Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0560.006 2002-2004 To: HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL MEMBERS Re: UNIVERSITY TERRACE DEVELOPMENT by WESTERN UNITED LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY Please reject Western Life's request that you approve a Project District zoning for the 171.5 acres it intends to develop under the name of University Terrace. Western Life's request would have you, as a practical matter, approve its doing whatever it wants, wherever and whenever it wants. This development is a project that is designed to be ongoing for many years and will involve not only Western Life but the many sub- developers to whom it sells property for development. To allow a project of this scope, scale, and impact on community infrastructure to proceed without a constant public review of its consequences for the community would be to render the County's planning process meaningless. I'm sure you've received much input on the negative impacts of this development on traffic, drainage, schools, noise and neighboring residential areas' quality of life and property values. I urge you to take those concerns at least as seriously as the interests of the Developer. Surely the request for approval of a development of this size, in the middle of an established community which has limited resources and infrastructure, should suggest that the Developer has not adequately considered how disruptive and even damaging such a project can be. The fact that such anill-defined, open-ended, and therefore unknowable zoning permission can be granted does not mean it should be granted. If Big Island communities are going to be able to preserve that sense of space, time, and respect for others that has long made the Neighbor Islands special places, there must be an active sense of self- restraint exercised by all who live, work and develop here. Western Life has shown no active sense ofself-restraint in its request for Project District zoning. Instead, it speaks comfortingly of wanting to work with its neighbors while requesting 10-story apartment buildings within a few feet of single-family homes on small lots, 35 acres of commercial development, transient housing, and asking you and the community to believe that it can manage the consequences of inserting thousands of people and cars, and hundreds of homes into the middle of an already established neighborhood. Even such a modest concept as a buffer zone is met with concerns about who would have liability and responsibility and we aze given to understand that such a commitment is not easily given. How a development of this size, with so many unanswered questions, could meet with the approval of the Planning Commission and Planning Department is difficult to understand and disturbing in its implications for the future. The community now calls on you to exercise the self-restraint that has been missing in this process to date. Only you now stand in defense of both the letter and the spirit of the planning process; please reject Western Life's request for Project District zoning and require of it a more detailed, Comm. No. s~• Ref. To: Prew~tse PL Ref. Dote MAY 4 'I~r,4 committed, and responsible approach to its University Terrace development. ank you for your service to our community, ~ a~.~,~-~, ,~.j.~-w.r- ohn and amela Lipscomb 103 Punahele St. Hilo, HI 96720 5/4/2004 Attachment: Questions re. Project District Zoning for University Terrace Development RE: UNIVERSITY TERRACE DEVELOPMENT QUESTIONS re. PROJECT DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT (Division 4 of the Hawaii County Code) The following questions/concerns arise from a reading of Division 4 (Project Districts) and should be considered by County Council Members reviewing Western Life Assurance Co.'s application for the rezoning its property to a Property District (PD). 1. Section 25-6-41 states a PD may be established only if the proposed district: "1. Is consistent with the intent and purpose of this chapter and the County general plan; and 2. Will not result in a substantial adverse impact upon the surrounding area, community or region." The language used above strongly suggests that PD zoning be reserved for developments in azeas not yet significantly developed (i.e,, "pioneer developments"). A development such as University Terrace ,with hundreds of residences and a lazge commercial azea, cannot help but have a "substantial adverse impact" on the "surrounding azea,community" when it is placed squazely in the middle of along-established residential community that already suffers from amuch-used infrastructure (residential, medical facilities, and a jail). QUESTION: Isn't there a material burden placed on this developer to show, BEFORE approval is given to a PD zoning, that the concerns the community has about flooding, noise, traffic, sewage management, property value deterioration, loss of open space, etc., aze not appropriate? Given the size, scale and duration of the University Terrace development, such a burden CANNOT be met by the applicant. In fact, because PD zoning allows the developer so much flexibility as to what it will put ,where, and when, the public has not been able to receive the responsible, detailed answers to the concerns it has about "substantial adverse impacts". Because the public (and its County Council) cannot be shown that this development, in an already highly developed azea, will not have "substantial adverse impacts", PD zoning cannot be permitted. ` 2. Section 25-6-45 states that the Council may impose conditions on the use of the property subject to the project district, provided the council finds that the conditions aze: "(1) Necessary to prevent circumstances which may be adverse to the public health, safety and welfaze" QUESTION: How can any decision about needed "conditions" be responsibly reached when there is so little certainty about what will be built, where it will be built ,and when it will be built? Furthermore, no real evidence has been presented by the developer that the many concerns raised by the community are not well-founded. Again, given the lack of specifics to debate publicly, how can the County Council meet its burden to see that the University Terrace development does not create "circumstances which may be adverse to the public health, safety and welfaze"? 3. Section 25-6-46. states that "After adoption of a project district enabling ordinance, the applicant shall submit to the director detailed site plans for the project district development". Section 25-6-46 (d) states that "if the director fails to render a decision on the site plans within the prescribed period ("within 60 days after the acceptance of the site plans"-Section 24-6-46 (b)), the site plans shall be considered approved without further certification by the director" QUESTION: Given the size, scale, and duration of this development, can the director make a thorough, sufficiently critical review of the site plan within 60 days and present carefully detailed requirements to the developer that may be needed to protect the public`s interests? Does the director have the staff resources and expertise to handle such a lazge and complex application in so little time? What if there aze other lazge projects submitted at the same time? Given these constraints, wouldn't the Council be wise to en• on the side of caution and not grant the requested rezoning until all relevant issues can be adequately addressed? Attachment to 5/4/2004 Testimony to Hawaii County Council