2007-07-20 TSamson - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

project that has been zoned; and I think the policy decision has been made to have development for Multiple Family and Village Commercial in this area. It’s right in the core of Kailua-Kona where the General Plan says you should do the development. So I think the policy decision is the right way to go. What we’re dealing with are, and these remarks I guess will apply to both the time extensions for Ordinance No. 95-118 and Ordinance No. 90-010.They’re basically two rezoning ordinances which cover that whole project area. The entire project area is about 6 ½ acres and the mauka portion, which is the handle of what I call the hatchet, is Multi-Family zoned and the makai portion is Village Commercial zoned. What was proposed in about the early nineties, I believe and some of you may remember, the County was looking around to do a County office building to try to consolidate the office operations for the County; and this project was one of the frontrunners for the request for a proposal process that went through at that time. They subsequently decided not to do the County Building, at least at this site. And so the developer started then to proceed with the development of the Multi-Family on the mauka and the Commercial on the makai. They’ve expended significant sums in terms of purchasing easements for a sewer easement. So the sewer line runs from, I guess the makai blade portion of the hatchet down through the auto dealership in the makai direction, down to Kuakini Highway. So the sewer connection and other improvements were made off-site and the existing Single Family dwelling that was on the site was demolished and the site graded to some extent. So in partial answer to Commissioner Graham’s question about what happens if you say no, you know, our position legally would be that we’ve had the zoning for in excess of 15 years, the development on the project had progressed, we commenced construction and expended significant sums. So we would have, I think, at least some argument that we had vested some of our zoning rights. I think what the net effect of what the Planning Director has done in his proposed conditions of approval, because these were relatively old zoning ordinances, is to essentially address some of your questions in terms of the impacts to the community. We’ve conceded with the Planning Director that we would accept the imposition of the new modern conditions which require fair share contributions for roads, parks, police, fire, and all those things that usually come along with the rezonings. And I think that that was significantly more than was originally proposed. The Planning Director has given you on the green sheet his amendments to the proposed conditions; and our proposed conditions that you just received in the white, we have underlined the proposed additions. The project proposal is along Hualalai Road just above the Regency and the Condition E where we have underlined ½, this is to clarify that this applicant would be responsible for ½ of the collector street improvements along the entire frontage of Hualalai Road, and that the owner on the other side of the street would be responsible for their ½. We have two more additions, the other ones are at Condition P, which is your fair share contribution. The underlined portions are intended to allow the applicant to get credit against the road and traffic improvements for the right-of-way, and the improvements for the left-turn pockets, and the intersection improvements along Hualalai Road, which is, as I understand, fairly standard, and also credit for the flood, access road and control gates that are being required as part of the conditions from the Planning Director in Condition F. Those are intended to allow the Department of Public Works to adequately access the drainage way that’s just to the mauka of the project. EXHIBIT B 5