Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 054 02/14/2006 2004-2006 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: February 14, 2006 Re: Comm. No. 362/Bill No. 123 PLACE: Council Chambers TIME: 3:00 p.m. Council Chair and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Bill No. 123, reports as follows: Bill No. 123, transmitted via Communication No. 362 from Mayor Harry Kim, dated July 5, 2005, presents a Change of Zone request by KPC Villages, LLC, at Pua`a 3`d, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-9:23. Bill No. 123 seeks to amend Section 25-8-5 (Kailua Urban Zone Map), Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code, by changing the District Classification of approximately 1.172 acres of land from Multiple-Family Residential 1000 square feet (RM-1) to Resort-Hotel 750 square feet (V-.75). Communication No. 362 reports the Hawaii County Planning Commission, as required by the Hawaii County Charter, Chapter 4, Section 6-4.3(C), considered this rezoning request and accompanying Bill No. 123 on June 17, 2005. The Commission concurred with the Planning Director's favorable recommendation on this matter. The Planning Director's findings and recommendations, transmitted with Communication No. 362, can be summazized as follows: 1. The Applicants are requesting a Change of Zone for 1.172 acres of land from the Multiple-Family (RM-1) District to the Resort-Hotel (V-.75) District. The property is located on the mauka side of Ali`i Drive across from Huggo's Restaurant and the Royal Kona Resort Hotel complex in Kailua-Kona. 2. The Applicant proposes to develop acommercial-residential complex consisting of 67 multi-family units and 1300 square feet of commercial uses within a maximum 45-foot high multi-story building. The Applicant is requesting the change of zone because the commercial uses proposed are not permitted under the current zoning. The proposed development will include 92 underground residential pazking spaces and 45 ground-level commercial parking spaces, a restaurant, a recreation deck with a pool, and road reserve on the southern portion of the property for a future County road connecting Ali`i Drive with Kuakini Highway. 3. The project site is located in the Special Management Area. Therefore, the Applicants are also requesting a concurrent SMA Use Permit to allow the proposed development. PC REPORT NO. 54 Communication 362 Bill 123 Page2of13 4. Two accesses are proposed from Ali`i Drive, atwo-lane collector street with an approximately 20-foot wide pavement with paved shoulders within a substandard approximately 50-foot right-of--way. The Department of Public Works recommends that vehicular access to Ali`i Drive be limited to one approach and that the Applicant dedicate at no cost to the County, five (5) feet of additional right-of- way width (exclusive of the driveway approach) along the frontage of Ali`i Drive in conformance with collector street standards. The proposed project would add to the cumulative traffic impact on Ali`i Drive. In response to concerns about providing a roadway that would connect Ali`i Drive and Kuakini Highway, the design for the project includes a road reserve along the southern portion of the property that will be dedicated to the County for use as a road at a future date. Construction of the road will depend upon acquisition of similar road reserves from other landowners mauka of the property. 5. Essential utilities are available to the site. The Kealakehe Police Station is located about four miles from the project site, and a police sub-station is located approximately one-half mile to the north on Ali`i Drive. Fire protection is available from the Kailua-Kona Fire Station located approximately one mile from the site. The Kona Hospital is located in Kealakekua, approximately eleven miles from the property. 6. According to The Planning Director's findings and recommendations, the Change of Zone request from the Multiple-Family (RM- I) District to the Resort-Hotel (V-.75) District would result in an appropriate land use pattern that would further benefit the public based on the following: • The rezoning action conforms to the Land Use Element of the Hawaii County General Plan and the LUPAG Map designation for the area. The subject area is designated Resort, which includes uses such as hotels, condominium-hotels and supporting services. Surrounding properties to the east and south are zoned Multiple- Family Residential (RM-1) and are vacant. Properties to the north and west are zoned Resort-Hotel (V-.75). There is amulti-story commercial complex to the north, and commercial development west of the property across Ali`i Drive. • The approval of the Change of Zone Request will not be violative of Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes. The property is situated within the Special Management Area mauka of Ali`i Drive. There are no identified recreational resources, public access to the shoreline or mountain areas, scenic and open space preserves, coastal ecosystems, marine resources or other natural and environmental resources in the project area. • Native species or habitats are not expected to be adversely affected because of this PC REPORT NO. 54 Communication 362 Bill 123 Page 3 of 13 request. In cooperation with the DLNR-HPD, the Applicant has decided to perform additional data recovery on archaeological Feature A in lieu of preservation, and a data recovery plan for Site 50-] 0-28-2005 was prepared in 2004 for Feature A and the associated cultural deposit (Appendix 3 of the application). By letter dated June 23, 2004 (Appendix 4 of the application), the DLNR-HPD approved the proposed data recovery plan for the site. • The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) identifies the parcel "X," or outside the 500- year flood plain. 7. Requisite of the Planning Director's favorable recommendation for the Change of Zone request are approximately nineteen conditions contained in Bill No. 123 that outline specific requirements for the proposed project. At the August ]6 Planning Committee meeting, Tony C. Nee, President of KPC Villages LLC, and Sandra P. Song, representative for the Applicant, provided this committee with background information about the origins and purpose of Bill No. 123. The Applicant explained that the Planning Department suggested the change to Resort-Hotel zoning a few years ago as a means of accommodating the Applicant's desire to allow commercial uses on the subject parcel. The Planning Department requested that one condition of approval for the rezoning request be that the Applicant dedicate a road reserve on the southern end of the subject property, to be used as a future connector road (a proposed "Village Bypass" road) between Ali`i Drive and Kuakini Highway. The Applicant's agent requested a deferral of this matter until the Planning Committee's September 7 meeting. Council member Hoffmann requested that preliminary discussion on the matter be allowed so that the Applicant could better address Council members' concerns at the September 7 Planning Committee meeting. Council member Hoffmann expressed concern about the current level of traffic congestion on Ali`i Drive at the site of the proposed development. Mr. Hoffmann also questioned whether the Applicant's traffic study adequately addressed traffic impacts for the proposed project. Mr. Nee responded that the TJAR did not specifically address the commercial uses proposed for the parcel, since the exact nature of these commercial uses has not been determined yet. Council member Jacobsen stated that he will support additional public hearings on this application before making a final decision. Council member Isbell requested that the Applicant provide additional information at the next Planning Committee meeting on the cost of the residential units and clarification as to whether they would be made available for sale or rent. The Applicant responded that he is presently considering utilizing the 67 proposed residential units for hotel or condominium use, rather than as longer-term rental units. PC REPORT NO. 54 Communication 362 Bill 123 Page 4 of 13 Council member Hoffmann inquired if the Applicant had discussed the possibility of extending the proposed "Village Bypass" road through the neighboring property to the east, currently owned by the Bishop Estate. Mr. Nee responded that he had spoken recently with Jeff Melrose, of the Kamehameha Schools Land Assets Division, regarding extending the road reserve through Bishop Estate property. Mr. Melrose reportedly replied that the County will need to purchase aright-of- way from Bishop Estate in order to build any future connector road. Council member Safarik asked the Applicant what he is prepared to do for local residents now, in addition to installing a new water line fronting the property. Mr. Safarik asked that more details be provided at the September 7 Planning Committee meeting. Mr. Joel Gimpel, Chair of the Public Affairs Subcommittee of the Kona Traffic Safety Committee, submitted a letter dated September 6, 2005, in which he requested that the Planning Committee postpone consideration of Bill 123 in order to hold a public hearing in Kona. This would allow the Committee to obtain additional public input on the proposed development, and also allow the Kona Traffic Safety Committee the opportunity to review the application. Ms. Marie Aguilar, President of the Kailua Village Merchants Association, also submitted a letter dated September 6, 2005, requesting a public hearing in Kailua-Kona on the subject application in order that the Kailua community can better review potential impacts on traffic and public parking. At the September 7 Planning Committee meeting Mr. Robert Ward submitted written testimony requesting that infrastructural improvements, including the proposed road along the southern boundary of the property, be completed prior to construction of the development. First, Mr. Ward suggested that the County consider enterprise funding of the road, in exchange for requiring the developer to provide the County with a complete right-of--way for the new road, ready for construction. Mr. Ward also supported (2) requiring the developer to share in the cost of the Transportation Enhancement project along the site's Oneo Bay frontage, and (3) requiring the developer to provide additional parking either on- or off=site to replace the existing public parking lost due to construction of the development. Ms. Janice Palma-Glennie also submitted a letter dated September 5, 2005, requesting deferral of action on this bill on behalf of the Moku Loa Group of the Sierra Club, until the committee's next West Hawaii hearing. Gene and Melinda Springer, neighboring property owners, also submitted written testimony dated June 14, 2005 in opposition to the proposed KPC Villages development. Finally, three Ali`i Drive business owners submitted written testimony dated September 10, 2005, in opposition to the proposed development: Marcy Akao, owner of Marcy's Flowers & Gifts; Ed & Myfanwy Brunner, owners of Sunset Traders; and Bob & Hanako Sheldon, owners of Kona Jewelry Factory. Your Committee agreed to hold a public hearing on this application in Kona. Your Committee further agreed that the public hearing on this application be scheduled for 6:00 pm on Tuesday, PC REPORT NO. 54 Communication 362 Bill 123 Page 5 of 13 September 20, 2005. At a public hearing held on September Z0, 2005 for the purpose of receiving public testimony on this application, approximately 25 members of the public attended. Mc Tony C. Nee, the Applicant, made a presentation about the project. Mr. Nee provided written documentation of the existing land use entitlements for the property and of his ongoing discussion with the County Planning Department, a discussion which resulted in the current application before the Planning Committee. Mr. Nee documented the Planning Department's coordinate the construction of the Nani-Kailua Drive extension, a major mauka-makai connector request for the roadway reserve on the south end of the property so that the County could road between Ali`i Drive and Kuakini Highway. Mr_ Nee asserted that "the project would add to the cumulative traffic impact but would not adversely affect traffic." Four members of the public submitted written testimony opposing the proposed rezoning. All four communications expressed concerns over the lack of roadway infrastructure to support the proposed development, the existing traffic congestion in Kailua-Kona, and the current lack of parking along Ali`i Drive. Of those who testified in person, 100% testified in opposition to the project. These individuals cited the following primary reasons for their opposition to the proposed development: I . The current level of traffic congestion in Kailua-Kona is already unacceptable; 2. The developer should build the connector roadway before the development is constructed, rather than merely dedicating a future roadway reserve; 3. The project needs a current Special Management Area (SMA) permit prior to approving the development; 4. The 45-foot permitted height of the proposed building will negatively impact the view plane at the site; 5. The proposed development lacks adequate loading zones for trucks to service the commercial businesses; 6. There is inadequate parking, both for the residential and commercial uses. Illegal parking is already a problem on Ali`i Drive; 7. There is inadequate water to supply the proposed development. Salinity in Kailua-Kona's drinking water is already a problem in the project area; 8. The resort zoning is inappropriate for aone-acre parcel. Zoning should not be done on a piecemeal basis, as in the current application; 9. There is no compelling need to increase the density on this parcel from 48 to 67 residential units plus commercial uses; 10. There is no need for additional commercial space in Kailua-Kona. There is an existing inventory of vacant commercial space; 1 1. There is a major safety concern since this corridor in Kailua-Kona is a bottleneck and cannot accommodate reasonable response times by fire, police, and emergency medical personnel for PC REPORT NO. 54 Communication 362 Bill 123 Page 6 of 13 residents and patrons of the proposed development; 12. This development will exacerbate a change in character in the community, making it less like a village and more like Miami Beach; and 13. A descendent of the original owner expressed concern over possible family burials on the property. Chairman Hoffmann asked if any members of the public present at the hearing were in favor of the proposed development: no one indicated their support. Bill No. l23 was discussed again at the November 8 Planning Committee meeting. Your Committee is concerned that the proposed change in zoning will exacerbate traffic conditions while doing little to provide affordable housing in Kona. At the February l4, 2006 meeting of the Committee on Planning there were no testifiers at the Hilo and Waimea Council offices. In Kona there was one testifier, Joel Gimpel representing the Kona Traffic & Safety Council, in opposition. There were 8 written testimonies submitted via email in opposition, from the following members of the public: I . Marjorie Erway (opposed until infrastructure in place) 2. Josephine Keliipio (opposed, unless developer puts in driveway to Kuakini) 3. Jerry Schneyer (opposed -infrastructure already overburdened) 4. Lillian Fox {opposed - no development without concurrent infrastructure) 5. Karin Johnson (opposed -need to improve infrastructure first) 6. Candice and Steven Ramond (opposed until infrastructure in place) 7. Larry Johnson (opposed) 8. Steve Lopez (opposed -infrastructure overburdened) Mr. Gimple testified he recalled the public hearing where none of the of the 7 written and 14 testifiers supported the proposal. Applicant's proposal should be entertained only if infrastructure in place first. Spoke of the necessity of a maukalmakai connector in Pua`a and that it would enhance safety, act as atraffic-calming device and improve level of service at intersections. He concluded the project has a dysfunctional relationship with the big picture and that due to the limited road capacity in the immediate area and greater Kailua-Kona. Approval of more projects that create additional demands for road capacity should await for a Road Master Plan. Council Member Hoffman stated he had no objection to the commercial aspect of the project as long as infrastructure was in place before occupancy. Planning Director Chris Yuen appeared in Kona and testified in support of the rezoning. He stated the Planning Department has been working with the developer in this application and that this case is not a choice between "develop" or "not to develop". If the Council decides not to approve, Applicant can still go ahead and construct a 48-unit condo. The only difference is there would be no commercial element to the project. He stated the subject property was rezoned in PC REPORT NO. 54 Communication 362 Bill 123 Fage 7 of 13 the mid 60's without conditions imposed and in 1989 they got their SMA permit and in 2005 renewed their application. Planning Director stated advantages of project to the County would be: • Village By-Pass from Ali'i Drive to Kuakini Highway • Best place to put in a connector road • Worked with developer to design right-of--way as well as make it worthwhile to developer • County in better position with road reserve; rezoning will give the County aright- of-way Committee Chair Pilago relinquished seat to Vice Chair Pete Hoffman for the remainder of the meeting and a motion was made to approve Bill 123 and file Communication No. 362. Priscilla Nee, one of the principals of KPC Villages, LLC was present, represented by Sandra P. Song her attorney. Ms. Song submitted a letter to the Council on behalf of KPC advising of reducing units from 67 back to 48 originally approved, with the addition of a commercial area. The RM zoning does not allow for commercial activity in the building. The other possible zoning designations would be General Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial that does not fit in the General Plan. That's the only reason Applicant is requesting resort zoning. With respect to traffic problems in Kona, Applicant can't promise a road will happen over night but are taking measures to do more than make a road. The property is a one-acre parcel so setting aside a portion for a road and trying to negotiate for a roadway is a significant contribution in order to develop cone-acre parcel. Had meetings with Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate (hereafter "KSBE") to discuss ways to get the road. KSBE indicated interest in participating, however now a potential buyer for its property is currently involved. Ms. Nee stated that mixed use is really the only way to maximize what they have. They are going for a trophy building at a high end zoning and want to put up something that they would be proud of. Council Member Holschuh inquired whether KPC would still commit to build the road if adjoining landowner KSBE agreed to surrender some of its land for the raad and later not go thru with it, are there alternative contributions such as fair share, etc? Applicant responded road gets built only if they get approved for 67 units. Applicant's decision to decrease density to 48 is because they don't have commitment of the land for the road or any sort of real interest from KSBE. If they increase the residential units they would be assessed fair share contribution. Director Yuen stated under County policy, commercial alone won't trigger fair share contribution. Applicant would not build the road, just set aside a portion of their land to make the road happen. Ms. Song added that the building will be 45-feet in height, including the underground parking regardless of number of units. Council Member Jacobson looks at proposal as a raad easement that goes nowhere. Although Planning Director would like the Committee to believe a road will be gained, it doesn't look like it. The road proposed to be built on 2/3rds of adjoining KSBE land is uncertain and hasn't been PC REPORT NO. 54 Communication 362 Bill 123 Page S of 13 acquired. Proposal is not reassuring. Although sincere, given that Applicant doesn't control 213rds of the land it makes it very difficult for Applicant to carry it through. Wonders whether Applicant is committed to carry through and build the project and not turn around and sell it to somebody else. Council Vice Chair Virginia Isbell stated she has real difficulty and is certain she's not going to support this. She stated Applicant's working with KSBE would most likely be very difficult In response to Council Member lsbell's inquiry regarding graves located on the subject property, Ms. Song responded that an extensive archaeological survey found no evidence of graves on the property. Council Vice Chair Isbell stated her major concern is that congestion in the area is very bad and the proposed road may not come in for years. It is very difficult to base her decision on working with Kamehameha Schools. At 48 units, the number of cars would be doubled and with the commercial aspect, more cars and more congestion. She cannot support the proposal especially if a mauka/makai road will not be built. Council Chair Higa inquired if under the current zoning of the adjoining KSBE property what would the County get should KPC go ahead with its application "as is?" Planning Director Yuen stated zoning of the KSBE property is RM-1 similar to what Applicants can do on their property. KSBE had an SMA permit that expired, and would need to apply for a new one. Director Yuen stated he did meet with KSBE and if KPC's application is approved will try to work with KSBE for the road easement, but the County would have to pay for it. He stated under the 1960 zoning there is no affordable housing requirement. if KPC's request for 67 units was approved, affordable housing would apply, but only to the number of units over the original 48. Applicant stated the way things are now, she has no control over the road. Initially KSBE seemed very interested in working with them, but now they are working on something else. At this time Applicant has no power to build a road. If KSBE was at the table today and Applicant had the 67 units, they would be looking at the road remnant on their property. Council Member Hoffman clarified with Director Yuen the application doesn't have any affordable housing because it was done a number of years ago. Director Yuen stated that they have only been applying affordable housing and fair share to the increase in the number of residential units. The draft Ordinance does provide fair share and affordable housing but only for the 19 additional units. If Applicant sticks to original 48 units, no fair share or affordable housing applies. The only thing Applicant is getting out of this is the ability to put some commercial square footage into the project. Committee Chair Pilago stated he sympathized with Applicant in working with KSBE however would not give that possibility or that option any credence because he doesn't think KSBE will help with the road at all. Chair Pilago is very uncomfortable that the County is being saddled with having to build the road. Gives the appearance the County has to build the road for Applicant and Applicant would allow the land. Applicant stated if they could build the road they would, but they can't. Right now Applicant is setting aside the dedication for the road so that in the future their building wouldn't be in the middle of the road and the County could move forward. They're PC REPORT NO. 54 Communication 362 Bill 123 Page 9 of 13 just planning ahead. Committee Chair Pilago stated this TMK goes back to the 1940's showing transfers and that in 1966 a zoning or subdivision ordinance was created affecting large blocks of land, Applicant's included. The 1984 SMA permit was granted for 48 units and now Applicant comes in on the same SMA but asking for commercial zoning. Chair Pilago inquired whether this would make the SMA invalid. Ms. Nee explained they had to apply for a new SMA for the project. The Planning Director issued the SMA on condition that this change of zone would be approved and then the old SMA would be nullified. However, there was an entirely new SMA application filed as well as the exisitng SMA for the 48 units that will remain in effect unless this council passes the change of zone ordinance. At that time, the new SMA which has already been approved by the Planning Commission will then go into effect. That's the language of the SMA. Committee Chair Pilago asked Director Yuen to explain how the Subdivision Ordinance came about in 1966 that did Block subdivision rezoning for an area. Director Yuen stated there were 2 big actions in 1967, one is the subdivision ordinance we currently operate under that was passed in 1967 and a prior weaker subdivision ordinance. The new 1967 subdivision ordinance was more appealing to overall zoning around island. Director Yuen believes zoning of this property goes back to the zoning of the whole island and is quite common to go back to the old zoning map. Mr. Pilago stated therein lies the problem for this current council because these zoning ordinances date way back then created complications for this Committee and well-intentioned Applicants like the Nees. He asked whether there are other zonings such as this that will affect Applicants like the Nee family, in the future. Director Yuen said the old zonings are valid zonings and are part of the legal landscape he has to work with. Committee Chair Pilago stated he didn't think it is fair to the Nees or other Applicants in same situation, but neither is it fair for the community. He stated the Applicant as well as the Planning Director must present a very compelling argument to get the full support of this Council. As it stands we have an Applicant that will not do a road, a project with no impact fees or assessments and no affordable housing. There is nothing for the community out of this. From 1948 to the time of the public hearing there have been discussions of development rights but no development has taken place. Committee Chair Pilago sees this as speculation and cannot support it at this time. Council Member Safarik questioned Director Yuen's support of the application when road reserve dedicated to County for free but won't take place because KSBE won't deal. Director Yuen stated that in comparison to what would happen if the project was denied, we would get a road reserve dedicated to the county for free with minimal additional development being allowed. Council Member Safarik said the road, presumably for free, is not really going to take place because KSBE is not going to deal well or deal at all with the Applicant. Sees this as short- sighted with approval being sought on a wish and a promise. Director Yuen stated it's up to us and the County to implement the road. Dedicatian of the property is being given and the developer is not getting anything. The dedication is a reasonable concession and that's all he can expect out of this Applicant. If the County is determined to build, it has the power to obtain the land from KSBE. In the meantime, if we want to preserve the possibility of building a road, we don't want Applicant to place their building in the middle of it. If Applicant had gone ahead with PC REPORT NO. 54 Communication 362 Bill 123 Page 10 of 13 the original 48 units, and we wanted to preserve the area for the road, we'd have to buy the road portion from the Applicant. Do we give up completely at this point and, if we do, it doesn't make a difference. Council Member Safarik stated if the County is serious about preserving road corridors, we should go through condemnation, take the two properties and build a regular road. Director Yuen responded the County would have to pay fair market value for the entire parcel when the only public importance would be a road and nothing more. The property is not high on the acquisition list and would be very expensive. Council Member Safarik stated from a shart term perspective, this project, situated somewhere else would be a righteous project. When looking at overall property and traffic densities, we're trying to put a round thing in a square hole. There is no affordable housing. The project will be a "trophy project" which means the average person cannot afford to live there. Based on his colleagues concern and more importantly community concerns, issues such as concurrency and admittedly traffic problems, he has major concerns about this proposal. Council Member Ikeda stated he would not be in support if all Applicant is offering the County is a portion of land for a road and nothing else. He could support the project if Applicant contributes money to build the road. Ms. Song stated the road is not all the Applicant is offering, they are also willing to construct a 12" water line 1,200 feet along Ali`i Drive. Ms. Nee stated she couldn't consider Mr. Ikeda's proposal without a dollar number. Council Member Ikeda stated cost to construct a 500-foot road could be obtained from Public Works by the next Council meeting. If Applicant's contribution could be made up front and placed into a fund for use at the time the land for the road becomes available, at least there will be some money to do the road and then he could support the project. However, at this point it looks like Applicant is getting something for nothing. Committee Vice Chair Hoffmann noted that the 1,200-foot water line was predicated on 67 units not 48, however, even if Applicant goes back to 48 units they are still willing to construct water line. Council Member Fred Holschuh stated Council Member Ikeda's idea is reasonable and Applicant would still give the land. He asked Director Yuen if allowing the project at 67 units plus condemnation proceedings, would that get the road built. Director Yuen responded it's reasonable to ask for dedication ofright-of--way in conjunction with zone approval. The Department is not making project by project negotiations to get the maximum he can possibly get far public benefit. He's just trying to treat all Applicants fairly. He stated this connector road is one of the projects that was part of bond float a year or so ago and that there's a million or million and a half dollars for it. They just have not been able to get it going. Part of the strategy was to get the right-of--way dedicated for free and use the remainder of the funds to acquire the KSBE property. The road itself makes KSBE's property more valuable as a commercial site. Stated he made a deal for the road and 67 units with dedication of a road reserve and is sticking to that. He noted the only thing Applicant is getting out of this is a small 13,000 square foot PC REPORT NO. 54 Communication 362 Bill 123 Page 1 I of 13 commercial area. Council Member Higa stated if we don't give the zoning, Applicant already has 48 units and will build anyway. The County will then end up paying for the road. Then if we don't give in, the County may lose its opportunity for a connector road, and, 48 units will be built anyway. If this road is important to Kona then give them the zoning to get the easement that would save the County money in condemnation. Wants to get KSBE to the table and is willing to call for a postponement to bring them to the table. Ms. Song stated Applicant is willing to give KSBE an opportunity to come to the table and is also willing to look at cost estimates of road construction. Council Member Virginia Isbell stated looking at the Kona Traffic Safety Committee testimony she is still concerned with moving this forward. There is no roadway plan and feels we should wait until there is a Roadway Master Plan in place. She stated the units will be very large and very expensive and will not serve the local people of this community. She is still opposed. Council Member Jacobson asked Director Yuen if we can't get a road easement from Applicant, would the County have to condemn property if we want to put in the road on KSBE land? Director Yuen stated Public Works has already mapped the alignment of this road through both properties and at this point it would be very hard to align the road entirely on KSBE's property. Council Member Safarik was inclined to agree with Council Member Higa's suggestion of postponement and give Applicant the opportunity to discuss road easement with KSBE. He would agree to a postponement but is still not convinced that the connector road will relieve traffic congestion in the area. Need to postpone the matter with enough time to allow discussions with KSBE of the overall design of this connector road and also plans for the entire region. This process should be an integral part of the Kona Community Development Plan. If we choose not to support postponement, then cannot support the project. Council Member Arakaki stated he can support postponement however, doesn't want to put the Applicant off any further. All the clocks are running and suggested we not prolong this matter for more than two weeks. If this can't be worked out, suggests that the Applicant build its project and don't give the County anything. If Applicant's property is condemned, the entire property as well as zoning will be lost and then Applicant can take the County to court. He suggested the Applicant build the project, take their money and go invest it somewhere else. Committee Chair Pilago there is no reason or cause to justify postponement. He stated Applicant is enabled to build 48 units and if so chooses, can build the project without further discussion with this Council. However, Applicant is the one who keeps trying to raise the density and trying to change the density to commercial. The Applicant is the one prolonging the matter by coming back asking to do more. The road is not the issue. The issue is the commercial zoning, K5BE's zoning and other commercial people in Kona who are severely impacting our community. Your commercial zoning is the "wrong project", "wrong place" and "wrong time" and he will not approve. PC REPORT NO. 54 Communication 362 Bill 123 Page 12 of 13 Council Chair Higa stated he did not volunteer to facilitate bringing KSBE to the discussion table and is deferring to Committee Chair Pilago. County needs to look at planning because in the past planning for Kona wasn't done well. Personally feels road is needed, but if Committee Chair Pilago is not in support, he will not support it. Council Member Holschuh stated the postponement should not be for longer than one month. He agrees with Council Chair Higa that we find out what the road fair share figures are and get KSBE to come to the table. Committee Chair Pilago stated he is against the postponement. This matter was postponed in August 2005, we held a public hearing in which public testified against the project, it was then postponed again and Applicant still comes back with the same offer. The road is not an issue. The issue is this is the wrong thing to do. The decision, "up" or "down," is long overdue. Committee Vice Chair Hoffmann asked Ms. Nee for her personal opinion regarding postponement. She responded she didn't know if postponement would make a difference or frustrate the public even more because KSBE is slow. However, she agrees with postponement. Council Chair Higa stated he would support postponement and make the effort and pursue a phone call to KSBE. If can't get anywhere with KSBE, then he'll support Committee Chair Pilago. Council Member Safarik stated to keep this alive is frustrating. Agrees with Committee Chair Pilago and won't support postponement. Committee Chair Pilago calls for the question. Motion to postpone Bill 123 received 5 no votes. Motion was defeated. The motion to amend Bill 123 received 5 no votes, and that Motion was defeated. PC REPORT NO. 54 Communication 362 Bill 123 Page ] 3 of 13 A motion to approve this measure received 5 no votes. Pursuant to Council Rules, 5 aye votes are needed to pass a measure. Therefore, your Committee on Planning forwards Bill No. 123 to the Council with a negative recommendation. and Avrs Hors Air rx Respectfully submitted, ARAKA KI H[cA X COMMITTEE ON PLANNING HOFFMANN X HOLSCHUH X IKEDA X IsBELL X K. Angel P' o, Chair JACOBSON X PILAGO X SA FARIK X ADOPTED: PC REPORT NO. 54 OFFICE INFORMATION ONLY Meeting: March 1, 2006 -Council Meeting (32"d Session) Action: Passes Bill 123 on 151 Reading PC Report 54 transmitted the above bill with a "negative recommendation". R« C-362Bi11123/PC-54