit]; requirements.
An application for a P.U.D. [permit] may be filed by a property owner or any other person
with the property owner's consents shall be on a form prescribed for this purpose by the director,.
and shall be accompanied by:
(1) A filing fee of$500.
(2) A written description of the proposed project, including the following
information:
(A) A description of the property in sufficient detail to determine the precise
location of the property involved;
(B) A statement of objectives and reasons for the requested P.U.D. [permit],
including an analysis of how the request satisfies the standards contained in
section 25-6-10;
(C) A list of all requested deviations or variances from the requirements of
chapter 23 (subdivisions) and chapter 25 (zoning), Hawai`i County Code
(D) A schedule for the timetable of the proposed development; and
2
(E) An analysis of the relationship of the proposed development to the general
plan and applicable community development plan.
(3) Drawings and plans comprising a general development plan covering the entire
area of the P.U.D., and providing the following information:
(A) Uses, dimensions, and locations of existing and proposed structures;
(B) Widths, alignments, and improvements of proposed streets and pedestrian
and drainage ways;
(C) Any proposed subdivision of property for individual parcel sale;
(D) Parking areas;
(E) Public areas and uses; [ ]
(F) Landscaping and [epen-spaees] open space areas proposed for the P.U.D. for
cultural and environmental purposes, including those open space areas
preserved because of natural hazards such as floodways.
(G) Natural, historic, and cultural features;
(H) The proposed P.U.D. in relation to surrounding streets, thoroughfares.,
public utilities and property located within six hundred feet in all directions
of the development site; and
fI The location, height, and land use of all existing buildings and structures
immediately adjacent to the development site.
(4) Architectural drawings for all buildings other than single-family dwellings
demonstrating the design and character of the proposed buildings and uses.
(5) A list of the names, addresses and tax map key numbers of all surrounding owners
and lessees of property interests in property within the boundaries established by
section 25-2-4.
(6) A written community meeting summary described in section 25-6-7(d).
[(6)](7) Any other information or plans required by rules adopted by the director in
accordance with chapter 91, Hawai`i Revised Statutes.
Section 25-6-4. Notice of action on P.U.D. application.
(a) Upon acceptance of a P.U.D. application, the director shall fix a date for the director's
action on the application. Within ten days after receiving notice of such date, the applicant
shall serve notice of the application on surrounding owners and lessees of record, as
provided by section 25-2-4. The applicant shall also serve notice on owners and lessees of
record of interests in other properties which the director may find to be directly affected by
the P.U.D. [permit] approval sought. The applicant shall also post a sign for public
notification on the property as provided by section 25-2-12.
(b) The director shall publish notice of the date of the proposed decision by the director and the
date by which written comments must be received by the director in at least two newspapers
of general circulation in the County, at least ten days prior to the director's proposed
decision.
Section 25-6-5. Procedure for processing application when use not permitted in district.
An application for a P.U.D. [permit] that proposes a use not permitted either directly or as a
conditional use within a district may be considered by the director only if a separate application
for a change of zone or project district is filed concurrently with or prior to the P.U.D. [permit]
application. The P.U.D. [permit] application and the change of zone or project district
3
application shall be considered concurrently, and any P.U.D. approved by the director shall be
effective only when the change of zone ordinance becomes effective.
Section 25-6-6. Actions by director on P.U.D. [permit] applications.
(a) Except as provided in section 25-6-5, the director shall, within [shy] ninety (90) days
after acceptance of a P.U.D. [permit] application or modification to a pending P.U.D.
application, deny the application or approve it subject to conditions, unless a longer
period is agreed to by the applicant.
(b) In reviewing the general development plan(s) for a P.U.D., the director shall consider
the proposed development and uses in relation to the surrounding properties,
improvements, streets, traffic, community characteristics, and natural, historic and
cultural resources. The director may grant the P.U.D. approval subject to conditions,or
the director may approve the general development plan(s) subject to certain changes
when, in the director's opinion, such conditions or changes are necessary to carry out
the purpose of a P.U.D. as described in section 25-6-1, or the intent of the general plan
or applicable community development plan.
[(b)]() The conditions imposed by the director shall bear a reasonable relationship to the
P.U.D. [permit] approval. [• . :, ., - . . . . . . -., , ., , . :, .,
project shall be required as a condition of a P.U.D. permit.] The conditions may
include, but not be limited to the following:
(1) Commencement and completion time frame for the project;
(2) Boundary and density changes approved in the project;
[(3) Uses that are prohibited or limited;]
[(4)](3) Specifications for the minimum development standards;
[(Ma) Specifications for street improvement and dedication;
[(6)](5) Utilities to be furnished; and
[(7)](6) The extent and limitations upon the variances permitted.
[(c) The director may, within the sixty day ',cried after aeceptanec of a P.U.D. permit
fiction.] -
[(e)](d) If the director fails to act upon a P.U.D. [penult] application within the prescribed
[sixty day] ninety (90) day period as required by subsection (a) above, the application
shall be considered as having been denied and the director shall immediately inform the
applicant of such denial. [ _ - . . . .. . ., . : . •-
4
Section 25-6-7. Reserved;Community meeting required prior to submittal of an
application for a P.U.D.
(a) No more than sixty (60) days prior to submittal of an application for a P.U.D., the
applicant shall conduct a community meeting to present the proposed P.U.D. and solicit
comments and concerns from the surrounding community.
(b) A meeting invitation containing the following information shall be served on the owners
and lessees of record of all lots according to the distances described by section 25-2-4;
and any community, homeowner or business associations or organizations known to be
active in the surrounding community:
(U The name of the applicant;
(2) The precise location of the property involved including a location map;
(3) The nature of the P.U.D. application including a general development plan;
(4) A list of all requested deviations or variances from the requirements of chapter 23
(subdivisions) and chapter 25 (zoning), Hawai`i County Code;
(5) A statement of objectives and reasons for the proposed P.U.D.;
() The date,time and location of the community meeting; and
(7) The applicants contact information.
.(c) At the community meeting, the applicant shall clearly explain the difference in
developing the property pursuant to the provisions of the zoning and subdivision code
versus the deviations and variances proposed in the P.U.D. application.
(d) The applicant shall provide a written meeting summary to the Planning Department with
the P.U.D. application that includes the following:
(1) A meeting attendance list,
(2) A copy of all presentation material that was provided to the community at the
meeting, and
(3) A description of community concerns and proposed mitigation measures to these
concerns.
fe) The applicant shall make a good faith effort to address community concerns by
incorporating reasonable changes into the general development plan submitted with the
P.U.D. application.
Section 25-6-8. Reserved.
Section 25-6-9. Reserved.
Section 25-6-10.Criteria for granting a P.U.D. [permit] approval
A P.U.D. [permit] approval may be granted by the director upon finding that:
(a) The construction of the [p ect] proposed development can begin and be completed within
a reasonable period of time from the date of full approval.
(b) The proposed development substantially conforms to the general plan and applicable
community development plan.
(c) Any residential or agricultural development shall constitute an environment of sustained
desirability and stability for the district that is in harmony with the character of the
surrounding area, that results in an intensity of land use no higher than that otherwise
5
specified for the district, and that maintains the standards of open space at least as high as
that otherwise specified for the district in which the development occurs.
(d) Any commercial development shall not create traffic congestion which exceeds that which
would have been produced under conventional development patterns, practices and
standards in the district or interfere with any projected public improvements, shall provide
for proper entrances and exits along with proper provisions for internal traffic and parking,
and be an attractive center which does not adversely impact upon adjacent and surrounding
existing or prospective developments.
(e) Any industrial development shall be in conformity with desirable performance standards and
shall constitute an efficient and well organized development with adequate provisions for
freight service and necessary storage, and shall not adversely impact upon adjacent and
surrounding existing or prospective development.
(f) The development of a harmonious, integrated whole justifies exceptions, if required, to the
normal requirements of this chapter, and the contemplated arrangements or use make it
desirable to apply regulations and requirements differing from those ordinarily applicable
under the district regulations.
Section 25-6-11. Height exceptions authorized.
(a) A building approved under a P.U.D. [permit] approval may exceed the height limit specified
under the zoning district of the property and the height limits under section 25-4-22;
provided,that the maximum height of the building shall not exceed seventy-five feet.
(b) A building approved under a P.U.D. [permit] approval and situated within a zoning district
which exceeds the height limits specified under subsection (a) may be permitted at the
higher height limits prescribed for that zoning district.
Section 25-6-12. Approval of variances[, ] issued under
P.U.D. [ t] approval.
[(a)]No separate or additional variance permit [or-use permit] shall be required for any variance
[or arse] approved under a P.U.D. [perm ti] approval. [: : .. .. ., - . - . . . .•[11: ' . . . .• : :. ' _. • . _. . . - _. . • . . . . _. ..•
ehaPter7]
Section 25-6-13. Effect of P.U.D. [emit] approval on other zoning provisions.
Any P.U.D. [pest] approval issued shall be subject to all of the conditions imposed in the
[permit] approval and shall be exempted from other provisions of this chapter only to the extent
specified in the [permiq approval.
Section 25-6-14. Time extensions and amendments.
(a) Any request for a time extension or an amendment to a P.U.D. [permit or to the conditions
of a P.U.D. permit] approval may be granted by the director upon finding that no change has
occurred in relation to the property since the P.U.D. [permit] was issued or that the approval
is still valid with respect to any changed conditions.
(b) The director shall act on any request for a time extension or amendment within [forty fivc]
ninety (90) days after the receipt of the request. In granting any time extension or
6
amendment, the director may impose additional conditions to meet the intent of the P.U.D.
[perms] approval. If the director fails to render a decision within ninety days after the
receipt of the request, the request shall be considered denied without further certification by
the director.
(c) The request shall be accompanied by a filing fee of$250.
Section 25-6-15. Appeals.
(a) If the director denies approval of a P.U.D. [permit], such decision is final except that, within
thirty days after the date of the written decision, the applicant may appeal such action to the
board of appeals,pursuant to the rules of practice and procedure of the board of appeals.
(b) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the director in the [issuance] approval of a P.U.D.
[permit decision] may appeal the director's action to the board of appeals, in accordance
with this chapter, within thirty days after the date of the director's written decision."
SECTION 3. Material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New material is
underscored. In printing this ordinance,the brackets, bracketed and stricken material, and
underscoring need not be included.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof
to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or
applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval.
INTRODUCED BY:
COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII
, Hawai`i
Date of Introduction:
Date of 1st Reading:
Date of 2nd Reading:
Effective Date:
7