The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0400.001 2002-2004 tr or M AL KONISHI '~f-`` CONSTANCE R. KIRIU County Clerk ~ Legislative Audilnr JAY MENDE Deputy County Clerk County of Hawai `i Office of the County Clerk 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Nawai'i 96720 Telephone: (808) 961-8386 Facsimile: (808) 96/-8572 November 21, 2003 MEMO TO: Leningrad Elarionoff, Chair, & Members Committee On Planning Hawaii County Council FROM: Connie Kiriu, Legislative Audito5^"~ Charmaine T. Doran, Legislative Assi~ Office Of Legislative Auditor RE: Bill No. 178 -Change of Zone Request Clifto's Kona Coast, LLC To assist the Council's Planning Committee in deliberations of the above item and per your request, the following comments and/or recommendations are forwarded for your perusal. We suggest that written response on the items below also be requested from the Planning Department before the upcoming committee meeting. 1. Communication No. 400 dated October 23, 2003 to Council Chair Arakaki, from the Planning Commission. Comment: The letter reports that a four to one vote or a "no action" was recorded by the Planning Commission in consideration of this application. According to the communication, this constitutes an "unfavorable recommendation." However, this communication also reports that at the same meeting amendments, specifically Conditions T and LL, were incorporated into the zoning amendment legislation. Procedurally, it is unclear as to whether a majority vote by the Commission is also necessary to amend conditions of re-zoning request. The minutes of this meeting and supporting documents forwarded with Bill No. 178 do not reflect that a separate vote was taken. Recommendation: Further clarification on the Commission's operating procedures and/or the actions taken on this request may be helpful for informational purposes. Comm. No._, Ref. To:°"'•sed~d ? hOte ~ 1 2. Condition E -Restricting number of transient accommodation rooms to 200. Comment: According to the Planning Department Recommendation (page 2), the "Planning Director is, however, recommending that the number of visitor units be reduced to 200 rooms, because of the speculative nature of the market for an airport- oriented business hotel." Usually, the market place is driven by demand. It is not clear how cutting the number of rooms in half will reduce speculation, except that it may make the property and project unmarketable because the critical mass for airport-oriented business is not there. Unless economic or other rational analysis was used to justify the reduction of rooms, the action may appear arbitrary. Recommendation: Restrict number of transient accommodation rooms to 400. 3. Condition G -Requires that golf courses and major outdoor amusement and recreation facilities get a use permit. Comment: According to Section 25-6-43, HCC, "Any uses permitted either directly or conditionally in the RS, RD, RM, RCS, CN, CG, CV or V districts shall be permitted in a project district; provided, that each of the proposed uses and the overall densities for residential and hotel uses shall be contained in a master plan for the project and in the project district enabling ordinance." Conditions C, D, E, & F are the controlling conditions on use and are contained in this enabling ordinance. Since other uses are not contained in this ordinance, the procedure for adding a golf course of a major outdoor amusement and recreation facility would be to amend this Project District enabling ordinance. Further at current, the master plan, which must be approved by the Planning Director, does not include either the golf course or the amusement facility. Recommendation: Delete Condition G. 4. Condition I & H -Relating to Final Plan Approval. Comment: The language in the second sentence of I seems redundant with Condition H. Recommendation: Delete Condition I. _5. Condition K: "To avoid creating a scattered, strip development pattern along the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, development shall proceed incrementally, and the initial development increment shall consist of a minimum of 30,000 square feet of gross floor space in commercial and/or office use, or not less than 60 residential units, or not less than 60 hotel units. Actual construction under a bona fide construction contract of the initial development increment shall begin not more than four years of the approval of an SMA permit allowing the project, or not more than five years from the approval of this ordinance, whichever comes first, and shall be completed within two years of commencement." 2 Comment: According to the Planning Department's Recommendation (page 5), the "Director recommends a condition that the first increment of development have a minimum scale, so that the property is not developed as a convenience store or other small-scale highway-oriented project. This would only promote a scattered development pattern. The proposed minimum development is 30,000 square feet of office and/or commercial space (which corresponds to a development with 100 parking spaces), or 60 hotel ormulti-family dwelling units." How this limit will avoid a scattered, strip development pattern is vague. The 150- setback, the master plan submittal, the plan approval process, landscaping, allowable height limitation of 40 feet, and open space requirements have the greater potential of mitigating the pattern of strip development. Additionally, the Council should contemplate whether government should place minimum development capacity requirements on an applicant while also simultaneously placing maximum development requirements to achieve this stated purpose. On the same condition, the purpose of the phrase "bona fide construction contract" requires further elucidation and the imposition of a construction completion date of 10 years from the effective date of the Project District ordinance appears to be an additional layer of deadlines. Recommendation: Delete Condition K. Replace with language that permits, but does not require, incremental development. 6. Conditions M, N, O, and P - An assortment of language and conditions in relation to use, disposal, and containment of industrial liquids. Comment: The detailed description contained in these conditions is covered adequately under the Condition PP. Department of Health, and the Department of Land and Natural Resources, and not the County will enforce these conditions. Recommendation: Delete Conditions M, N, O, and P. 7. Condition U & V relating to access roads. Comment: Language in both conditions appear duplicated, just worded differently. Recommendation: Delete one of the two conditions. R. Condition BB relating to the rezoning of the makai portion of the property. Comment: This condition actually prevents zoning of a portion of the subject property below (makai) of the Trail until access is obtained to the area. 3 Recommendation: Clarification on the purpose, intent, and implementation of this condition should be requested. Request different language to achieve same purpose. 9. Condition GG relating to Mamalahoa Trail. Comment: The wording in this condition needs clarification. Does the 50-foot natural and 60-foot non-structural buffer apply to each side of the trail? If this is a state trail, has DLNR commented'? Recommendation: Request clarification and/or re-wording of condition. 10. Condition HH relating to an archaeological preservation plan. Recommendation: Rewording for clarity. "An archaeological preservation plan shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Department of Land and Natural Resources-Historic Preservation Division prior to receipt of Final Plan Approval. The archaeological preservation plan shall address the Mamalahoa Trail and associated habitation cave and ensure that the Kings Highway is not damaged by construction activities." 11. Condition LL requiring fair share assessment contribution to schools based on Department of Education standards. Comment: This requires the County to enforce state requirements by assessing and collecting contributions. If DOE has adopted fair share standards, that agency should be applying the standards. Recommendation: Delete Condition LL. 12. Condition MM relating to fair share contributions. Comment: Language, which enables the Council to approve "in-lieu" contributions is missing. The Planning Department should work towards including this standard provision before forwarding the re-zoning request to the Council. Recommendation: Amend fair share contribution to place the Council's language within legislation. 13. SMA Approval: Comment: In light of the fact that the Planning Department unusually requested that the Planning Commission refrain from approving the SMA until the Council acts, the Council should work towards including language in the ordinance that will ensure the 4 Council's policy directives are accurately reflected in SMA conditions. If the Council, in other words, restricts room number to 400, the SMA should not be lower. Recommendation: Add condition "The conditions and policies in this change of zone ordinance shall supercede conflicting conditions in the Special Management Area Use Permit.' It is our hope that our review of this legislation and the comments included herein will assist the Council in its policy-making duties. If you require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Cc: Planning Director 5