2018-10-18 Leeward Exh C (AMEND REZ 926)

Home

There was no clear rationale for limiting the development period to 20 years; there was no definition of what would constitute a completed development nor any guidance what to do at the end of the 20-year development period, for instance, would they be reverted at the end of that 20-year period or a time extension be required, etcetera; there was no apparent rationale for the requirement of an overall status report at the 20-year mark; there was no criteria against which the County Council should review the Planning Director’s assessment of the overall status report nor any guidance on which actions the County Council should take; and finally, there was no justification for omitting the standard administrative time extension condition for this project. So really it’s kind of a black hole of information. We couldn’t find anything that, there was no request from the applicant to have it structured this way, there was nothing at the Planning Commission hearings where the commissioners added these conditions, and the same thing at the County Council level. With that in mind, the Director found it difficult to kind of answer the question as to whether or not a time extension was needed. So then what we did as required by Condition BB is then take a look at that overall status report. And again, to date the applicants have developed approximately 582.030 acres of land, which is approximately 54 percent of the land covered under the Project District Ordinance. That includes spine infrastructure, water and wastewater systems, public access amenities and about 170 residential units within Lot 4-A and Lot 4-B development areas. However, to date the applicants have only completed about 23 percent of the now proposed dwelling units, about 170 of the proposed 727 dwelling units. And additionally, the applicants’ own estimates indicate that full buildout of Lot 4-A will continue through several development increments and will not be completed for another 20 years, based on current market demand. So, because we are compelled to make a recommendation relative to Condition BB, and looking at the information that the overall status report supplied, the Director is recommending a favorable recommendation be sent to the County Council for a 20-year development period time extension to Condition B, with conditions. I – it’s a lot – I’m happy to answer any questions that the Commission may have on our thought process and anything else that I can help you with. UNGER: Great, thank you. Commissioners, any questions? KAY: I apologize. There are a few more things, sorry. There were a few additional, a few additional pieces of information that came through since we sent out the background and th recommendation: On October 9, we received a State Department of Transportation letter outlining some requests and requirements relative to this application, and then this morning you should have received a response from Carlsmith Ball to DOT’s comments. And then another piece of information that we found, I mean not another piece of information, but, based on DOT’s comments, we are recommending an amendment to Condition N, which ultimately is just addition a No. 6 to the condition and it says that “the applicant shall provide an updated Traffic Impact Analysis Report and Traffic Signal Warrant Study if and when required by the State Department of Transportation.” That was something that came from their letter saying that they would like an update to the TIAR and Traffic Signal Warrant Study; they didn’t provide us with any guidance on at what point that should take place. And then based on Carlsmith Ball’s 4 EXHIBIT C