COM 0481.000 2016-2018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Michael Yee, Director July 5, 2017 Page 6 As noted earlier, an initial time extension was granted. Pursuant to this condition, the applicant is requesting retroactive approvals plus the additional one hundred eighty (180) days for payment of the water commitment fee and five (5) years to complete the project, from the effective date of this proposed amendment. V. RESTATEMENT OF REQUEST Conditions B and C required payment of the water commitment fee within one hundred eighty(180) days and completion of the project within five(5) years, respectively, of the effective date of the ordinance (July 9, 2003). These conditions were not complied with, in spite of the initial five (5)year extension to complete the project. In light of the above, the new owner/applicant-Kawili Development, LLC.Inc. - is requesting time extensions of an additional one hundred eighty (180) days for payment of the water commitment fee and five(5) years for completion of the project, from the effective date of an amendment amending the subject ordinance. IV. JUSTIFICATION OF REQUESTS Condition 0 of the rezoning ordinance(Ord. 03 108) outlined three(3) criteria --`whereby a-time extension=m-.ye considered. These criteria and-their===-- justification for both extension requests follow. A. The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence. Kawili Development, LLC acquired the subject property near the end of 2009. In spite of securing a contractor and submitting plans for a building permit, the permit was not issued until February 2012. It should be noted that the original contracted completion date with the contractor was well before the July 9, 2013 deadline. However,because of unanticipated issues between the primary contractor and its sub-contractors as well as between the developer and the contractor, the completion deadline was extended to July 15, 2013. Performance by the contractor continued to lag; and construction cost began to escalate making the project somewhat financially untenable. Thus, the VA was approached as a possible tenant in September 2013. The VA - requirements required modifications to the plan. Because of the lack of performance and the building requirements of the VA, the contractor was