Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 045 09/05/2007 2006-2008 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: September 5, 2007 Re: Comm. No. 633 /Bill No. 164 PLACE: Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort and Spa 78-128 Ehukai Street Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 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. 164, reports as follows: Bill No. 164, transmitted via Communication No. 633 from Mayor Harry Kim, dated August 20, 2007, presents an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 97-56, which reclassified lands from Agricultural - 5 Acre (A-Sa) to Single Family Residential - 10,000 Square Feet (RS-10) at Kalaoa 40', North Kona, Hawaii, covered by Tax Map Key 7-3-028:082 - 102 (formerly 7-3- 010:037). Bill No. 164 seeks to amend Condition D (Time to Secure Final Subdivision Approval) of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 97-56 and requests a 5-year extension of time to comply with the provisions of Condition D, which states: "D. Final Subdivision Approval of the proposed residential subdivision within the subject property shall be secured from the Planning Director within five (5) years from the effective date of this ordinance." Communication No. 633 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 20, 2007. The Commission concurred with the Planning Director's reasons for recommending favorable consideration of the request and transmits the following findings and recommendations: 1. The Hawaii County Council approved Change of Zone Ordinance No. 97-56 on April 7, 1997. 2. Ordinance No. 97-56 rezoned approximately 10.283 acres of land from an Agricultural 5 acre (A-Sa) to a Single Family Residential 10,000 squaze foot (RS-10) district. 3. The property is located on the makai side of Mamalahoa Highway, between Kona Coastview (Nana Street) and Kona Palisades (Holoholo Street) Subdivisions, at Kalaoa 40', North Kona, Hawaii. 4. Applicant is in the process of subdividing and developing a total of thirty-four (34) residential lots. Increment 1, consisting of twenty (20) lots has been completed. PC Report No. 45 Communication 633 Bill 164 Page 2 of 4 Increment 2 is pending until the required water commitments from the Department of Water Supply for the remaining lots are obtained. 5. The roadway for Increment 2 has been graded to subgrade and lot pads have also been graded and applicant will commence construction once water commitments have been secured. The Planning Director recommended favorably on the request to amend Condition D of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 97-56 based upon the following: • The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, applicant's successors and assigns, and that are not the result or their fault or negligence. • Approval of the request to amend Condition D would not be contrary to the General Plan nor the original reasons for granting of the Change of Zone. • Since original approval of the change of zone request, the General Plan has been amended and the LUPAG Map revised from Urban Expansion to Low Density Urban in the area. • The original request to allow single family residential uses continues to be consistent with the General Plan for this area. At the September 5, 2007 Committee on Planning meeting, there were no statements received from the public. Gary Ashikawa, applicant's representative gave a brief update on the status of the project and request for extension. Mr. Ashikawa noted that Phase I consisting of twenty lots has been completed, however Phase II is held up because they still need to secure water units. He also noted that the Department of Water Supply will not review their plans for Phase II until they have secured the water units. Committee Chair Pilago expressed his concern that after applicant agreed to comply with the affordable housing condition on final subdivision approval of Increment I (agreeing to sell three lots at 140% median), applicant was thereafter released from the agreement and is now being required to provide the three affordable lots upon completion of Phase II. Committee Chair Pilago was concerned that if applicant did not obtain the necessary water units for Increment II, the 3 affordable lots will be lost in the county affordable housing inventory. Director Yuen explained that the affordable housing condition was reworded to its current form to conform to current language and generally does not substantively change the requirement. It provides that compliance be approved by the Administrator of the housing office rather than by the agency and is consistent with what has been done in other rezoning ordinances. Committee Chair Pilago stated his concern is that on February 3, 2005 3 affordable housing lots for increment I was approved and then seven months later, on September 26, 2005, the County released applicant from the affordable housing on completion of Increment I, transferring the requirement over to increment II. Mr. Pilago said we now find that increment II is in jeopardy PC Report No. 45 Communication 633 Bill 164 Page 3 of 4 because it does not have the necessary water units and if Increment II is not completed, no affordable housing requirement will apply to this application. Director Yuen noted he understood the issue of the affordable housing requirement and stated it is a valid point. He explained that the 3 units were intended to cover the entire project of 34 lots and the 10% requirement was translated to 3 units. Mr. Yuen stated that the point made that if there is no second increment there will not be an affordable requirement is accepted as criticism as to what happened. Council Member Jacobson stated he could not understand why approvals were given to a project in the first place 10 yeazs ago, when it had inadequate water units. He stated it's somewhat odious that if the Council wants the affordable housing this request has to be approved. Mr. Jacobson's concerns were that approval without water units in the first place was wrong and to be placed in a position that we're not going to get affordable housing on this at all without approving a time extension for the second phase is also utterly wrong. Council Member Ford's concern was how applicant intended to secure the necessary water units. Mr. Ashikawa stated they aze now working with Wainani 42 LLC, developers of the Wainani project in the Kalaoa area and they have some water units they won't need for their project. These aze the units applicant is counting on for Phase II of their project. Director Yuen explained with regazd to the 2004 agreement for 3 affordable units, at that time the affordable housing ordinance did permit a developer in this situation to come to the council and essentially buy out of the affordable housing requirement for payment of $4,720 for each affordable unit. Mr. Yuen noted that virtually all developers chose this in lieu option and bought their way out, the prior wuncil voting to allow buying out "in lieu." Council Chair Hoffmann noted that the amendment Mr. Pilago is suggesting would return the wording of condition K to its original wording and would be a little bit more appropriate under these conditions. Council Member Yagong stated in order to answer the question as to why this project was approved without having the water commitments one would need to look at the time frame of things back in 1997 when we were dying for any kind of projects to happen. He said it's just one of those things which came down to economic development. There was very little happening at that point in time and affordable housing percentages were changed to try to stimulate these kinds of developments. Mr. Yagong noted that while everyone else was opting out by paying in- lieu fees, this applicant chose to do affordable housing and should be credited for that. Mr. Yagong concluded he preferred not to penalize the applicant and move forward with applicant's time extension with the hope that all these requirements will be adhered to once the water units were obtained. Council Chair Hoffmann noted that with regard to obtaining water commitments for Increment II, there are specific conditions that state improvements would include but not be limited to additional source development and inquired how applicant would comply with this requirement. Applicant stated that due to the size of their project they are not physically constructing water PC Report No. 45 Communication 633 Bill 164 Page 4 of 4 source improvements on their own but aze complying through a source agreement that has already been completed. Mr. Ashikawa explained that potential water units are from a project known as the Haseco Water Agreement from which Wainani 42 has secured water units for their project. He stated the excess water units from the Haseco Water Agreement, are the water units applicant plans to use for Increment II. Council Member Higa expressed that it sounded like applicant fully intends to develop all 34 lots. Based on concerns members have expressed about not having any affordable housing lots if applicant is unable to obtain the necessary water units, Mr. Higa suggested that applicant set aside the three affordable lots from Increment I. In that way the council would be assured that if applicant did not get the necessary water commitments, the county would not lose out on three affordable lots. Applicant stated that could not be done because all lots in Increment I have been sold. Committee Chair Pilago stated that the application submitted in 1997 was part and parcel to three affordable lots. The applicant complied with affordable housing requirement in February 2005 when he signed the agreement with the County, agreeing to give 3 affordable lots in Increment I at 140% median. Mr. Pilago noted that for some reason the County, in September 2005, released applicant from the affordable housing requirement such that if Increment II did not have enough water, the applicant still would not be required to provide the three affordable lots. A motion to amend Bill 164 as contained in a September 5, 2007 letter distributed to the members was approved. The amendment reestablishes the old language of Condition K (contained in the original ordinance) and also amends Condition O which changes the word "may" to "shall" and corrects "it" to "its". Your Committee on Planning is in accord with the purpose and intent of Bill No. 164, as amended to Draft 2, and recommends it pass first reading. and _ AYES NOES A&E EX RESjleCtflllly SU111I1ntIC(I, FORD x HIGA X COIvIMITTEE ON PLANNING HOFFMANN X II{EDA X JACOB50N X ' NAEOLE X K ANGEL PILA ,CHAIR PII.AGO X YAGONG X PC REPORT NO. 45 YosxrnzoTO x ADOPTEn: ~€P 1 9 2001