Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 044 11/08/2005 2004-2006 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DnTE: November 8. 2005 Re: Comm. No. 2.30/Bill No. 89 PLACE: Council Chambers TIME: 130 p.m. Council Chair and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Bill No. 89, reports as follows: Rill No. 89 was transmitted by Mayor Harry Kim via Communication No. 230, dated April I I, 2005. This bill and related communication regard a request by Waikoloa Development Company fbr an amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 95-51, which amended Ordinance Nu. 90-160, at Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawaii. Bill No. 89 seeks to amend Condition B of Change of Zone Ordinance 95-51, which rezoned approximately 761 acres of land from Unplanned (U) and Multiple Family Residential - 1,500 square feet (RM-LS) districts to the Open (O) and Residential and Agricultural 1-acre (RA-I a) districts, by allowing an additional ten-year time extension to secure final subdivision approval fur not Icss than 175 lots. Communication No. 230 reports that the Hawaii County Planning Commission, as required by the Hawaii County Charter, Article V1, Chapter 4, Section 5-43(C), considered the above request on March 18, 2005. At this meeting, the Commission concurred with the Planning Director's favorahlc recommendation for approval of this matter. Bill No. K9 was originally discussul by your Planning Committee on May 17, 2005. At this meeting, this measure was postponed to allow the applicant more time to consider proposed amendments as outlined in Conditions D and I of the subject bill, which would require the developer to comply with current reNuirements of the County's affordable housing code and to make fiiir share contributions toward intrastructure needs in the surrounding area. Communication No. 230J, dated October 25, 2005, from the applicant's representative, Mr. Sidney Fuke, reports that since the May 17, 2005 Planning Committee meeting, the subject property has been sold to Waikoloa Mauka, LLC. In this communication Mr. Fuke expresses the willingness of the new landowner to comply with Conditions D and I of the subject bill, outlining aftbrdablc housing requirements and fair share contributions to be imposed on the applicant According to Mr. Fuke, the new applicant would consider applying the impact tee relative to parks and recreation to a new "multi-use community center" proximate to the dcmenhuy school. Mr. Fuke suggests the tbllowing amendment h> Condition I on page 5 of Bill No. 89: "The fair share contribution pcrstngle-family residential unit shall be allocated as follows: • $4,817.93 per single-family residential unit for one hundred and seventy tive (175) singlrfunily residential units for an indicated total of $843,137.75 to the County to support park and recreational improvements and facilities which may also include u multi-use amm~unity center;" PC REPORT NO. 44 Communication 230 Gill 89 Page 2 Mr. Fukc also states that "the applicant has elected to defer and/or will possibly forgo the construction of a golf course." The Waikoloa Highlands Golf Course received Final Plan Approval from the Planning Department on November 1, 1990. The applicant feels that the elimination of the golf course decreases similarities to the Hokulia project, which was also a residential subdivision with a golf course on State agricultural district land. Via Communication No. 230.7 the applicant requests that Condition H of Bill No. 89 be amended to delete the requirement to obtain reclassification of the property from the Agricultural to the Rural or Urban district prior to final subdivision approval of the project, instead asking that the applicant be given eight months from the effective date of this amendment to complete the State Land Usc ro-dcsignation process. The applicant also adds language requiring the applicant to consult with the Waikoloa Village Association on the economic viability of adding a second golf course in the Waikoloa community and to complete the State Land Use re-designation process prior to starting construction of a golf course. The suggested amendment to Condition H reads as follows: ..I~ rD a.,..l ..tie:.,: ,,..,..,,.,.,1 .,....1:,.....« ,.1..,.:...o,.l ,.f .h,, _ L ..~,..~,r.:~~ , D A 1 F 1. C 1 11 1. D 7 1 1 1. disEriet:~] An application for a State Land Use Rural or Urban district for all lands zoned RA-I a by this ordinance shall be filed with the State Land Usc Commission within eight months of the effective date of this amendment. In either case, no lrradink or env associated penTlit for a kolf course shall be issued until a public meeting with the Waikoloa Village Association is held and the RA- I atoned areas have been reclassified into the State Land Use Rural or Urban district. 'this condition, except for the public meetingportion, may be waived by the Planning Director, after consultation with Corporation Counsel, if an appellate judicial decision, or substantive change to Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes, clearly establishes the legality of this project in the Agricultural State Land Use district, including the residential uses of the lots;" Communication No. ?30, in synopsis, describes the Planning Director's findings and recommendations as the fullowing: I . The applicant is reyuesting an amendment to Condition B of Ordinance No. 95-51, to allow an additional ten-year time extension to secure final subdivision approval for not less than 175 lots. Condition B states that final subdivision approval for not less than 175 lots shall be secured within five (5) years from the effective date of this amendment. Condition 6 also required the applicant to install and dedicate traffic signalization improvements at the Waikoloa Road/Paniokl Avenue/Pug Melia Street intersection (improvements outlined in Condition C of Ordinance No. 95-51) prior to final subdivision approval for more than 350 lots of twenty acres or less, or sooner, in the event that warrants for such installation are justified by the chief engineer. 2. The purpose of the original change of zone request (Ordinance No. 90-160, dated Decc7nber 27, 1990) was to allow the development of the Highlands Golf Estates, which would consist of approximately 286 one- to two-acre lots to be integrated within an 18-hole golf course with clubhouse facilities. Future development called for an additional 114 lots for a total of 400 residential lots. PC RI?POR"1' NO. 44 Communication 230 13111 89 Page 3 3. The Kelly v. Oceanside 1250 Partners decision (Hokulia decision) called into question the legitimacy of establishing residential subdivisions on properties within the State Land Use Agricultural district. Homes built on the proposed one-acre lots cannot be anticipated to serve as "farm dwellings" accessory to legitimate agricultural use of the lots. Therefore, the Planning Director recommended that the subject property should be reclassified to the Rural or Urban State Land Use district prior to granting final subdivision approval for any lots in the project. Communication No. 230 states the following concern regarding the importance of obtaining a district amendment prior to final subdivision approval, '7f the develop~nen~ goes ahead, it roufd be ~~hallenged in court. If this happens after- final suhdivision approval. i( could affect the rights of mane individual lot owners (as happened ire HokulraJ. " 4. The Planning Director concurred that the granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons fiir granting the change of zone. The Planning Director felt that the proposed residential development is "still a more feasible alternative" than agriculture on the "non-productive lands" under consideration. 5. The Director has recommended that existing conditions in the ordinance be revised to retlect the current standard language for conditions of approval, and that a fair share contribution condition be added. Bill No. R9 contains twelve conditions that outline specific requirements for the proposed project. Prior to the November R'~' Planning Committee meeting, Sidney Fuke, representative for the applicant, distributed a new Draft 2 of Bill No. 89. Draft 2 omits the amendment to Condition 1, which was included in Communication No. 230.7, and includes the following proposed amendment to Condition H of Bill Nu. 89: "fl. Betbre final subdivision approval, applicant must obtain reclassitication of the RA-la zoned area from the State Land Use Commission to the Rural or Urban district. Prior to the submittal of plans for a grading or anv associated permit for a golf course to the County for review and approval, the applicant shall consult with the Waikoloa Village Association and the County Council relative to the timing and proprietyof such a use. This condition, except for the consultation reuuirement for an~golf course, may be waived by the Planning Director, after consultation with Corporation Counsel, if an appellate judicial decision, or substantive change to Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes, clearly establishes the legality of this project in the Agricultural State Land Use district, including the residential uses of the lots;' Mr. John '1'arsin, General Manager of the Waikoloa Village Association testitied in person at the November H meeting, in oppositiun to Bill No. 89. Mr. Tarsin stated that there is no need for an additional golf course in the Waikoloa Village area at this time. He felt that a second golf course would have adverse tinancial effects on the Waikoloa Village Association. He also expressed that the new landowner has not contacted the Waikoloa Village Association regarding the proposed fair share contributions. He felt that the landowner should he working with the Village Association with regard to these conditions. PC RI:POR'1' NO. 44 Cummmiication 230 Bill R9 I'agc 4 Council member Pete Hoffmann stated that the new owner ofthe property, Waikoloa Mauka, LLC, has agreed to comply with all of the conditions included in Bill No. 89 by the Planning Department and the Planning Commission. Mc Fioffinann stated that this seems to indicate a willingness on the part of the new owner to work with the Waikoloa community. Mr. Hoftinann also expressed reservations about allowing development of the golf course associated with this residential subdivision to proceed at this time. He stated that the existing golf course in Waikoloa Village is experiencing financial difficulties, and the community does not feel that two golf courses can be sustained in Waikoloa at this time. Mr. Fuke provided the committee with background information about the suggested amendment to Bill No. 89. He explained that the new landowner has purchased most of the remaining undeveloped land in this area of Waikoloa, amounting to roughly 14,000 acres. Mr. Fuke stated that the new owner is here "tor the long haul" and wants to work with the community. Mr. Fuke stated that the new owner will meet the County's affordable housing, impact tee, and reclassification of land into the State Land Use Rural or Urban district conditions, which are contained in Bill No. 89. Mr. Fuke further explained that the applicant is "not man'ied to the golf course" at this point in time. He explained that the applicant may wish to construct a golf course at some point in the future, but the applicant is willing to go back to the community and to the County Council at that time to seek their approval for the golf course. Draft 2 of Condition H clarifies that the applicant will come back to the Waikoloa Village Association and the County Council "relative to the timing and propriety of such a use." Draft 2 of Condition H also removes the applicant's request, as stated in Communication 230.7, to defer filing for State Land Use reclassification of the property to within eight months of the effective date of the amendment. Councilmember .lawbson expressed serious reservations about granting a further extension of time tirr this project. Councilmember Isbell suggested that language could be added to the fair share contributions to clarify that contributions could be used to support "facilities and/or equipmenf' for the various County agencies. Planning Director Yuen clarified that fair share contributions can currently be used for facilities andJor equipment, as long as the funds are used for capital improvements and not operating expenses of the various agencies. Mr. Yuen suggested that the amended language was not necessary. The proposed amendment was withdrawn. Councilmember Hohmann addressed Councilmember Jacobson's concerns, by stating that, "We have reason to hope that we can go forward without the previous bad faith with this new landowner." PC REPORT' NO. 44 Communication 230 Bill K9 Page 5 Your Committee on Planning is in accord with the purpose and intent of Bill No. 89, as amended to Draft 2, and recommends it pass tirst reading. Ic nrrs Hors naic r:x Respectfully submitted, 1RAKAKI X nlcn X COMMITTEE ON PLANNING - _ HOFPMANN X - - - ~ ~ ~ HOLSCHGII X _ ~ ~ ICJ IKEDA X ~ IsBEI,I, X Pete Hoffm~~an////rli////JJCo-Chair PILACO X _ C~~, tiA FARIK X K. Angcl P' o, Co-Chair - PC REPORT NO. 44 AnoPTED: NOV 2 2 2005