Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0733.000 2006-2008 QTY aR N,~ Harry Kim - ~ Dixie Kaetsu Mayor ; ~ Mnaaging Director r - Barbara Kossow r~ a'H~1 Depury Mnnaging Director County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street, Room 215 Hilq Hawaii 96720-4252 (808) 9618211 Fax (808) 961 b553 KONA: 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 103 • Railua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 (808) 329-5226 Fax (808) 3265663 September 24, 2007 . Honorable Pete Hoffmann, Chairman - . and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 333 Kilauea Avenue Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Hoffmann and Members: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 07-000014) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 07-000064) Request: A-Sato RM-1 Applicant: Seascape Development, LLC Tax Map Key: 7-3-10:3 County Cormcil Initiated Amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) Relating to Off-Street Parking and Loading County Council Initiated Amendments to Chapter 23 (Subdivision Code) and Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) Relating to Subdivisions of Seven or More Lots Cotmty Council Initiated Amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) Relating to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Cluster Plan Development (CPD) Applications State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 07-000015) Request: Agricultural to Urban Tax Map Key: 6-7-2:portion 20 Change of Zone Application (REZ 07-000068) Request: A-40a and ML-20 to CV-7.5 Tax Map Key: 6-7-2:20 and portion 51 Applicant: North Hawaii Communitv Hospital Comm. N0. Ref. To: Ref. date CT^~_?~ Honorable Pete Hoffmann, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 2 September 24, 2007 As required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6-4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter, transmitted herewith for the County Council's consideration and action are the Planning Commission's letters and enclosures regarding the above-referenced requests. Sincerely, Ha U Mayor Enclosures cc: Planning Department 1083I07may tv,w • Nr+ County of Hawaii PLANNING COMMISSION Aupuni Cen[er • 101 Pauahi Stree[, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8742 September 24, 2007 Pete Hoffinann, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 333 Kilauea Avenue, 2"d Floor Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Hoffinann and Council Members: County Council Initiated Amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) Relating to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Cluster Plan Development (CPD) ApUlications The Planning Commission at its duly held public hearing on August 31, 2007, voted to forward an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council regarding the proposed amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), as amended, relating to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Cluster Plan Development (CPD) applications. The proposed amendment would: (1) require PUD applications consisting of 7 or more lots to be processed in the same manner as a change of zone in accordance with Hawaii County Code Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Sections 25-2-42 and 25-2-43 and (2) require CPD applications to be processed as prescribed for a subdivision application under Chapter 23 (Subdivisions), "Application for Subdivision of Seven or More Lots." Enclosed are transcripts of the hearings and the Background and Recommendation Reports. Sincere William Graham, Chairman Planning Commission Lcouncilamendzoningcode re:pud&cpd Enclosures cc: Planning Department-Kona Hawai `i County is an Equal Opportunity !'rovider and Employer PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 3, 2007 A regularly advertised hearing on the COUNTY COUNCIL AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) RELATING TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P.U.D.) AND CLUSTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT (C.P.D.) APPLICATIONS FOR SEVEN OR MORE LOTS was called to order at 11:11 a.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with First Vice-Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT: C. Kimo Alameda ABSENT & EXCUSED: William Graham Takashi Domingo Rodney Watanabe Andrew Iwashita Shelly Ogata Alvin Rho Rene' Siracusa Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Brad Kurokawa, Deputy Planning Director Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 4 people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL Amendments to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), as amended, relating to Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and Cluster Plan Development (C.P.D.) applications. The proposed amendments would 1) require P.U.D applications consisting of seven or more lots to be processed in the same manner as a change of zone in accordance with Hawaii County Code Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Sections 25-2-42 and 25-2-43; and 2) require C.P.D. applications to be processed as prescribed for a subdivision application under Chapter 23 (Subdivisions), "Application for Subdivision of Seven or More Lots." ALAMEDA: Agenda Item No. 5, Initiator: County Council. Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Similar to our last agenda item, this initiated bill by the County Council would require PUD applications consisting of seven or more lots to be processed in the same manner as a change of zone in accordance with the Hawaii County Code, Chapter 25. And it will require CPD applications to be processed as prescribed for a subdivision application under Chapter 23 under applications for subdivisions of seven or more lots. The proposed bill would give the Council the final authority over the approval of the Planned Unit Developments and Cluster Plan Developments, or CPDs. The Council finds that the developments proposed in a particular area should be assessed considering a number of factors, including how much public infrastructure is challenged by recent or anticipated growth 1 in the area. The Council also finds that conditions of approval should be imposed to accommodate the impacts of development, a planned unit or cluster plan developments, which consists of seven or more lots in order to manage growth and coordinate the delivery of government services in the County. The proposed bill is attached as Exhibit 1. The Planning Director gives an unfavorable recommendation on the bill. Reasons are stated within the recommendation. Just to briefly touch upon these reasons, these particulaz applications do require the process denoted to require notice of neighboring properties and also to publish notice of these particular applications. Additionally, the Planning Director recommends that the Council retain the current administrative control over PUD and CPD because these applications rarely involve issues of overall policy or general public concern. If PUDs and CPDs must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Council with anopen-ended possibility of various conditions being attached, the timeframe for approval will inevitably be much longer than under the current practice. Worse yet, the developer will not be aware of conditions that will be ultimately placed on them. The result will be that developers will not apply for PLTDs or CPDs and apply for a subdivision according to the Code and try to achieve the same result by applying for a series of variances. Are there any questions? ALAMEDA: Let me ask Mr. Kurokawa anything that might have been missed during that background introduction. KLTROKAWA: You know, not a whole lot that I want to add except that, you know, the PUD and Cluster Plan Development process is actually one of the tools that encourages a little more creative, you know, more creativity than, you know, just sticking by the current Zoning and Subdivision Codes. So by making it more onerous, you know, it actually will work against that, and so I just wanted to reiterate that. And, also, I wanted to recognize besides Phyllis and Darrow who you already know, we have Daryn Arai who's the ministerial program manager who actually reviews in conjunction and does a lot of the background work for the Planning Director at the Planning Department. So if you have any questions, in terms of the nitty gritty of the process, he's here to answer those. So, thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Kurokawa. Thank you, Mr. Arai for coming out. Fellow Commissioners? Commissioner Domingo, you have a question For Mr. Kurokawa or Mr. Darrow? DOMINGO: I was just going to make a statement. ALAMEDA: Go ahead. DOMINGO: You know, you've got to keep politics out of this decision-making process. It's just a blunt statement. It can often be, and I'm not saying it will, but it can be a very political issue and it's a dangerous position that we're putting They don't know it but 2 they're putting themselves in a dangerous position. And it's going to leave the door wide open for any kind of influence that comes in to get what they need for what, for whom they represent, or for themselves. You know, we have a check and balance system, all the way out from the Federal govenunent, the State, and down to the Council level. Keep that which is for administration, for administration; and leave the policy making body alone and let them come up with the policies, and administration do all the necessary work that needs to be done in order for that policy to be implemented, plain and simple. Other than that, you're asking for trouble. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Commissioner Domingo. Commissioner Siracusa, you had a statement? SIRACUSA: Well, no, I had a question for clarification, because this refers to that the applications be processed as prescribed for a subdivision application under Chapter 23, application for a subdivision of seven or more lots. Is that referring to the previous amendment that we were just discussing? And is it based on that? In other words does the first one have to pass before this one will, is one dependent on the other? ALAMEDA: Mr. Darrow? DARROW: If I can defer this to our Deputy Director. ALAMEDA: Mr. Kurokawa? KUROKAWA: I believe that it's not, you know, hinged on it. I think they may have just set a number in terms of the scale and scope of the subdivision as well as the PUDs and CPDs. SIRACUSA: Do you mean that there is an application called application for subdivision for seven or more lots already? KUROKAWA: I'm going to defer to Daryn on that. But SIRACUSA: Cause that's what's referred to here. ALAMEDA: Daryn. I suppose you can have a seat. Mr. Arai? ARAI: I have read the bills and my understanding is that those two processes are totally independent of each other. It just so happens that they use the seven lots or seven units as the benchmark in which to have Council consider SIRACUSA: I'm showing Daryn Arai the first paragraph of the background and recommendation. And the very last line of the first paragraph refers to what I read before. It refers to application for a subdivision of seven or more lots. And what I'm asking is is this an application that already exists or is this something that is contingent on the passage of the previous amendment that we were just discussing which referred to seven lot subdivisions. 3 ARAL Well, I can definitively say that there is no such thing currently as an application for a subdivision of seven or more lots. There is no such thing currently. DARROW: Okay, I think what the issue is is that in the previous proposed amendment by the County Council, the one we just finished reviewing, there is an added subsection (e) under Section 23-58, and that is an application for subdivision of seven or more lots. So this is actually something that is not in place at this time but is proposed. And so, with that, they're also referring to this proposed amendment under the previous initiated bill, also inclusive of this amendment. Is that clear? SIRACUSA: Yeah, now it's clear. And that's one of the possibilities that I thought of. So technically if the other one fails then this one we can't even consider this. Because it's based on something that doesn't exist right now and would have to be passed since it's only proposed at this point. ALAMEDA: Are there other questions for Mr. Darrow? Mr. Arai? All right, this is another agenda item that I think will be continued. Mr. Darrow, do you have anything else to add or DARROW: No. If you folks are finished with discussion, we can go ahead and continue the matter until the next meeting. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? ALAMEDA: Sure, Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, normally I would have reserved my comments to probably the next meeting, but because of the long agenda where we're going to have I just wanted to, on the planned community development plan, these two particular types of developments, you know, developers What I would really like to see and what I think the Deputy Director referred to in part was, you know, how these can be creatively used to implement things that aren't really provided for in the rest of the planning laws. And that's really good. And I really think that, or the point I wanted to make was that, you know, from all of our perspectives what we really want to do is end up with a system where developers have, you know, have a real clear path on how to get their "entitlements," because they need that to get the financing done. And if you don't get the financing done, you know, if there's no clear path on how to get to the financing, the project is not going to get done. So, again, you know, our laws, to the extent we implement what we have, and you all know what I'm talking about, community development plans, if that's done, that should be done in a way where the developers can look at where their land is located and say here is a clear path to what can be done on this property. And if, you know, it's for a residential subdivision or it's for higher density residential use or it's for commercial, or whatever it is, you know, whatever the community development plan says it is going to be used for and that the community agrees, that the Council approves it, the developer has it. The developer then knows he can come to the Planning Department and pretty much have an unobstructed path to getting it done. So I really think that's how it should be done. The PUDs and the CPDs are sort of, you know, examples of a process where they can do it; but it's not as good because, you know, the developer still has to come out and say this is conceptually what I want to do, this is how it's going to be implemented. And until the 4 Department actually approves it, they really can't get the financing for it, right, or, you know, be assured of how it's going to come down. So I just wanted to, again, make the plug, especially to this, again, to really look at community development plans as a way, as a possible way, to help developers get clear entitlement pictures in terms of what can be, where development is going to occur on this island, how it's going to get done, and get a really clear picture of what this community is going to look like. And then, you know, there will be lots of money to do it once we get that done. Thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: From now, I will refer to Mr. Iwashita as Mr. Development Plan. IWASHITA: Community Development. DOMINGO: Okay, Community Development Plan; and I support him 100 percent. You know why? Because the General Plan is a primary planning document for the County. Everything is done in behest of the General Plan. The community development plan is a step lower which grabs the different General Plan designations and come out with a more final, more finer detail of planning and what can be done. Now when you have a community development plan, the people in the community would come in and look at certain General Plan designations and they will decide in a collaborative fashion with everybody what would be best suited in that particular area, where would growth best be directed, and what kind of growth, and how it should be directed. That's one part of the community development plan. Whether one likes it or not, it can work for or against you. But if you want controlled growth, controlled development, the community development plan is the best way to do it And I think I for one would strongly support community development plans for all the communities on the island. You know, that way it makes the job easier for administrators, the Planning Commission, and ultimately the Council. Because what comes up to them is what they actually agreed upon when they review the Genera] Plan. And that's it. ALAMEDA: I must add my two cents in. I would agree with that if the community development planning process has integrity. Because we know that it takes a real good facilitator to bring people to the table, everybody from every walk of life, diversity in every way and to get people to communicate and collaborate on what's in the best interest for the community. Because I've sat in many meetings as a facilitator and I've watched many meetings in group collaborations, so called, and the voice that gets written on the paper tends to be the audience or the participants with the loudest voice who can interrupt real quickly who has, you know, that cultural communication style. And many times it's not the local people or the Asian people. So if the community development plan has integrity, all right, if it has integrity and it includes the voices of the diversity that we have here in the islands, then, yeah, it is a voice and a representation of the people. But I think we're real quick to assume that the community development plan would be the voice of the people. That's a big assumption, as a facilitator I can tell you that. That's my final statement. So you guys don't have to respond to that. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? ALAMEDA: You know what I'm saying? 5 IWASHITA: I know I don't have to. But the Chair is correct, the integrity of the process will be integral to whether we succeed in doing something different and that will really help the community. I just want to point out that, you know, the Downtown Hilo, I never can remember, the name of their plan is too complicated. But, you know, the effort what they're doing or what they're trying to implement, that whole process, no one has really challenged, you know, how it was done. I think that's a good example of how, you know, it can be done. And that was done for Downtown Hilo, right? So I think that that process should, you know, be applied from Downtown Hilo up through house lots, you know, and do another one, The Kanoelehua Industrial area can do one. You know, and just as an aside, my wife is a principal and, you know, as a community one of the things, education is not monetarily in our kuleana. But as far as our economic future is concerned having the best schools on this island, is, has to be at the top of our list. And if we can do community development planning right, we really should be planning for smaller schools. The default in DOE is for bigger schools. They shut down the smaller ones, right? And, you know, as a community if we all get together and we say, you know what, we really want smaller schools, smaller class sizes, we're going to set up the residential developments around these schools so the kids can walk to the schools and not have to be bussed for miles and walk for miles, that, you know, those are the kinds of things that can be done, that are possible. And the Chair is right, it needs to be done in a very ALAMEDA: Pono. IWASHITA: Pono, very good, pono way; and then if it's done that way the community will see that it's being that way and will come out. And we can have excellent, you know, community development plans for all the areas of our island. So thank you for those concerns, and I really hope that all of us in this room continue to talk about it and get the message to the Council and the administration to get on it. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, you remember I said it depends on what way it goes and who really wants the development plan within a district. It can go one way or the other. You may have a group that would be certainly anti everything and you have nothing for the community; and that's a scary par[ of it. So, you know, be aware of what you ask for. And I think this would have to be done in a deliberate fashion, make sure things are done right if we're going to have to do it. And at the end, at the end, a development plan should be adopted by ordinance so that it has the cause and effect of law, rather than just a suggestive kind of plan which would not be much because it'll just be put aside. ALAMEDA: All right, every good. Well, I liked the discussion. I think we are ready to make a motion to continue this to our Kona meeting. You have testimony? WILLIAMS: Public testimony to listen to? ALAMEDA: Sure. WILLIAMS: Do I have to sign anything? 6 ALAMEDA: Let me ask, Sharon. NOMi.JRA: You can use the same sign up sheet. ALAMEDA: Okay. Please come forward, Mr. Williams. We already swore you in and got your address. You may proceed. WILLIAMS: Okay, I just wanted to say a few words. And, again, the Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce supports Planning Director Yuen's analysis on this proposal by the County Council for many of the same reasons I discussed before. One, that we have a separation of government; and it seems like the County Council wants to be taking over the executive branch as well as being a legislative branch. Two, you know, there aze very few cluster plan developments and planned unit developments on this island. It is something that Commissioner Siracusa was talking about a little while ago, was modernizing the Subdivision Code, moving ahead. Well, planned unit developments, cluster plan developments, are one method of doing that. It's a more advanced type of planning. The problem with having the County Council take over this process is it becomes a political tool. If you don't have a set of clear of rules as a developer when you go into doing this, you have no idea if this project makes any sense. Can you buy the piece of land and try to move forward to do it? No. You have to go to the County Council. The County Council is totally capricious. It depends on who's on the Council, it depends upon if the Council likes you. So it should be done administratively; and that is the process the way it's set up. To change that, to make the Council handle each individual one will not encourage cluster plan developments, will not encourage planned unit developments; and that's the type of planning we want to see going forwazd. ALAMEDA: Seeing nobody is grabbing the mike, we have no questions at this time. You maybe seated. Thank you, Mr. Williams. All right, can we do a voice motion? DARROW: Yes. Just one brief, I forgot to add that the Deputy Director asked me to make one minor change to Item No. 3 on page 2, this was for the off-street parking background; and I'll just bring that to your attention before we go into that vote. It's under, on page 2, hotels and lodges, it says the recommended ratio is 1.25 stalls per guest. We're going to add in the word "room" right after "guest." Just a minor change but I wanted to bring that to your attention. Thank you. ALAMEDA: Mr. Kurokawa? KUROKAWA: I have one more correction that I noticed on this last, let's see, I've got to find it. ALAMEDA: Okay. While Mr. Kurokawa is finding that KUROKAWA: I've found it. ALAMEDA: Oh, go ahead. 7 KUROKAWA: Yeah, this is on the Chapter 25 amendment relating to this last planned unit development, cluster plan development. On page 2, the second pazagraph, it actually should read, instead of the Council should retain the current administrative control, I'm sure it is intended to be the Planning Department or, you know, the executive branch should retain the cunent administrative control, rather than the Council. ALAMEDA: That's good. Do we have an SIRACUSA: So how does that read? ALAMEDA: Again, Mr. Kurokawa. SIRACUSA: You said the administration should retain the control? KUROKAWA: Yeah, yeah. ALAMEDA: Anybody has questions of that? Phyllis? FUJIMOTO: Thank you Commissioners. Yes, regarding that sentence, I read that; and I found it rather odd. But that's how the Director had instructed me to write it. It could be an error. Thanks. ALAMEDA: So, FUJMOTO: Okay, also, we have another change. For the subdivision, page 2, this is like the 3`d paragraph, there is a missing word "is." The sentence should read, "The subdivision process is also a point of which the conditions of the zoning ordinance applicable to the property are reviewed for compliance, such as affordable housing." So it's just missing one word; and we'll add it in. ALAMEDA: Okay. So what aze the, can you review the corrections again, I mean, except the last one, just the first two. DARROW: Okay, first two is under Agenda Item No. 3, page 2, under hotels and lodges on the first sentence, we're going to add in the word "room" next to "guest," so it would be "guest room." And then, additionally, there is still a question, we should maybe wait till we make a correction regarding whether the last sentence should be Council or Planning Depaztment. The Planning Director may have specifically put in the word "Council," so that the County Council would keep the current administrative process, rather than changing it. Or it could be that it was in error and it could be the "Planning Department." ALAMEDA: Yeah, I think that's a big one. So if you could clarify it for us for the next meeting. DARROW: Sure. ALAMEDA: Thank you. All right, all those in favor of continuing this agenda item to the next meeting say aye. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 31, 2007 A regularly advertised hearing on the COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25 RELATING TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND CLUSTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT was called to order at 2:19 p.m. at the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman William Graham presiding. PRESENT: C. Kimo Alameda ABSENT & EXCUSED: Takashi Domingo William Graham Shelly Ogata Andrew Iwashita Rene' Siracusa Alvin Rho Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 27 people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL Continuation of Public Hearing on an amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), as amended, relating to Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and Cluster Plan Development (C.P.D.) applications. The proposed amendment would 1) require P.U.D applications consisting of seven or more lots to be processed in the same manner as a change of zone in accordance with Hawaii County Code Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Sections 25- 2-42 and 25-2-43; and 2) require C.P.D. applications to be processed as prescribed for a subdivision application under Chapter 23 (Subdivisions), "Application for Subdivision of Seven or More Lots." GRAHAM: And our Agenda Item No. 8, also initiated by the County Council, is continuation of a public hearing on an amendment to the Zoning Code, Chapter 25, relating to Planned Unit Development and Cluster Plan Development applications. And it would require such applications for seven or more lots be processed in the same manner as a change of zone, and that's for the P.U.D. applications, and for the Cluster Plan Development applications to be processed as prescribed for a subdivision application under Chapter 23. Mr. Yuen gave us a presentation already on this, so I think we can forego that. I don't have any public testifiers still. So do we have any comments or discussions by the Commissioners? Then I think we can accept a motion. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I move that an unfavorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on their proposed amendment to Chapter 25 regarding the approval of P.U.D.s 1 r based on, well, their lack of expertise and the potential undesired effect of discouraging people from using the P.U.D. as a solution. GRAHAM: Thank you for the motion. Do we have a second? WOODWARD: Second. GRAHAM: Seconded by Commissioner Woodward. Any discussion on the motion? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: I certainly, I'm going to vote in favor of the motion, but for the reason I stated. GRAHAM: All right. That's a ditto from before. Commissioner Rho, did you have something? RHO: My understanding is No. 7 which we just dealt with -just talking off the cuff -but my understanding is legally the Council doesn't have any control or right to taking over the duties of the Director in Item 7. That's my understanding. GRAHAM: I think the Planning Director kind of reiterated that. RHO: Right. In No. 8 my understanding is that the Director talked about the Council could in fact adopt their change, and they would be in compliance with the law. Is that not correct? YUEN: Yes, that's correct. The Planned Unit Development has an option exist in the Zoning Code because of an ordinance that put it there. And the ordinance now says that the Planning Director makes a final decision on Planned Unit Developments. But if the Council wants to change that so that the Council makes the final decision on a Planned Unit Development, it can do that. Our recommendation is that's not a good idea, but they certainly have the power to make that change. RHO: Right, so that if they actually make the change, would it not put your Department in a bind in terms of manpower and additional workload, etc.? YUEN: If they made the change that was proposed, it would somewhat increase the workload in the Department, simply because, the Department would still have to review the PUD. We would end up bringing the PUD here at the Planning Commission and having a presentation, which involves a certain amount of work, as you know; we'd have a recommendation, we'd have a hearing. And so that would be on agenda. Then it would go to the Council. And again we would, you know, we would do all the same work we do now, but we would also make a presentation to the Council, and the Council would end up making a final decision. So, yes, there would be an increase in the workload to the Department just from the change in process. RHO: So just to share my thoughts, in No. 7, I mean I don't have any problem with that because, you know, I suppose there is a legal basis which will prevent them 2 l from actually adopting their change. But on No. 8, they can actually adopt it and proceed. And what I think the Planning Deparhnent is not doing is providing an alternative to what they're at least thinking about doing. I don't know whether I'm making sense, but if you combine with what I just said with what Commissioner Iwashita says -and I'm not saying that I'm in favor of his entire thoughts about planning and development -but you know there is this community pressure to change, and I guess the Council is reacting to that. And if the Planning Department doesn't come up with an alternative solution, or convince the Council that what we are doing presently is the best way, and the public convincing them that this is the best way, we are going to have, I'm afraid, No. 8 adopted by the Council, which you know I guess everybody on this table agrees that we don't want to happen. But at the same time, we don't want it to happen, but we propose no solution whether political or whatever to assist the Council and getting them to think in a different way. That's my whole thrust. Thanks. GRAHAM: Thank you for those thoughts. They seem very clear. Do you have any comment, Mr. Yuen? YUEN: I actually think that, I'm sure that there is more concern about subdivisions actually than Planned Unit Developments; and what you raised, it's always a] [ question when there is a proposal that may have some things wrong with it; do you simply oppose it, or do you present an alternative? In many cases, as you see, we presented alternatives. I don't have a great alternative, particularly with respect to P.U.D.s because I think that the process is basically sound. The P.U.D., you are not making a basic change in the use of the property by granting a P.U.D. And my feeling is that if the Council fully reviews it, they will see that the P.U.D. process is not currently the problem. I did mention in the Recommendation, although we did not do a bill to this effect, that there is one aspect of the P.U.D. that I think is questionable; and that is the increase in height limits, possible for the Director to do under a P.U.D. That, I think, is a kind of thing that would concern and affect a lot of people, and I would have no problem if the Council took that out of the P.U.D. power. But we did not do a specific bill on that. And basically as far as the overall thrust of the bill, because it was a bill that took this and made it a matter that would be processed in front of the Council like a rezoning, we did oppose that. GRAHAM: All right. Any further comments? Oh, there is Jeff. I thought you disappeared. Would you take a roll call vote on that motion by Commissioner Watanabe? DARROW: Sure. The motion before us is to send an unfavorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council for the County Council initiated amendment to Chapter 25 regarding P.U.Ds and C.P.D.s, and also to Chapter 23. With that, I'll take the roll. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? 3 ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, six to zero. GRAHAM: Thank you, Jeff. The discussion ended at 2:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer West Hawaii Secretary 4 BRCCInitiatedPiIDCPD-0ao-7/27/07 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND AND RECOMMENDATION INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25 The County Council has initiated an amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), as amended, relating to Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and Cluster Plan Development (C.P.D.) applications. The proposed amendment would 1) require P.U.D. applications consisting of seven or more lots to be processed in the same manner as a change of zone in accordance with Hawau County Code Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Sections 25- 2-42 and 25-2-43; and 2) require C.P.D. applications to be processed as prescribed for a subdivision application under Chapter 23 (Subdivisions), "Application for Subdivision of Seven or More Lots." BACKGROUND The County Council has referred a proposed amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) related to P.U.D.'s and C.P.D.'s to the Planning Director and Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. The proposed bill would give the council final authority over the approval of planned unit developments (P.U.D.'s) and cluster plan developments (C.P.D.'s). The council finds that developments proposed in a pazticulaz azea should be assessed considering a number of factors, including how much public infrastructure is challenged by recent or anticipated growth in the area. The council also finds that conditions of approval should be imposed to accommodate the impacts of development of planned unit and cluster plan developmers which consist of seven or more lots in order to manage growth and coordinate the delivery of government services in the County. The proposed bill is attached as Exhibit 1. RECObINIENDATION The Planning Director gives an unfavorable recommendation on the bill to grant the council the final authority to approve P.U.D.'s and C.P.D.'s. Currently, the Planning Director has the authority to approve both P.U.D.'s and C.P.D.'s. The process requires notice to neighboring properties and published notice. A P.U.D. or C.P.D. allows the developer to vary from the -1- Subdivision Code standards to achieve a more planned development. Only uses permitted on the property are allowed, and the development may result in different lot sizes, but within the overall density allowed. For example, in aSingle-Family Residential 10,000 squaze feet (RS-10) district, a developer with a 200,000 squaze foot lot can create 201ots, but instead of creating 10,000 square-foot lots, the developer may create all lots 7,500 square feet in size, leaving a 50,000 squaze-foot lot for a pazk or other open space. By applying for a P.U.D., the developer maybe able to obtain a slight increase in the number of lots because the street acreage is not deducted. However, this is offset by the fact that ohana dwellings are not allowed in a P.U.D. The council should retain the current administrative control over P.U.D.'s and C.P.D.'s. These applications rarely involve issues of overall policy or general public concern. Generally, P.U.D.'s and C.P.D.'s contain alternative designs that aze functionally equivalent to or better than the normal requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision codes and aze an important tool that allows some flexibility and creativity in the design of subdivisions. To implement the concept of urban design in the community development plan process, it may be necessary to increase the use of P.U.D.'s or include more flexibility into the Zoning Code to not utilize a P.U.D. If P.U.D.'s and C.P.D.'s must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the council with anopen-ended possibility of various conditions being attached, the time frame for approval will inevitably be much longer than under the current practice. Worse yet, the developer will not be aware of the conditions ultimately placed on them. The result will be that developers will not apply for P.U.D.'s and C.P.D.'s and apply for a subdivision according to code or try to achieve the same result by applying for a series of variances. If the council wants to limit the Planning Director's range of discretion in P.U.D.'s, there is one aspect of the current code that allows the Planning Director an unusual amount of discretion: the director can allow buildings up to 75 feet in height in a P.U.D., regardless of the height limit in the zoning district. (The height limit is 35 feet in asingle-family residential zone and 45 feet in a resort or multiple-family residential zoned district). The Planning Director would have no objections to removing this provision from the Zoning Code covering P.U.D.'s. For the reasons noted above, the Planning Director recommends that the Planning Commission send an unfavorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council. -2- ,~sv o~ 4~ ~Ls C®UI®iT~' ®F I-IA~JAI`I - STt~°I'E ®F HA~UAI`I ~.~.:.ot.~y BILL NO. ®RDINAIOTCE I~IO. AN ORDIlVANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25, HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EBITION, AS AMENDED) RELATING TO ZONIAIG_ BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII SECTION 1. The county administers and enforces various regulations to control land use, ineludmg the subdivision code and zoning code_ These regulations specify what developers can and cannot do in the interest of the public's heahh, safety, or welfare. The coon€y council finds that developments proposed in a particular area should be assessed considering a number of factors, including how much public infrastructure is challenged by recent or anticipated growth in the area. The county council Bends that conditions of approval should be imposed to accommodate the impacts of development of planned unit and chlster plan developments which consist of seven or more lots, in order to manage growth and coordinate the delivery of g6VeIFlnlent SerVICeS In the COUrIty. SECTION 2. Chapter 25, article 6, division I, section 25-6-4, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 edition, as amended), is amended to read as follows: "Section 25-6-4. l~iotiee of action on Y.U.D, soa>ieation. (a} Upon acceptance of a P.U.D. application consistine of six or fewer lots. the director .shall fxx a date for the director's action on the application. Within ten days alter receiving notice of such date, the applicanA shall serve notice of the application on surrounding owners and lessees of record, as provided by section 25-2-4. The applicant shall also serve notice on owners and lessees of record of interests in other properties which the director may find to be directly affected by the P.U.D. permit sought. The applicant shall also post a sign for public notification on the property as provided by section 25-2-12. (b) Por P U_D. applications consisting of six or fewer lots, the[The} director shall publish rmtice of the date of the groposed decision by the director and the date by which written eommerrts must be received by the director in at least riuo newspapers of general circulation in the County, at least ten days grior to the director's proposed decision_ fc) Within sixty cfays of ac~tanee of a P.U_D. application consisting of seven or more Iots, the director shall refer the P.U.D. application to the commission and the council for atroroval. which approval may be subiect to conditions, in accordance with section 25-6-6 "Actions on P.U.B. permit applications." • fdl The applicant shall post a sign for public notification on the property as provided by section 25-Z-I2." EXHIBIT i SECTIQN 3. Chapter 25, article 6, division 1, section 25-6-6, Ilawai`i County Code 1483 (2005 edition, as amended), is amended to read as follows: "Section 25-6-6. Actions l~-direetexl on P.U.D. permit applicafions. (a} Except as provided in section 25-6-5, the director shall, within sixty days after acceptance of a P.U.D. permit application consisting of six or fewer lots, deny the apglication or approve it subject to conditions pursuant to subsection 25-6-6(e) below, or within sixty days after acceptance of a P.U.D_pernut application consisting of seven or mare lots, refer the application to the commission and the council for approval pursuant to subsection 25-6-6(d below. (b) The conditions imposed by the director for a P.U.D. eonsistine of six or fewer Iots or by the council for a P.U.D. consisti~ of seven or more lots, shall bear a reasonable relationship to the P.U.D. permit issued, and to the approved uses, plans, and variances of district standards ~~~a - :r:c.::., . The conditions may include, but not be limited to the following: (1} Commencement and completion time frame for the project; (2) Boundary and density changes approved in the project; (3) Uses that are prohibited or limited; (4) Specifications for the minimum development standards; (5} Specifcations for street improvement and dedication; (6) Utilities to be famished; and (7} The extent and limitations upon the variances permitted. (c} P.U.D. Permit Application-for Six or Fewer Lots. The director may, within the sixty-day period after acceptance of a P.U.D. permit application, grant a partial approval of the request where all plans and drawings have not been subntted with the original application. Provided, however, that no building permit shall be issued, nor shall any construction on the property commence until the drawings have been reviewed and approved by the director and full P.U.D. permit approval has been issued for the portion of development comprising the proposed construction. [(d}T(2} When plans and drawings are submitted after a parka] approval of a P.U.D. permit application has been issued under subsection (c}(l~ above with a request far further partial approval or full approval, the director shall review the drawings and shall either approve or deny the request within thirty days from the date that the drawings are f led by the applicant. In the event of a denial of such request, the applicant may resubmit a revised request for further partial or full P.U.D. permit approval of the application and in accordance with this subsection. [(2}]~3} if the director fails to act upon a P.U.D. permit apglication within the prescribed sixty-day period as required by subsection (a) above, the application shall be considered as having been denied and the director shall immediately inform the applicant of such denial. If the director fails to act upon f led plans and drawings within the thirty-day period required by subsection [(d)J c 2 above, the plans ° shall be considered as having been approved and a full P.U.D, permit issued. 2 (d) P.U.D. Permit Application for Seven or More Lots. (1 } In addition to compliance with all other requirements of this chapter, anv application for a P.U.D. consisting of seven or more tots shall be processed in the same manner as a zone change in accordance with Hawaii County Code Chapter 25, Zoning, sections ZS-2-42 "Amendments initiated bgproperty~ owners and other persons" and 25-2-43 "Amendments initiated by the council and director." The director shall not grant partial or full approval of a P.U.D. permit without prior approval of the councih which approval shat} be set forth within a zoning ordinance and may be subiect to certain conditions. If the council disapproves the P.U.D. application, the director shat} not grant partia} or full approval of the P.U.D. permit as submitted and shall state the reasons for disapproval in writing to the applicant. (2) Within any ordinance for a P.U.D. of seven or more lots, the council may impose conditions on the applicant's use of the property subject to the P.U.D. permit provided that the counci} finds that the conditions are: (A] Necessary to prevent ciaeumstanees which may be adverse to the public heath, safety and we}fare; or (B] ReasanabIy cottceived to fulfill needs directly emanating from the }and use proposed with respeeEto: (i~Proteetion ofthe public from the potentially de}eterious effects of the proposed use, or (ii] FulfiIIment of the need for public service demands created by the proposed use. j3] Changes or alterations of conditions of anv ordinance for a F.U.D. of seven or more tots shall be Qrocessed in the same manner as a zone change. unless the council authoaizes the changes or alterations to be made by the director. A request for any change ar alteration of conditions shall be submitted in writing to the director and referred to the commission and the council for approval. The request shall be accompanied b rya filing fee of $250. (4] Failure to fulfil ar?y conditions of the P.U.D. permit approval within the specified time limitations, or any extensions thereto. may be erounds for the enactment of an ordinance causing any partial or final approval of the P.U.D. permit to expire and be of no further force or effete " SECTION 4. Chapter 25, article 6, division },section 25-6-14, Ilawai`i County Code 1983 (2065 edition, as amended), is amended to read as foI}ows: "Section 25-6-I4. Time extensions and amendments. (a} For a P.U.D. of six or fewer lots EAjany request for a time extension or an amendment to a P.U.D. permit or to the conditions of a F.U.D. permit may be granted by the director upon fmding that no change has occurred in relation to the property since the P.U.D. permit was issued or that the approval is still valid with respect to any changed conditions. (h} 1"or a P.U.D. of six or fewer Tots, fT]the director shall act on any request for a time extension or amendment within forty-five days after the receipt of the request. In granting any time extension or amendment, the director may impose additiona] conditions to meet the intent of the P.U.D. permit." 3 SECTION 5. Chapter Z5, article 6, division I, section 25-6-I5, Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 edition, as amended}, is amended to read as follows: "Section 25-6-25. Appeals. (a) If the director denies a P.IJ.D_ permit for six or fewer Iots, such decision is final except that, within thirty days after the date of the written decision, the applicant may appeal such action to the board of appeals, pursuant to the rules of practice and procedure of the board of appeals. (b) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the director in the issuance of a P.U.D. permit decision for six or fewer lots may appeal the director's action to the boazd of appeals, in accordance with this chapter, within thirty days after the date of the director's written decision. SECTION 6. Chapter 25, article 6, division 2, section 25-6-22, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 edition, as amended), is amended to read as follows: "Section 25-6-22. Application for C.P.D. (a) An application for a C.P.D. permit shall be on a form grescn-bed by the director and shall be accompanied by a filing and processing fee as set forth under chapter 23, the subdivision control code. (b} The procedure for processing an application for a C.P.D. permit shall be the same as that prescribed for a subdivision application under chapter 23, the subdivision control code, includint!, but not Limited to, subsection 23-58(el "Application for Subdivision of Seven or More Lots." (c} The applicant shall post a sign for public notification on the property as provided by section 25-2-12." SECTION 7. Chapter 25, article 6, division 2, section 25-6-26, Hawaii County Code I983 (20(}5 edition, as amended), is amended to read as follows: "Section 25-6-26. Appeal of a C.P.D. decision. Within thirty days after the date of the director's written decision regarding a C.P.D. for six or fewer Lots, any person aggrieved by the decision may appeal the director's action to the board of appeals in accordance with this chapter: ' SECTION 8. Severability. If any provision of this ardinance, or the application then:of to any person or circumstance, is held inwhlid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, anti to this end; the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. SECTION 9. Material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New material is underscored. In printing this ordinance, the brackets, bracketed material, and underscoring need not be irueluded_ 4 SECTION 10. This ordinance shat] take effect upon approval. INTRODUCED BY: COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII Hawaii Date of Introduction: Date of I st Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Effective Date: 5