Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 109 09/19/2006 2004-2006 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: September 19, 2006 Re: Comm. No. 1004Bi11 No. 321 PLACE: Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort & Spa TIME: 2:30 p.m. Council Chair and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Bill No. 321, reports as follows: Bill No. 321, transmitted via Communication No. 1004 from Mayor Harry Kim, dated August 2, 2006, presents an Amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 95-118 (REZ 709) by Samson LLC at Hienaloli 4`~ and 5~', North Kona Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-10:por 13 (formerly 7-5-23:63). Bill No. 321 seeks to amend Ordinance No. 95-118, which amended Ordinance No. 92-36, which reclassified lands from Unplanned (U) and Double-Family Residential - 3,750 squaze feet (RD-3.75) to Multiple Family Residential - 2,500 squaze feet (RM-2.5) and Village Commercial - 7,500 squaze feet (CV-7.5), respectively. Communication No. 1004 reports that the Hawaii County Planning Commission, as required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6-4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter, considered the above request on July 21, 2006. The Commission concurred with the Planning Director's reasons for recommending favorable consideration of this request. Communication No. 1004 transmits the following findings and recommendations: l . The area involved is located along the north side of Hualalai Road, adjacent to the Aloha Kona Subdivision at Hienaloli 4~' and 5`", District of North Kona, Hawaii. 2. Applicant is requesting a time extension to Condition D (Final Plan Approval) and Condition E (Commence Construction) of Ordinance No. 95-188 (effective October 12, 1995), which superseded Ordinance No. 92-36. Ordinance No. 92-36 was approved on April 24, 1992 and amended the district classification of 3.224 acres from Unplanned (U), to Multiple-Family Residential (RM-2.5), and of 2.296 acres from Double Family Residential (RD-3.75) to Village Commercial (CV-7.5). 3. The Kumalani project includes the 3.224 and the 2.296 parcels of land as well as lands rezoned in Ordinance No. 90-010 (formerly Ordinance No. 86-49) and are considered a consolidated project with similar time-related conditions. 4. The prior applicant obtained Final Plan Approval of the original project on June 2, 1993 and commenced construction within the County right-of--way for sewer improvements in September 2000 and grading work in January 2002. However, development was abandoned until applicant purchased the property in February 2005 and the original project wncept of a commerciaUmultiple-family residential development was amended by deleting the commercial component and proposing 146 multiple-family residential units instead. PC Report No. 109 Communication 1004 Bill 321 Page 2 of 5 5. On June 11, 1994 an administrative time extension was granted until June 2, 1995 to commence construction. 6. In February 2005 applicant purchased the subject properties and the commercial component of the original project was deleted, applicant instead proposing a 146 multiple-family residential project. 7. On October 12, 1995 Ordinance No. 95-118 became effective, which amended Condition E (Commence Construction) changing it from one year from date of receipt of Final Plan Approval, to five (5) years from receipt of Final Plan Approval. 8. On March 3, 2006 applicant requests for time extension to comply with Condition D (Final Plan Approval) and Condition E (commence construction) of Ordinance No. 95-118 for the development of the property. 9. All essential utilities and services aze available to the site. The Planning Director recommended favorably on this request for an Amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 95-118 based on the following: • The non-performance of Condition D and Condition E is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or were beyond the control of applicant and are not the result of applicant's fault or negligence. Final Plan Approval was secured and construction did commence on the original project, but the project was abandoned by the prior owner. • Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or the Zoning Code. The General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map designates the area a Medium Density Urban. The property is zoned Village Commercial (CV -7.5) that allows for multiple family residential uses (1,250 square feet of land area per unit) and the CV zoning is consistent with the General Plan designation for the area. • The proposed amendment to Conditions D and E of Ordinance No. 95-118 is not contrary to the original reasons for approving the Change of Zone and in addition, the Planning Director is recommending revisions to existing conditions to reflect current standard language for conditions of approval and fair share contributions. At the September 19, 2006 Committee on Planning Meeting Committee Vice Chair Pete Hoffmann presided. Public testimony was presented by J. Curtis Tyler of Kailua-Kona who expressed concern that the original Condition F relating to preparation of a detailed azchaeological mitigation plan, was deleted in its entirety. Mr. Tyler also expressed concern that the right-of--way widths were not specific as in previous conditions. Planning Director Yuen presented a brief background stating that two different zoning ordinances were consolidated and that the development timefi-ame was missed and a time extension granted. Mr. Yuen explained that the amended Ordinance eliminates conditions that were satisfied and some infrastructure requirements were built into the current Ordinance. Mr. Yuen noted that a payment was made towards parks and recreation for the project and that the amount was credited against fair share. In addition, he Communication 1004 Bi11321 Page 3 of 5 stated a payment of $50,000 was made that satisfied the affordable housing requirement for 48 units. Mr. Yuen said that this payment, however, will not completely exempt applicant from affordable housing requirements since current amounts are more now than in the mid 90's when payment was made. Steve Lim, attorney for Samson LLC as well as Eric Leuteneker, chief financial officer and developer of the project were also present. Mr. Lim stated applicant purchased the property in February 2005 and analyzed current market conditions to develop their current market plan. Mr. Lim explained there are two rezoning ordinances covering the property, one is twenty years old and the other is fourteen years old. He stated the prior developer began mass grading and sewer line construction, however the work stopped. He also noted that they have been working with the Kailua Village Design Commission and had unveiled their preliminary drawings to the Commission. Mr. Lim stated that it is applicant's position that the affordable housing requirement for the initial 48 units has been satisfied and that the remaining 98 units will be subject to the new affordable housing requirement. Mr. Lim said that applicant intends to develop twenty percent affordable "on site." Council Member Doc Holschuh expressed concern regarding the deleted archaeological condition F referred to in Mr. Tyler's testimony. Director Yuen explained that Condition F was dropped because the required studies are complete and that approval of the archaeological inventory has been was received and that the Burial Council review is also completed. However, although these studies have been completed, Mr. Yuen stated that he believed the Ordinance should be amended to add a requirement that the applicant follow the approved treatment plans. Committee Vice Chair Hoffmann asked Mr. Yuen to provide the necessary amendment language. Council Member Jacobson was unable to confirm with Mr. Yuen that annual reports required to be filed annually commencing in 1986 have been received. Mr. Jacobson noted that road widths should be set forth in writing and Mr. Yuen responded that he believed the road width will end up to be a 60-foot right of way conform to what's been done before and also built to collector road standazds. Mr. Jacobson noted concern of the unexpected contingencies that stopped development for the past twenty (20) years and that the current developer should look at all conditions now and not come back later with excuses why certain conditions could not be met. Mr. Jacobson concluded this appeared clearly speculative with unexpected contingencies. Council Vice Chair Isbell noted she had serious problems with this proposal due to the very busy and narrow Hualalai Road. Ms. Isbell also noted that no traffic study has been prepared and although applicant will improve the entire frontage of it's property, Hualalai Road will still bottleneck and therefore very hesitant to support the measure. Mr. Lim stated frontage improvements will be approximately 400-500 feet along Hualalai Road and that although no traffic impact study was required, he estimated about 1.5 or 1.8 cazs per unit or a total of 270 additional cazs on Hualalai Road. Mr. Leuteneker stated they will provide affordable housing with a sprinkling of units at market price and that he anticipates the project will be wmpleted in two (minimum) and three (maximum) phases with the actual impact to the area occumng two or three years from now. Committee Chair Pilago noted that history reflects prior applicants who had no intention of satisfying the conditions of rezonings, got entitlements and then bailed which seemed to be an ongoing pattern that should be stopped. Mr. Pilago said that the applicant needed to convince this council that they will meet all their obligations, complete the project and not sell to the highest bidder. Mr. Leuteneker stated their PC Report No. 109 Communication 1004 Bi11321 Page 4 of 5 commitment is to the affordable housing market and that it is in fact their intent to build and finish this project. Council member Safarik inquired how many units would be affordable and Mr. Leukeneker stated that they have been residential builders their entire corporate life and build mid-range homes on Maui. He stated they completed a 92 home subdivision of which 52% were affordable as well as a 117-unit condo project (Kahana Ridge) in which 100% was affordable or between $300,000 - $400,000. Mc Leuteneker stated the range for this project would be based on construction cost etc. but using Maui standards, affordable would be in the low $200,000. Director Yuen noted the area has already been approved for development and therefore not required to be included within the CDP process as the CDP would consider this a preliminary growth area. With regard to the lack of two entrances to the project azea, Mr. Yuen stated there was no way to remedy the situation. Mr. Yuen said it was not feasible to have another exit on Hualalai Road since that would require building a bridge over a flood channel and crossing over four (4) other parcels in order to connect to an existing roadway. Mr. Yuen noted this project is a classic urban fill that will ultimately reduce transportation needs by providing residential units closer to employment. Committee Chair Pilago expressed the need for the council to affect concurrency and noted that obtaining the necessary infrastructure is difficult if extensions aze being sold and results in deals and speculation that utilize rezoning extensions as a commodity. Mr. Yuen stated that in this case, impacts will not exist if applicant doesn't build, however, imposing time conditions is an important "check" since there is no great method to differentiate between applicants who really intend to build a project and applicants just seeking rezone and later sell it to another developer. Council Member Arakaki stated that since applicant purchased the property knowing the extension would expire, he felt confident that the applicant would follow through and develop the property because of the risk involved. Mr. Arakaki also noted that if Hualalai Road is in need of widening, one method to achieve the improvements would be through a CIP that included a provision or condition that subsequent developers be required to contribute their share. Mr. Yuen stated the only way to require developers to repay these kinds of costs would be through an improvement district. Mr. Arakaki suggested that Ms. Isbell make a CIP request for improvement of Hualalai Road. Committee Vice Chair Hoffmann stated that the Level of Service (LOS) of Hualalai Road does impact upon the CDP process and therefore the CDP steering committee should consider this regardless of whether it's an approved zoning or not. Mr. Hoffmann stated he understood Mc Yuen's "infill" position, however, this area has no school and the CDP has to consider this impact also. Your Committee on Planning concurs with the Planning Commission and the Planning Director's favorable consideration of the request to amend Change of Zone Ordinance No. 95-118. PC Report No. 109 Communication 1004 Bill 321 Page 5 of 5 Your Committee on Planning is in accord with the purpose and intent of Bill No. 321 and recommends it pass first reading. and ayes xoes a&e ex Respectfully submitted, ARAI{AHI X HIGA X COMIvIITTEE ON PLANNING HOFFMANN X HOLSCHIJH X ~ HCEDA X v` ISBELL X JACOBSON X K. ANGEL PII. GO, CHAIR PH.AGO X PC REPORT NO. 109 sAFARHC x AnoPTED: OCT 1 6 2006