Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0400.002 2002-2004 ptV of H,~4 4J''`• r Harry Kim , - Christopher J. Yuen MaYm 7 ~ . _ Direttnr ' 03 DEC 2 flEl 8 2 G Roy R. Takemoto I , i Deputy Direcmr C.J..+~ - ~II1tiI~~1 II~ ~2T(it2ttt OOUN-I~' i ~ "`,".'Pd l PLANNING DEPARTMENT l01 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 (808)961-8288 Fax(808) 961-8742 December 2, 2003 Honorable Leningrad Elarionoff, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chair Elarionoff and Members of the Committee on Planning: SUBJECT: BILL 178, APPLICANT: CLIFTO'S KONA COAST LLC, O'OMA 2ND REZONING The Planning Committee chair asked me to comment on a memo written by the Legislative Auditor concerning this rezoning application dated November 21, 2003. Before addressing the memo point-by-point, it is necessary to put this rezoning in an overall perspective. This is a major rezoning action. If approved, it would allow 392,000 square feet of retail and office space, 240 multi-family units, and as requested by the applicant, 400 hotel rooms. By way of comparison, the entire "Lowe's" commercial site contains about 150,000 square feet of retail space. To give other examples, the proposed O'oma 2d retail area would be larger than Walmart Center in Hilo or the Keauhou Shopping Center. The main points in favor of the rezoning are that the general area has been planned, long- term, to be urban, both in the General Plan and the "K-K" Plan, and that the present MG zoning is not really suitable for this area makai of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, now that the property is no longer part of the NELHA project. On the other hand, approval of this zoning will create a somewhat isolated new commercial/office hotel area at some distance from the Kailua-Kona core, promoting a scattered rather than a compact development pattern, and encouraging people to travel for Comm. No: ~~~•2 Ref. To r~teNp Rc:f. 'vote. . Honorable Leningrad Elarionoff, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning Hawaii County Council Page 2 December 2, 2003 shopping along the highway north ofKailua-Kona. There are already large areas zoned for commercial use around Kailua-Kona that lie vacant. There is no shortage of commercially-zoned property nearer to the city. "Project District" zoning is broad: in the future, the applicant would not necessarily be tied to the current site plan, but could move the various components around on the 83- acre site. The project itself, and the commitment of the current owner to do the project, are somewhat speculative. It is no secret that the property is for sale. While we must always keep in mind the possibility that an owner will sell after a rezoning, and the Zoning Code provides that zoning runs with the land, it is better From a planning point of view if the party seeking the zoning is the ultimate developer because it is more likely that the final product will resemble what was represented when the property was zoned. For these reasons--the large scale of the project and its open-ended, somewhat speculative nature--amore detailed set of conditions is justified. The applicant did not oppose any of these proposed conditions at the Planning Commission stage, except for the limitation to 200 hotel rooms. Turning to the specific comments and questions in the Nov. 21 memo: 1. Effect of the Planning Commission's vote. The Planning Commission voted on the proposed rezoning. There was a motion to approve that followed the recommendation of the director, including the limit to 200 hotel rooms, and included changes to condition T and a new condition LL (relating to the DOE's request for school construction fees.) The vote on the motion was 4-1 in favor. According to the rules of the Planning Commission and the Zoning Code, this is a negative recommendation. The applicant had the option of asking for another vote at a later meeting if they wanted to try for a favorable recommendation, but did not want to wait longer, and so asked to have the matter sent to the Council with the unfavorable recommendation. The Planning Department has given the Council the minutes, the record of voting, and a copy of the bill as supported by the Planning Director, to give the Council the fullest possible information about the proceedings at the Commission, and also because the Planning Director must furnish a recommendation to the Council on any rezoning action. If there is a difference Honorable Leningrad Elarionoff, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning Hawaii County Council Page 3 December 2, 2003 between the Planning Commission's recommendation and the Director's, as in the case of this rezoning, we will give both to the Council. Conditions T and LL did not "pass" at the Planning Commission because the bill as a whole did not pass. They aze, however, part of the Director's recommendation to the Council. 2. Condition C: Hotel rooms. My recommendation that the number of transient accommodation units be limited to 200, rather than 400 as requested by the applicant, must be seen in the context of the overall project. As discussed above, this is an extremely large project which, if developed, will change the urban pattern in the Kailua-Kona azea. We should be concerned about the overall growth implications of rezoning actions, and not just zone according to the requests of applicants. The concept of an airport-oriented hotel in Kona is unproven at best, and the applicant has not presented any market study to justify its contention that 400 rooms is some minimum figure. 3. Condition G: Use permit. The point of the condition re needing a use permit for a golf course (or portions thereof) or for a major outdoor recreational facility, is that the master plan did not disclose these as possible uses, hence it would not be proper to list them as permitted uses. The Council may change the condition so that such uses would require an amendment to the project district ordinance (council action) rather than a use permit. 4. Conditions H and I: Plan Approval. Condition I can be deleted. 5. Condition K: Minimum Development Increment. The application for a Project District contemplates a large integrated development with retail, office, hotel, and residential components, all in amaster-planned community. With the zoning, it would be possible, however, to develop a very small retail project, like a convenience store/gas station development. To some extent, the infrastructure conditions make this unlikely, but it is possible that someone else will build the intersection and the property has some water available without an investment in major system upgrades. So we must consider the possibility that this rezoning could be used to create a rather small commercial development. Currently, the area makai of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway between the NELHA access road and the Honokohau Hazbor is almost entirely undeveloped open space. While this will inevitably change over time, Honorable Leningrad Elarionoff, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning Hawaii County Council Page 4 December 2, 2003 we should not break up the open space for a very small-scale spot commercial development. Also, it is undesirable to have commercial facilities scattered along the highway rather than be in concentrated azeas. The minimum development increment is meant to achieve these planning goals. The reference to a "bona fide construction contract" is meant to assure that construction on the increment has actually commenced. 6. Conditions M, N, O, and P: Handling of pollutants. These conditions were recommended by the State Deparhnent of Health in the Land Use Commission redistricting of the TSA Kaloko Phase II project and were incorporated into the county's change-of--zone. We would like to use them as a standard condition. Although perhaps covered by other laws they stand as a useful reminder. 7. Conditions U and V: Road Access. Condition V could be deleted. 8. Condition BB: Mamalahoa Trail. This condition states the present legal situation. The property is bisected by the Mamalahoa Trail, which is owned by the State. The landowner has no right to cross the trail, except at the southern end of the property, where the existing jeep road crosses the Trail. This crossing does not give access to the remainder of the property because it is at the apex of this triangular property. The applicant's site plan shows their access to the portion of the 83 acres by crossing the Mamalahoa Trail neaz the middle of the property, but they have no right to cross the Trail at this point. Generally, because of the importance of the Mamalahoa Trail as a historic site, crossings should be minimized. It is also possible to get access to the portion of the parcel makai of the Mamalahoa Trail from the makai portion of the O'oma 2d property, or possibly from the NELHA property to the north, but both of these would need other approvals from the State. (The makai portion of O'oma 2d is in the Conservation District and a road would need approval of the BLNR.) In general, it would be better practice not to rezone an area before a right of access has been demonstrated, but in this case, we allowed the applicant to go forward, but put in this condition that access be secured before the rezoning took effect, rather than deny the rezoning of the area makai of the Mamalahoa Trail entirely. Honorable Leningrad Elarionoff, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning Hawaii County Council Page 5 December 2, 2003 9. Condition AA: Mamalahoa Trail buffers. The Mamalahoa Trail is an important feature. A community group has been maintaining portions of it for several years. The proposed buffers are on both sides of the trail; this is clear from the condition. The buffers are meant to preserve some feel of the trail as it was, while allowing the development to go forward. Under the historic sites conditions, SHPD will review a preservation plan for the trail. If SHPD wants a wider buffer, the condition will require it. 10. Condition HH: Archaeological sites. The wording proposed in the Nov. 21 memo is fine. In addition, the reference to the "Kings Highway" should be deleted. When we were working on the recommendation, we were concerned that there might be two trails in the area: the Mamalahoa Trail, and the "Kings Highway," which is identified on the 1986 deed to the property as the makai boundary of the 83 acre parcel. After further research we are satisfied that the "Kings Highway" does not exist on the ground as a trail or road, and that the only trail in the area is the "Mamalahoa Trail". 11. Condition LL: School impact fees. The Department of Education has adopted a policy asking that developers be assessed for a portion of the school construction expenses that can be attributed to the demand generated by their projects. The DOE's policy is to request this only for residential rezonings of more than 50 units. We have been including this condition when asked by the DOE. To date, there has been only one other rezoning project during the term of this county administration that involved a new residential zoning of more than 50 units: the Alii Cove project. The Council did include a school assessment condition in that rezoning, although in modified form from that requested by the DOE and recommended by the Director. The Council should make a basic policy decision whether it wants to include school impact fees in rezonings, and then apply it consistently. We can expect other rezoning applications soon of more than 50 units. (Naturally, if a school impact fee is put in place by the Land Use Commission during a reclassification, the county will have to enforce it. The LUC did not include a condition re schools when it reclassified the O'oma 2d property.) The City and County of Honolulu has been putting this condition on rezonings where requested by the DOE, even when not mandated by the LUC. I suggest that the Council invite the DOE representative to address the Council about their reasons before the Council adopts a firm policy one way or the other. Honorable Leningrad Elarionoff, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning Hawaii County Council Page 6 December 2, 2003 12. Condition MM: Fair share contributions. I need to meet with council staff regarding how they would like the fair share condition worded. For many years, predating the present administration, the "fair share" language as adopted by the Council has differed from that in the bills as prepared by the administration. 13. SMA Approval: The condition proposed by the Legislative Auditor--that the Council's action "supercede" any provisions in the SMA permit that might be conflicting, such as the permit containing a lower limit on the number of rooms than the rezoning ordinance--would violate the law and usurp the functions of the Planning Commission. Under the SMA law, the Planning Commission has sole authority to issue SMA major permits. (The law is that the Planning Commission must have this power except in counties where the Planning Commission is purely advisory. Because the Planning Commission is not purely advisory in Hawaii County, per County Charter, state law then gives it the power to grant or deny SMA major permits.) The Planning Commission must exercise its independent judgment under the criteria of the SMA law. Although any SMA permit must be consistent with underlying zoning, the Planning Commission can reduce the size of a project below that allowed by the zoning, or impose additional conditions, if it determines that it should do so based upon criteria in the law. It can, for example, limit a development to 200 rooms even though the zoning would allow 400, if justified by reasons based in the SMA law. Or, to give another example, it can include conditions to protect the environment that are not in the rezoning ordinance. I originally recommended that the Planning Commission defer action on the SMA permit until the Council acted on the rezoning to reduce the potential for problems that can occur when the Planning Commission approves an SMA permit subject to later Council action on the change-of- zone. The Planning Commission did not want to defer, and voted 3-3 on the SMA permit, which has the effect of a denial. This vote will, however, be reconsidered at the Dec. 4 Planning Commission meeting. Honorable Leningrad Elarionoff, Chair and Members of the Committee on Planning Hawaii County Council Page 7 December 2, 2003 I hope that this is useful to the Council in its deliberations on this important rezoning. I will also attend the Dec. 2 committee meeting. Sincerely, _~.-o CHRISTOPHER J. N Planning Director CJY:pak Wpwin60/Chris/Ooma letter to CounciLdoc ca Mayor Harry Kim Mr. Sidney Fuke