Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 086 05/19/2008 2006-2008 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: May 19, 2008 Re: Comm. 1191/Bill 292 PLACE: Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort and Spa 78-128 Ehukai Street Kailua-Kona, Hawaii TIME: 2:30 p.m. Council Chair and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Bill 292, reports as follows: Bill 292, transmitted via Communication 1191 from Mayor Harry Kim, dated April 21, 2008, presents an amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 96-36 (Condition C) by HILO HILLSIDE CORPORATION, which rezoned 153.479 acres of land from an Agricultural 20-acre (A-20-a), Agricultural 10-acre (A- I Oa) and Agricultural 3-acre (A-3a) to a Residential and Agricultural I-acre (RA-1a) zoned district. The property is located along the south side of the Puainako Street Extension, southwest of the Sunrise Estates Subdivision, Increment I, Kukuau I", South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-4-8: portion 14 and 26. The effective date of Ordinance No. 93-36 was April 23, 1993. The applicant is requesting additional time to comply with Condition C of the ordinance, which required that Final Subdivision Approval be secured within two years from receipt of Tentative Subdivision Approval. March 23, 1995 was the effective date of the revised Tentative Subdivision Approval. The applicant states the request for additional time to comply with Condition C is due to the County's realignment, acquisition and construction of the Puainako Street Extension through the property, requiring revision of the final plat map conforming to the new road right-of-way. As the result of discussions in 2004 between the applicant and State and County officials regarding condemnation of approximately three acres fronting the drainage easement along the new Puainako Street Extension, applicant agreed to the condemnation. A two-year administrative time extension was granted by the Planning Director from February 18, 2004 until February 16, 2006 to comply with Condition C. On January 23, 2008, the applicant submitted the current request for a five-year extension of time to comply with condition C. PC Report No. 86 Communication 1191 Bill 292 Page 2 of 4 The Planning Commission concurs with the Planning Director's reasons for recommending favorable consideration of applicant's extension request and notes the following: • The applicant has made good faith efforts in complying with Conditions of Ordinance No. 93-36; • Construction of the Puainako Street Extension and related drainage easement improvements through the project site required numerous revisions of the final plat map; • The County has completed construction of Mohouli Street to Ainako Street and a second set of construction drawings to accommodate the future extensions of Kupulau Road and Kawailani Street (grading of the roadways) is pending; • Payments for design and installation of traffic signals at Kukuau Street and Komohana Street intersection as well as for the portion of Mohouli Street extension are still pending; • Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or Zoning Code, nor contrary to the original reasons for granting the change of zone; • The project area is not classified under the ALISH designation, and the Land Study Bureau's Productivity Rating for soils in the area is "D" (Poor), or "E" (Very Poor). At the May 6, 2008, Committee on Planning meeting, no members of the public presented testimony on this matter. As the project area is located in Councilmember Ikeda's district, Mr. Ikeda requested postponement because more information was needed and specifically he requested that a map showing the layout of the project be provided to the Council prior to the next meeting. Councilmember Jacobson expressed support for the postponement request and stated he would also like to obtain clarification regarding the disposition of money items which were referred to in the transcript. Planning Director Yuen briefly explained that delays in the proposed project were in part due to changes that have occurred since the time of the zoning ordinance in 1993. Notably, that the Puainako Street extension did not exist in 1993 and therefore access to the proposed subdivision would have had to have been through an extension to Kupulau Street and ultimately out to Komohana Street. Council Chair Hoffmann expressed support of the postponement and referenced concerns regarding amounts based on 1993 and 1995 dollars and that at current 2008 rates, the amount of money needed for the same improvements would obviously be more, especially if extended another five years. A motion to postpone this matter to the May 19, 2008 Committee on Planning meeting was duly approved. At the May 19, 2008, Committee on Planning meeting, no public testimony was presented on this matter. Councilmember Ikeda withdrew Communication 1191.1 PC Report No. 86 Communication 1191 Bill 292 Page 3 of 4 requesting further postponement and applicant representative, James Lee, presented a brief summary explaining the reasons for project delays. Councilmember Ikeda stated that he met with Mr. Lee and discussed his concerns regarding having only one egress and one ingress to the subdivision. Mr. Ikeda stated they mutually agreed to the amendment proposed in Communication 1191.2 which provides that the portion of Kupulau Street adjacent to Puainako Street and Roadway Lot 145 be constructed to County dedicable standards and serve as additional egress/ingress for the subdivision. Director Yuen stated that the roadway is a portion of a road which is included in the General Plan as a long-term regional road that would serve more than the proposed subdivision alone. Therefore, he felt that it would also be appropriate and useful to include the in-lieu fair share credit provision within the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Higa's concern was whether or not reference to Lot 144 is to be included in the proposed amendment and that he wanted to be certain as to what the dedicable standards would consist of. Mr. Lee stated that the dedicable standard is an eighty-foot right-of-way and a three box culvert bridge. Mr. Higa also expressed concerns about the possible impact upon traffic flow from Puainako in or out of the proposed subdivision and problems entering and exiting the subdivision onto Puainako Street via two entrances on Puainako Street located within a short span of each other. Although Mr. Higa's position was that until the Kupulau Extension is completed, the two entrances should not be opened, he supported the proposal in theory. Councilmember Jacobson expressed concerns whether any drainage problems exist on the property and noted that it was clearly obvious that failure to meet the Final Subdivision Approval deadline was through no fault of the applicant. With regard to any drainage issues, Mr. Lee explained they were building a large basin at the top of the subdivision and a large drainage channel through their entire project and would comply with any other requirements the County determines is necessary with respect to drainage. Director Yuen stated that the idea is that the developer would build Kupulau Street from Puainako Street to their property line and suggested the proposed amendment reflect, in part, as follows: "the portion of Kupulau Street from Puainako Street to the southern property line shall be constructed to county dedicable standards....." Councilmember Ford suggested the amendment also include reference to the lot number of the lot which is located within the Sunrise Estates subdivision and confirmed with Mr. Lee that a drainage plan does exist for the project. Councilmember Yagong's concern was regarding flooding and whether or not the project would add to the extreme flooding conditions experienced in East Hawaii during 100-year storms and whether adequate drainage systems are in place to handle that. Mr. Yagong also expressed an interest in determining where the water, which is not disposed of on-site, is being diverted and whether or not the Council's approval of applicant's extension request would have any bearing on the state condemnation proceedings. Director Yuen explained that the right-of-way for Puainako Street has been PC Report No. 86 Communication 1191 Bill 292 Page 4 of 4 established and was acquired by the County. The state wanted an additional right-of-way for drainage and chose to secure that right-of-way by fee transfer as opposed to an easement. Had the state's right-of-way been obtained through an easement on applicant's property it would have been relatively simple to accomplish. However, the state having elected the fee process, required the subdivision maps to be redone and therefore time was further expended throughout that process. Mr. Yuen stated that apparently the State is now considering or likely to agree to obtain the right-of-way through an easement. Your Committee on Planning is in accord with the purpose and intent of Bill 292, as amended to Draft 2, and recommends it pass first reading. and AYES NOES A&E EX Respectfully submitted, FORD X HIGH X COMMITTEE ON PLANNING HOFFMANN X IKEDA X JACOBSON X NAEOLE X K. ANGEL PILA , CHAIR PILAGO X YAGONG X PC REPORT NO. 86 YOSHIMOTO X ADOPTED: JUN 0 3 2008