Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0330.005 1996-1998 JINN-15-97 MON 11:13 AM RALPH LENNEN 898 889 1393 P. 91 f-.. ~ - To: County Council "~'"j dui, l~~ l~i~i .1~ ~7 From: William Price, Robert Russell, John Broussard, Ralph Lenn~rl` 59-429 Palila Pl. COU?J I . . „~,i'J^^,I! Kamuela HI 96743 Re: Bill No. 96, Draft 2 (Crentry rezoning) Date: 6/16/97 R'e are the four resident members of the Board of Directors of the Kohala Ranch Community Association. We have not called a meeting oCthe full Board, but we believe we can speak for a majority of the people who have purchased lots at Kohala Ranch. We are pleased at the commitment the Crentry people seem to have to creating a quality development on the property makai of Kohala Ranch. Our members do have some concerns, however, as citizens, taxpayers, and neighbors of the project, and as a group many of whose members strongly believe that the North Kohala Coastline should be protected. Our endorsement of this project would be contingent upon these concerns being adequately addressed. Toward that end we propose the following changes and additions to the conditions of rezoning as they appear in Draft 2 of Bill 96. Locations for new conditions to be inserted are suggestions only, any other location would serve as well. L Condition to be inserted after Condition C: "No more than 50 residences shall be created within the subject property, even though the zoning would normally allow a greater number." [The developer has no objection to this.] 2. In Condition D, the first sentence should end' "...shall prohibit the constn,ction of a second dwelling unit or a guest house on any lot, and shall prohibit any application for further subdivision within the project area by any entity." [Guest houses will become de facto second residences or bed and breakfast establishments, and this ~;'ill be very difficult to stop. No one has a real need for a separate guest house, and the sensitive location of this development makes it especially important both to close this loophole and to minimize visual impacts.] 3. Condition to be inserted after Condition D: "A design plan for the overall project and for individual lots shall be prepared poor to issuance of the SMA permit and submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. It shall, among other things, provide minimum setbacks from highway and shore, limit the allowable placement, height and square footage of structures, require earth-tone colors, provide for unobtrusive external lighting, and include any other desirable measures for reducing the visual impacts of the project and maintaining the existing view planes. The plan shalt also specify what measures will be taken to ensure compliance with its provisions." u;,~~. ~i~. 330. oS,- Yt:af. '2oa~resented Gouw~c.,c. J~iif~~ 1 6 1b,% k2e4. Date__,,,_..,....,,.„. _.x..,._..,~ ,7i~N-16-97 MON 11:14 AM RALPH LENNEN 609 990 1303 P. 02 4. Condition to be inscrted after the above condition: "Prior to final subdivision, the applicant shall provide the Director of Civil Defense with proposed restrictive covenants that will make residences less prone to fire and hurricane damage, and after acceptance by the Director of Civil Defense, shall incorporate such provisions into the restrictive covenants that attach to the deeds of all proposed residential lots within the subject property. Among other things, these covenants shall prohibit wooden roofs, whether treated with fire retardant or not, and shall require hurricane clips or comparable measures to keep roofs or portions thereof from flying off irr high winds." [We believe these issues are of legitimate public interest because they affect insurance rates for all of us, and because one vulnerable home can endanger others, as well as human safety.] 5. Condition to be inserted after the above condition "The cost of emergency services to any property owner within the project area whose property lies partially or wholly within the shaded area on the Civil Defense tsunami evacuation map, if occasioned by any inundation or high water event or warning, shall be reimbursable to the appropriate responding agency or agencies by the property oNmer receiving the services. If the affected owner does not promptly pay such costs, the subdivision's community association shall be liable for paying the amount due and may attempt to recover from the individual owner as appropriate." 6 Condition to be inserted after Condition E: "A water management plan for the subject property shall be prepared prior to submittal of plans for subdivision review, specifying what measures will be taken to ensure that total usage oFwater for this project from the aquifer under Kohala Ranch does noY exceed 76,000 gallons per day. The plan shall include aper-gallon monetary penalty which escalates each time this limit is exceeded, to be paid into a special account that may be used for development of new water sources or as otherwise directed by the Public Utilities Commission. The plan shall be submitted to the PUC for approval, with copies to the Department of Water Supply and the Kohala Ranch property manager " [Since no one outside of Kohala Ranch seems to seriously believe the water wmmitment is likely to be exceeded, they should have no objection to such a provision.] 7. To be inserted before the final sentence in Condition K: "such plan shall, among other things, provide that commercial trash pickup from the project shall be limited to the hours from 9 am to 5 pm-" [We believe this provision is needed to protect owners in the lower part of Kohala Ranch from irritating noise pollution.] 8. The second sentence of Condition O should begin: "The public access plan shall provide for access to preserved historic sites, mauka-makai and lateral shoreline..." 9. We believe ft is not good public policy to say that highway impact fees may be applied toward access improvements required by the project itself. The applicant should be required to make any needed highway alterations directly attributable to the development, and in addition to pay its fair share of regional impacts. Tlus is the fair Ji~N-16-97 MON 11 IS AM RALPH LENNEN 898 850 1303 F. 03 and logical way to handle [his matter, and it also precludes some developer in the future from paying his brother-in-law an exorbitant amount for localized improvements, with nothing left over for what was supposed to be the real purpose of the traffic impact fee. We therefore recommend that the amounts specified in Condition P, Item 5 be set at whatever the DOT says is the appropriate amount to cover impacts in Kawaihae and elsewhere in the region, that the wording "not directly tied to the needs of the project itself' be added to the end of Item 5, and that the reference to Condition F in the subsequent paragraph be deleted 0. Condition to be inserted following Condition U. "A provision shall be included in the restrictive covenants in the deeds of all proposed residential lots within the subject property clarifying that covenants instituted directly or indirectly pursuant to the conditions here enumerated may not be removed or amended by vote of the lot owners or their community association." 1 I. Condition to be inserted following the item above: "Reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred by a party in attempting to enforce compliance with the conditions imposed in connection with this rezoning or any other approval related to the subject property or any portion of it shall be recoverable from any property owner(s) responsible and/or from the subdivision's community association. Any citizen who frequently passes by the project area and any group or member of a group with a legitimate interest in some aspect of the development shall have standing for purposes of this provision." To their credit, the spokespersons for this project seem very willing to listen to input from the public and to accept changes in the wording of the ordinance in order to give reassurance that the development will proceed as presented. We believe it is important to make such changes to the wording, since anything that is not in the ordinance is not binding. And no matter how we feel about whom we are dealing with today, we can never be sure whom we might be dealing with tomorrow. Too often developers get away with saying "The County didn't require that," no matter what was promised Since the public welfare is always cited as the highest good in all these proceedings, w~e urge you not only to give the coastline the added bit of protection it deserves, but also to put your assumptions in writing in the ordinance, even where you don't really think it's necessary. If the developer is operating in good faith, he shouldn't object, and if not, he shouldn't be heeded. Thank you.