The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutREP PC 026 04/07/2009 2008-2010 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: April 7, 2009 Re: Comm. 218/Bill No. 56 PLACE: Councilroom Ben Franklin Bldg, 2"d Floor 333 Kilauea Avenue Hilo, Hawaii TIME: 8:45 a.m. Council Chair and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Bill No. 56, reports as follows: Bill No. 56, transmitted via Communication No. 218 from Mayor William P. Kenoi, dated March 23, 2009, presents a Time Extension Request by GHC Family Limited Partnership, at Waidkea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-2-34:85 and 93. Bill No. 56 seeks to amend Condition B (construction time requirement) and Condition D (roadway improvements) of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 00-31, which rezoned 67,500 square feet of land from a Single-Family Residential - 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to a Neighborhood Commercial - 20,000 square feet (CN-20). The property is located between Manono Street and Hinano Street and across from Big Island Candies, Waidkea Houselots, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii. Communication No. 218 reports that the Hawaii County Planning Commission, as required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6-4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter, considered the above request at its meeting on March 6, 2009. The Commission concurred with the Planning Director's reasons for recommending favorable consideration of the request. Communication No. 218 transmits the following findings and recommendations: Upon review of the request, the Planning Director recommends that a favorable recommendation to amend Condition B (Construction Time Requirement) and Condition D (Roadway Improvements) of Ordinance No. 00-31 be forwarded to the County Council. This favorable recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The applicant requests an extension of time to Condition B (Construction Time Requirement) and Condition D (Roadway Improvements) of Ordinance Nos. 00-31. Condition B states: "Construction of the proposed development and related improvements shall be completed within five (5) years from the effective date of this ordinance. This time period shall include securing Final Consolidation Approval and Final Plan Approval from the Planning Director for the commercial development. Plans shall identify structures, fire protection measures, landscaping and maintenance PC Report 26 Communication 218 Bill 56 plan, paved and striped parking stalls and driveway and other improvements associated with the proposed uses. Plans shall include landscaping along property boundaries for the purpose of mitigating any potential adverse noise and visual impacts to surrounding properties. Plans shall also indicate a 5-foot future road widening setback along the properties' Manono Street frontage." Condition D reads as follows: "The applicants shall construct the following roadway improvements along the subject property's Manono Street frontage, meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works: 1. A half-section of roadway improvements on the east side of Manono Street consisting of a 21-foot wide A. C. pavement with concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk and drainage improvements within the future road widening setback area established as one-half the distance between the existing right-of-way and 60 feet. 2. A half-section of roadway improvements on the west side of Hinano Street consisting of a 16-Foot wide A.C. pavement with concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk and drainage improvements in the area established as one-half the distance between the existing right-of-way and 50[-]feet. 3. If required, installation of street lights, signs, and traffic markings meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works, Traffic Division. All roadway improvements to Manono Street and Hinano Street shall be completed within five (5) years from the effective date of the change of zone ordinance or in conjunction with the County's road widening improvements, which ever occurs first." To date, the applicant has expended considerable funds for plans and extensive onsite preparation work. The properties have been graded and large trees, trash and miscellaneous debris have been removed. Additionally, the applicant is preparing a consolidation application to consolidate TMK Nos. 2-2-34: 84, 85 & 93. The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns, and that are not the result or their fault or negligence. As a result of the poor economy, the applicant has been exploring the possibility of leasing the land to one main tenant who will carry out the initial vision to develop a multi-use commercial building. During contract negotiations, a sticking point has been the April 13, 2010, deadline. All interested parties are unwilling to take on the project unless they are assured that another time extension is granted. This will allow for the interested parties to receive necessary time to submit plan approvals, obtain applicable building permits and start work without having an unrealistic deadline to meet. Approval of this request would not be contrary to the General Plan or the original reasons for the granting of the Change of Zone. There have not been any significant changes to the General Plan for this area since this request was originally approved that would affect this project. Additionally, the request is not contrary to the original reasons for granting PC Report 26 Communication 218 Bill 56 the change of zone. Lastly, the proposed request will not unreasonably burden public agencies to provide for infrastructure and utilities to the project site. Based on the above findings, the proposed amendment to Condition B and Condition D of Ordinance Nos. 00-31 is not contrary to the original reasons for approving the Change of Zone. At the April 7, 2009 Planning Committee meeting, there was no public testimony. The applicant, Georgina Hara Chun was present at the meeting. Under questioning by Council Member Pete Hoffmann, Ms. Chun explained the reason for asking for a 5-year extension. She stated the following reasons: a great amount of infrastructure was done; the adjacent lot had to be rezoned; she is currently in the process of consolidating the lots; and multiple surveys had to be done. Ms. Chun further stated that Ordinance 00-31 requires that her building be completed and occupied by April 2010. Ms. Chun informed your Committee that the completion deadline for the adjacent property was 2013, and she wanted to have the completion deadline for the two parcels to be the same, especially in light of the consolidation of the lots. Council Member Brenda Ford asked Norman Hayashi from the Planning Department why Condition M did not include the County Council. Ms. Ford stated that she wants the County Council to have the power to approve or deny time extension requests, not the Planning Commission. Ms. Ford asked Mr. Hayashi to draft the amendment. Committee Chair Donald Ikeda asked Mr. Hayashi why a fair share provision was included in this commercial application. Mr. Hayashi informed your Committee that it is standard procedure to include fair share language, in the event that the developer or subsequent developers decide to build residential units instead or, or in addition to, a commercial unit. Your Committee concurs with the Planning Commission and the Planning Director's favorable recommendation for approval of the Time Extension request. Your Committee on Planning is in accord with the purpose and intent of Bill No. 56 and recommends it pass first reading. awm AYES NOES A&E Ex Respectfully submitted, ENRIQUES X FORD X COMMITTEE ON PLANNING GREENWELL X HOFFMANN X IKEDA X NAEOLE X DONALD IKEDA, CHAIR ONISHI X YAGONG X PC REPORT NAppp 26 YOSHIMOTO X ADOPTED: ~'+'n L CUU7